ARIZONA HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Forty-fifth Legislature –
First Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 4 --
1:00 p.m.
(Tape
1, Side A)
Chairman
Gray called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. and the
secretary called the role.
|
Senator Hamilton |
Lt. Lawrence Burns |
Anna Prassa |
|
Senator Mitchell |
Pete Chapas |
Mrs. Gray, Chairman |
|
Senator Valadez |
Gary Carnicle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Representative Giffords |
Representative May |
George Weisz |
Amy
Bjelland, Majority Research Analyst
Brian
Cavalo, Director of Security, S.D.I. Protective Services
Ron
Vernon, President, Accu Search, Inc.
Tom
Krieg, President, Global Protective Services
Trevor Macky, Security Officer, representing himself
Barry Kintner, Private Investigator, representing himself
Tom Shepard, General Manager, Shepard Security
Steve Graehling, Security Manager, Loomis, Fargo and Co.
Amy Bjelland, Majority Research Analyst, addressed the
committee. She explained that the
members had previously received a summary of recommendations made by the
committee, as well as the actual hard copy of the language submitted by those
who made the recommendations.
Chairman Gray stated that those who made recommendations would speak in the following order: Larry Burns, Pete Chapas, Anna Prassa, Brian Cavalo, Mike Shelter, Ron Vernon, Bert Falbaum, Gary Carnicle, Michael Sankey and Tom Krieg.
Lt. Lawrence Burns, stated that his primary concern has been
the public safety issue. Additionally,
he stated the need to set the unit up to run efficiently and ensure that it is
financed properly in order to bring it to current technology. Therefore, he submitted the following
recommendations:
General:
·
Authorize
the Director of the Department of Public Safety to set reasonable fees for the
unit and remove fee schedule from statute for both private investigators and
security guards and to cover the cost of personnel. He explained that last
year, $370,000 in fees was received for licensing and of that, $500,000 was
spent to run the unit. Therefore, the
fees that are currently generated do not cover the expenditures for that unit.
Additionally, that cost does not cover computer or software and only covers the
cost of one investigator. Part of the
increase in fees is to cover additional investigators for that unit and to
include the technology necessary to run that unit. Additionally, the $500,000
does not include the expense of housing the unit and providing for the other
facilities required for it. He explained further that the suggestion to raise
the fees is to sufficiently cover the increase in costs to the state.
·
Reduce
the license issue period for private investigators and security guards from
three to two years. This would generate income of $780,000, which would cover
the additional technology, the expenses for the unit and also additional
investigators.
·
Remove
the requirement that identification cards contain the applicant’s fingerprint.
He explained that there is no real need to have the fingerprint on the
identification card because the applicant’s picture is on the card. Additionally, the fingerprint cards are sent
directly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Private Investigators:
·
Authorize
the qualifying agency to issue a temporary registration to its private
investigators rather than the Department of Public Safety (DPS) issue a
provisional certificate. The temporary
registration is valid for 90 days but may be extended by DPS if there is an
abnormal delay in completion of the background check.
·
Increase
a violation of the private investigator provisions from a Class 1 misdemeanor
(up to 6 months and a $2,500 fine) to a Class 6 felony (1 year and $150,000
fine).
Security Guards:
·
Define
proprietary company and include security guards employed by proprietary
companies in the regulatory scheme.
Change the definition of registrant to mean a person authorized to be a
security guard rather than a private investigator. He explained that in house security guards should be fall under
the same regulations and training requirements as those hired by companies
that employ security guards.
·
Authorize
companies that employ security guards to issue a temporary certificate after
the employer submits the guard’s application to DPS rather than DPS issue a
provisional certificate. The temporary
certificate is valid for 180 days but may be extended by DPS if there is an
abnormal delay in completion of the background check.
·
Require
agency licensees to provide eight hours of pre assignment training before the
employee acts as a security guard.
Require eight hours of training for renewal applicants with the training
curriculum established by DPS. He
pointed out that many times, guards are working because they have received the
provisional certificate but have not yet received adequate training and do not
receive it until they are ready to receive their permanent cards.
·
Increase
required initial firearms training for armed security guards from 16 to 40
hours, plus eight hours of annual Firearms training.
·
Require
that security guard uniforms be gray in color and that the badge or shield be
square. He explained that he color is
not important as long as it is identifiable as that of a security guard and not
of a police officer. He offered an example of badges used by security guards
(Attachment 1) and pointed out that
some of them do resemble those worn by police officers. He stated his concern that the public has a
very clear distinction as to the level of security. He pointed out that in addition to public safety, this is a
safety issue for the guards themselves because if they are identified as a
police officer, that presents an entirely different target and they do not have
the training of a police officer to handle such situations.
