BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 921|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 921
Author: Jones (R)
Amended: 7/14/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE BUS, PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/22/15
AYES: Hill, Bates, Berryhill, Block, Galgiani, Hernandez,
Jackson, Mendoza, Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/13/15
AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/14/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Private investigators: Disciplinary Review Committee
SOURCE: California Association of Licensed Investigators
DIGEST: This bill 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. This bill also authorizes an applicant
applying for an original license or renewal of a license as a
private investigator (PI) to put his or her email address on the
application at his or her discretion.
ANALYSIS:
AB 921
Page 2
Existing law:
1) Provides for the licensure and regulation of PIs by the
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:
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)
AB 921
Page 3
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)
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)
AB 921
Page 4
This bill:
1) Establishes a Private Investigator 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.
d) This DRC will become operative on July 1, 2017.
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.
Background
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
AB 921
Page 5
deny, suspend, or revoke a license. The scheduling of the DRC
is dependent on the number of appeals received; 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 Web site 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.
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 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
AB 921
Page 6
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.
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 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.
AB 921
Page 7
Prior/Related Legislation
AB 281 (Gallagher, 2015) establishes a disciplinary review
committee for licensed repossessors. (Status: The bill was
passed out of the Senate Business, Professions and Economic
Development Committee on June 15, 2015, and is pending in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Estimated Bureau costs of approximately $14,000 annually to
hold four DRC hearings. (Private Investigator Fund)
Bureau staff costs of approximately $33,000 annually for 0.5
PY of administrative workload associated with DRC activities.
(Private Investigator Fund)
Minor and absorbable costs to make necessary information
technology changes to the BreEZe system. (Private
Investigator Fund)
SUPPORT: (Verified7/14/15)
California Association of Licensed Investigators (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified7/14/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Writing in support of the bill, the
California Association of Licensed Investigators 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
AB 921
Page 8
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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/14/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago,
Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber,
Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Linder, Medina
Prepared by:Janelle Miyashiro / B., P. & E.D. / (916) 651-4104
8/17/15 10:17:43
**** END ****