California Assembly Bill AB229

California 2021-2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/12/21
• Refer: 1/28/21
• Report Pass: 3/2/21
• Refer: 3/3/21
• Report Pass: 4/28/21
• Refer: 4/28/21
• Report Pass: 5/5/21
• Engrossed: 5/17/21
• Refer: 5/18/21
• Refer: 5/27/21
• Report Pass: 6/7/21
• Refer: 6/7/21
• Report Pass: 6/30/21
• Refer: 6/30/21
• Report Pass: 7/14/21
• Refer: 7/15/21
• Report Pass: 8/16/21
• Refer: 8/16/21
• Refer: 8/23/21
• Report Pass: 8/26/21
• Enrolled: 9/8/21
• Chaptered: 10/8/21
• Passed: 10/8/21

Caption

Private investigators, proprietary security services, private security services, and alarm companies: training: use of force.

Impact

With the enactment of AB 229, there will be significant implications for state laws regarding security personnel. The bill eliminates certain training requirements previously mandated for private investigators who carry deadly weapons and modifies others, fostering a higher standard of training. Additionally, the bill increases penalties for violations related to firearms use and mandates timely reporting of any incidents involving the discharge of firearms or physical altercations. The modifications aim to enhance accountability and safety within the private security industry.

Summary

Assembly Bill No. 229, also known as AB 229, amends existing regulations governing private investigators and security services in California. This bill primarily modifies the training and certification processes for private security personnel, including alarm agents and proprietary security services. It introduces a new requirement for these professionals to complete a four-hour training course on the exercise of the power to arrest and the appropriate use of force, as opposed to the previous two-hour requirement focused solely on arresting protocols. The intent is to provide more comprehensive training that includes legal standards for the use of force, thus promoting better practices in security and safety contexts.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 229 appears to be largely supportive, particularly among proponents who argue it will lead to improved professionalism and better outcomes in security operations. Stakeholders emphasize the importance of appropriate use of force training in preventing potential abuses and ensuring that security personnel can manage confrontations effectively. However, there may be concerns regarding the implementation of these requirements and their impact on existing professionals in the field, particularly in terms of adaptability to new training standards.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding AB 229 might revolve around the practical implications of the expanded training requirements. This includes the potential financial burden on security firms and the feasibility of integrating the new curriculum into existing training programs. Moreover, questions may arise about how effectively the new training standards can be enforced and whether they will substantially reduce incidents related to the misuse of force. The regulatory landscape for security services continues to evolve amid heightened scrutiny on use of force policies statewide.