·
Require
a more formalized committee representative of the industry that would make
suggestions or assist in preparing the lesson plans or training programs for
the security guards and private investigators.
Mr. Carnicle
pointed out that regulating the security guards should relieve some of the
individual companies of much of the work.
Lt. Burns added that the proprietary companies should not fall under all
of the requirements of a licensing and qualifications that a contract company
would be under and would probably need to register someone who would be
responsible for the guards. However,
the guards themselves would fall under the regulatory functions.
Pete Chapas offered the following recommendations:
General:
·
Increase
fees so that the Licensing Bureau is self-funded.
·
Implement
a plan to conduct background checks within 24 to 48 hours prior to issuing
provisional certificate.
Security Guards:
·
Require
eight to 16 hours of training for all security guards and retain an additional
16 hours for armed guards. Allow DPS to
determine the training topics.
·
Authorize
an individual to obtain a registration certificate without an affiliation with
a guard company by completing independent training from a DPS-approved entity,
providing the necessary documents and submitting to a background investigation.
·
Require
guard to prominently display the words on the uniform that identify the wearer
as a security guard.
Mr. Carnicle pointed out that insurance rates drop
for those who employ armed security officers.
He added that 24 hours of firearms training should
be sufficient for the basic security officer and suggested that it be a course
approved by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Lt. Burns referenced comments made by Mr. Chapas and
stated that regardless of where a security guard is working, that person is
still in a manner of public trust, regardless of the type of company they work
for. He added that if we regulate
contract companies then we should equally regulate the proprietary
companies.
In response to inquiry from Chairman Gray, Mr.
Chapas explained that he works for Salt River Project (SRP) and they have their
own security officers, three individuals that work for SRP and are considered
security guards. Under the current law,
they would not be nor need to be licensed or registered because they work for
SRP and they have anything to do with private contract guard agencies.
Anna Prassa stated that security has a whole new meaning after
the events of September 11, 2001. She explained that she had the opportunity to
interview a few security guards at a shopping center, as well as some police
officers. She stated that her suggestions focus on education within the
industry and she offered the following recommendations:
General:
·
Create
four separate categories for licensing: security guards, armed security guard,
private investigator and armed personal protection assistant.
·
Generally
require statewide training approved by DPS.
Minimum qualifications include:
-
21
years of age
-
U.S.
citizen or legal resident
-
No
felony or misdemeanor convictions (based on Arizona and FBI background checks)
-
Honorable
military history, if applicable
-
Written
test to qualify
-
Successful
completion of minimum training required through vocation, public or private
school.
Licensing Categories:
·
Define
security guard as one employed to provide security functions as a patrol guard,
merchant patrol guard, watchman, crowd control or any mild security
duties. Requires 100 hours of
training. Must wear a uniform.
·
Define
armed security guard the same as above but with a license to carry a firearm,
baton, chemical agent or stun gun to
perform security duties.
Requires 15 hours of training.
Must wear a uniform.
·
Define
private investigator as one who is self-employed or employed by a company and
who gathers confidential information and conducts an investigation. Is also
licensed to carry a concealed weapon.
Requires 200 hours of training. No uniform required.
·
Define
armed personal protection specialist as one who is self-employed or employed by
a company to act as a bodyguard.
Requires 200 hours of training.
No uniform required.
Chairman Gray discussed the recommendation that the approval of the uniform insignia for security guards come from the Board rather than the department. She explained that the board only meets once per month and they are volunteers so that might pose a problem.
Lt. Burns stated that last year the board spent 8 to
12 hours in hearings once per month.
However, matters are currently up to date and the board is hearing
anywhere from 4 to 10 hearings per month.
Still, they are a volunteer board and it is difficult to bring them
together and then take an entire day.
However, would be very positive if there was a committee or advisory
group from the industry.
Brian Cavalo, Director of Security, S.D.I.
Protective Services, addressed the committee. He
explained that when he entered the industry, he found a number of
inconsistencies, particularly the inconsistencies in relation to the different
companies based on their training. He
added that there really is no regulation regarding the training. He agreed with Lt. Burns’s recommendation
that a board be created to oversee the training and assemble minimum
requirements and standards for hiring and training and generate a syllabus for
all of the agencies within the industry.
