BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2128|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2128
Author: Gaines (R)
Amended: 7/1/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/28/10
AYES: Negrete McLeod, Aanestad, Calderon, Correa, Florez
NOES: Corbett, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland, Walters
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 73-0, 5/6/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Private security services: insurance policies
SOURCE : California Association of Licensed Security
Agencies,
Guards, and Associates
DIGEST : This bill requires a private patrol operator
employing any security guard to maintain an insurance
policy with minimum limits of $1,000,000 for loss due to
bodily injury and death, and $1,000,000 for loss due to
injury or destruction of property.
ANALYSIS :
Existing law
1. Provides for the licensing and regulation of private
patrol operators and the registration and regulation of
CONTINUED
AB 2128
Page
2
security guards by the Bureau of Security and
Investigative Services (Bureau) within the Department of
Consumer Affairs (DCA).
2. Defines a private patrol operator (PPO) as a person who,
for any consideration, furnishes a watchman, guard,
patrol person or other person to protect personas or
property.
3. Defines a proprietary private security office (PPSO) as
an unarmed individual who is employed exclusively by any
one employer whose primary duty is to provide security
services for his or her employer, whose services are not
contracted to any other entity or person.
4. Defines a security guard or security officer as an
employee of a PPO whose job duties include protecting
persons or property.
5. Requires PPOs who employ a security guard who carries a
firearm to maintain an insurance policy, defines
insurance policy as a contract of liability of insurance
issued by an insurance company which provides minimum
limits of insurance of $5,000,000 for any one loss due
to bodily injury and death and $5,000,000 for any one
loss due to injury or destruction of property.
6. Requires PPOs to provide proof of an insurance policy to
the Bureau upon demand.
7. Clarifies that failure of a PPO to maintain an insurance
policy is grounds for suspension of his or her license.
This bill:
1. Removes the requirement for PPOs to maintain an
insurance policy if he or she employs a security guard
who carries a firearm and instead requires the Bureau as
a condition, precedent to the issuance, reinstatement,
reactivation, renewal, or continued maintenance of a
license, require the licensee or applicant have on file
an insurance policy.
2. Changes the amount of minimum limits of insurance from
AB 2128
Page
3
$5,000,000 to $1,000,000 for loss due to bodily injury
and death and changes the amount of minimum limits of
insurance from $5,000,000 to $1,000,000 for injury or
destruction of property.
Background
The Bureau currently licenses 2,457 PPOs and 23,699
security guards. According to the Bureau data, there has
been a steady rise in the number of PPOs operating in the
state during the past decade and particularly since the
events of September 11, 2011. This increase and growth in
the industry nationwide has also been attributed to
consistent cuts to local government budgets and diminishing
funds for local police, as well as general concerns about
crime, vandalism and terrorism. Security personnel
commonly are granted formal authority over members of the
general public in carrying out their duty to protect a wide
range of property and people, including real estate and
industrial sites (e.g., warehouses and factories),
commercial sites (e.g., office buildings and shopping
malls), public gatherings (e.g., sporting events an
concerts), residential communities and individuals.
Previous/Related Legislation
SB 741 (Maldonado), Chapter 361, Statutes of 2009, requires
both proprietary private security officers and proprietary
private security employers to register with the bureau and
established training and enforcement provisions.
SB 66 (Maldonado), Chapter 721, Statutes of 2007, requires
PPSOs to complete security officer skills training as they
begin their employment and to undergo an annual review of
this training. SB 666 also requires the Bureau to
establish a training curriculum by regulation, with the
assistance of an advisory committee. However, the bill did
not grant the Bureau the authority to issue administrative
citations to PPSO or to their employers when they do not
comply with training requirements. When the Governor
signed SB 666, he issued the following signing message, "I
am signing Senate Bill 666 because it would require
proprietary private security officers to complete security
officer skills training and requires the Bureau? to develop
AB 2128
Page
4
a curriculum for this training with the assistance of an
advisory committee. However, I am signing this bill with
the expectation that the Legislature will provide the
Bureau the legal authority to enforce these requirements."
[emphasis added]
SB 194 (Maldonado), Chapter 655, Statutes of 2005,
established the initial Proprietary Security Services Act,
defining proprietary private security officers and
requiring them to register with DCA.
SB 1209 (Maldonado), of 2008, included provisions very
similar to SB 741, however those provisions were included
only for a short time (inserted in June 9, 2008 amendments
and stricken out in June 18, 2009 amendments). The bill
was eventually held on the Assembly Appropriations Suspense
File.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/1/10)
Calif. Assoc. of Licensed Security Agencies, Guards &
Associates (source)
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
OPPOSITION : (Verified 7/1/10)
Department of Consumer Affairs
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the Sponsor, the
California Association of Licensed Security Agencies,
Guards and Associates, this bill will "add another layer of
consumer protection by ensuring that security customers are
protected from liability and bodily injury damages when an
uninsured PPO goes out of business."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Department of Consumer Affairs
writes in opposition stating, "The current insurance
requirements for PPOs are sufficient and PPOs should not be
required to carry such large insurance policies when they
only employ security guards that do not carry firearms."
AB 2128
Page
5
DCA also adds that this bill will result in cost increases
to PPOs which may be passed onto consumers through higher
prices for theses services.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Blumenfield,
Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De
Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher,
Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue,
Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande,
Niello, Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin,
Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran,
Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bass, Block, De La Torre, Gilmore,
Mendoza, Norby, Vacancy
JJA:do 7/2/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****