This would eliminate dissimilarities between the agencies.
Mr. Cavalo stated that if the board were to play a
key role in assisting DPS, over time, the number of hearings would
decrease. If the guards are
individually licensed as opposed to the company doing it will allow the board
and DPS to more accurately monitor those individuals.
(Tape 1,
Side B)
Mr. Cavalo
offered the following recommendations:
General:
·
Change
the Board’s duties to include making recommendations on minimum training
standards and hiring qualifications to the DPS Director.
·
Additionally
define good moral character to be reasonably determined by the Board.
Security Guards:
·
Prohibit
an applicant for a security guard agency license or registration certificate
from qualifying if a history of committing the crimes or theft is shown beyond
the five years immediately preceding the application.
·
Require
uniform and insignia approval from the Board rather than from the Department
and specifies that the uniform be of a color that does not cause the public to
confuse the security guard with a law enforcement officer.
·
Require
the Board and Director to approve the badge or shield to be worn by a security
guard.
·
Appropriate
monies to DPS for technology upgrades.
·
Increase
fees to reflect the cost of operating the Licensing Division at DPS.
·
Grant
authority to the Licensing Bureau to run a computer background check.
·
Increase
hiring and training standards. Retain
current scheme for unarmed officers.
For armed security guards, increase training to 24 hours with a minimum
four-hour re-qualification every three months.
Training should be approved or possibly written by DPS.
·
Retain
current uniform requirements.
·
Add
proprietary guards tot he statute, as well as requiring in-house guard forces
to employ a qualified party.
Recommendations by Ron Vernon
Ron Vernon, President, Accu Search, Inc., addressed the
committee. He explained that his
concerns involve the definition of a private investigator and what that job
entails. He informed the members that
most private investigators do research work such as public records retrieval
and criminal background searches. He explained that when a licensed individual
researches criminal or public records, that person is acting in the capacity of
an investigator because he is interpreting the record. Interpreting the cases is a specialized task
and the primary focus of private investigation is to keep the public safe from
those individuals who may be reported incorrectly or may not be reported at
all.
Mr. Vernon offered the following recommendations:
·
Clarify
requirements and limitations of performing background checks, e.g., the
difference between conducting an investigation and making a public records
request.
In response to inquiry from Mr. Chapas, Mr. Vernon
explained that general public record providers do not need to be licensed. Private investigators or anyone who is
investigating criminal records need to be held accountable and ensure that they
are trained properly.
·
Retain
current membership of the Private Investigator and Security Guard Hearing
Board.
·
Provide
consistent qualifications for both private investigator and security guards.
·
Change
the requirement that the applicant submit verified information to require
verifiable information for both private investigators and security guards.
·
Clarify
language in the definition of unprofessional conduct that presumes an
obligation to investigate one’s own client (ARS §§ 32-2401(22)(d) and
32-2601(24)(d).
·
Clarify
language regarding meaning of being in good standing while not maintaining a
current license in another state or jurisdiction.
·
Change
definition of security guard registrant to mean an employee qualified to be a
security guard, rather than to be a private investigator.
·
Reconsider
the five-year requirement for convictions in the qualification requirements.
·
Add
violation of Title 13, chapters 14 (sexual offenses) or 35.1 (sexual
exploitation of children) to grounds for suspension or revocation of license.
Gary Carnicle pointed out that most of his recommendations have
already been discussed. He offered the
following suggestions:
General:
·
Verify
costs with DPS and review all fees.
Deposit fees with DPS, rather than the General Fund.
·
Redefine
private security guard service by removing provisions specifying that security
guards furnish security to the public for hire and adding ATM service
provision. He explained that the
armored service companies initially handled ATM service. However, there are individual companies
providing ATM services and a number of those companies do not register their
armed guards through the Department of Public Safety (DPS and they are not
receiving training. He added that
because they are transporting money and are armed, they should meet the same
requirements as other armed security guards.
·
Redefine
security guard by removing language indicating one must be employed by a
private agency and adding ATM service provision
·
Remove
language requiring an agency license application to include a completed form
describing the agency’s training program.
·
Add
16 hours of DPS-authorized training as a qualification for applicants.
·
Require
applicants to have completed DPS-authorized training as a prerequisite to
receiving a provisional certificate.
Tom Krieg, President, Global Protective Services, addressed the
committee. Mr. Krieg stated that the
events of September 11, 2001 has changed the public perception of security and
those in the security industry who have the largest responsibility to ensure
that certain things do not get on airplanes, receive only 12 hours of training.
Mr. Krieg stated that there would probably be no
problem with increased fees. With
respect to the licensing of proprietary companies, he pointed out that in
Texas, if a private company has security people who are going to be in uniform
and carry a weapon, that company has to get a letter from the Texas Board of
Private Investigators and Security Services.
Mr. Krieg added that the goal is to towards
something that is reasonable and prudent for both parties. He pointed out that in any other profession,
you must first get the training, the obtain the certification and then get
hired by a company. This should be the
same requirement for those in the security industry. Lastly, he suggested that
a personal protection specialist category added to be able to be licensed under
private investigator and security guard companies.
(Tape 2, Side A)
In response to inquiry from Mr. Chapas, Mr. Krieg
explained that by raising the training requirements, better employees would be
attracted to the industry.
Michael Sankey, Chief Executive Officer, BRB
Publications,
addressed the committee.
Mr. Sankey followed up on some comments made by previous
speakers. He offered a handout
(Attachment 2) for the members to review.
He explained that the position of a record retriever involves going to a
court house or county recorders office to obtain a public record and stated his
opinion that those individuals should not need to be licensed. He stated that the five methods to obtain
public records is by phone, fax, by mail, in person or online and yet this
legislation seems to apply only to those who appear in person. He added that as record retriever is not a
highly skilled job and the salary is not very high so to require them to be
licensed is not right or necessary.
Trevor Macky, Security Officer, representing himself, addressed the
committee. Mr. Mackey explained that he
is employed in Tucson. He urged the
committee to consider the different realms and levels of security. He pointed out that for general posts, a
general criminal history check is sufficient to the FBI. However, for sensitive or high-level posts,
such as airports, railways, government offices, utilities and government or
military contractors should require a more extensive investigation on security
officers applying for positions on those types of posts.
Mr. Macky informed the committee that in 1994, he was arrested and pled quilty on charges of carrying a concealed weapon. In 1996 the court set aside that judgement of guilty to allow him to work as a licensed security officer in accordance with DPS policy. Last year, the department changed that policy and rendered him unemployed. He was forced to resign his position and has since found similar work in an in-house environment.
Mr. Macky stated his belief that a time limitation
for consideration for expungements and dismissals for minor, non-violent
offenses should be included in the law to allow certain individuals to work
toward becoming qualified for security positions.
Additionally, he recommended that regulation of
in-house security should be limited to training standards and uniform
regulations only.
Barry Kintner, Private Investigator, representing
himself,
addressed the committee. Mr. Kintner
responded to comments previously made.
He agreed with the suggestion that training programs be submitted for
approval by a committee. Additionally,
a slightly oversized patch on both shoulders with a visible name should be
sufficient to allow a certain amount of accessibility to the public as to who is working as a
security guard. He also suggested
yearly checks to update licenses.
Tom Shepard, General Manager, Shepard Security, addressed the
committee. Mr. Shepard explained that
he is a former Phoenix police officer and has been in the private security
industry for 18 years. He stated that
there is a 40% return rate on guard licenses and that is a very serious issue,
which needs to be addressed and expedited immediately, regardless of the cost.
Private companies are accepting a tremendous amount of liability, as well as
the State of Arizona by regulating those officers.
Steve Graehling, Security Manager, Loomis, Fargo and
Co.,
addressed the committee.
Mr. Graehling discussed the issue of uniforms. He explained that because his company is
nationwide, they use a specific uniform used throughout the country and they
have no desire to look like police officers.
He agreed with the recommendations made regarding training and suggested
that the committee decide on specific training requirements and hours because
current legislation does not address that issue. He added that his company has every intention of complying with
and maintaining all regulations required by the state and asked that everybody
else in the industry be kept to that same standard.
Donald Parrish, Director, Parrish and Associates
International Security Services, Inc., addressed the committee. Mr. Parrish offered a brief background of
his law enforcement career. He
discussed fingerprinting procedures and offered his support of the suggestions
and recommendations made and suggested that all licenses be combined into one
set of licenses.
Chairman Gray announced that a group would be
assembled to review the suggestions and recommendations in an effort to reach a
consensus on the issues.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 3:55
p.m.
______________________________________
Robyne Richards,
Committee Secretary
October 4, 2001
(Original minutes,
attachments and tapes on file in the Chief Clerk’s office.)
----------
DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
PRIVATE
INVESTIGATOR AND
SECURITY GUARD
STUDY COMMITTEE
9
October
1, 2001
----------
DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------