This bill prescribes how proprietary private security officers in California must apply for and maintain registration with the state bureau. It requires fingerprint submission for state and federal criminal-history checks, sets application, renewal, and replacement fees, and authorizes provisional work after agency approval.
For employers and HR teams that run in‑house or proprietary security programs, the measure creates a more formalized background-check workflow tied to DOJ/FBI processing and a recurring licensing cycle that the bureau will administer and enforce. The bill also directs the bureau and DOJ to participate in subsequent-arrest notification services, changing ongoing compliance obligations for registrants and the agencies that process their records.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires applicants for proprietary private security officer registration to submit fingerprints to the Department of Justice, which will forward federal requests to the FBI and return consolidated criminal-history responses to the licensing bureau. It establishes a two-year registration card, sets application and renewal fee ranges, and permits temporary employment after the director’s approval if the applicant carries a bureau approval printout and valid ID.
Who It Affects
Individual proprietary private security officer applicants, employers that operate proprietary security forces (in‑house security), the California Department of Justice, and the state licensing bureau that issues and renews registration cards.
Why It Matters
It standardizes background-screening and notification processes for a category of security personnel that often operates inside private firms, shifting ongoing record-monitoring duties onto state systems and imposing recurring fees and administrative steps employers and registrants must track.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill codifies the application pathway for someone seeking registration as a proprietary private security officer. Applicants must file on bureau-provided forms and submit fingerprint images and associated information to the California Department of Justice (DOJ).
The DOJ will forward requests to the FBI when necessary, review the federal responses, and provide a combined state-and-federal criminal-history reply to the licensing bureau. The bill explicitly ties this process to existing Penal Code authorities (including the form of responses described in Section 11105) and requires the bureau to request subsequent-arrest notification services from the DOJ.
On fees, the statute sets a mandatory floor and ceiling for the initial application fee and a separate floor and ceiling for renewal fees, leaving exact amounts to bureau rulemaking within those bands. The DOJ may charge an amount sufficient to cover its processing costs for fingerprint checks.
Once the director approves an application, the bureau issues a registration card in a director‑approved form that remains valid for two years.The bill permits an approved applicant to begin working immediately — before receipt of the physical registration card — if the person carries a hardcopy printout of the bureau’s online approval and a valid driver’s license or identification card. It also prescribes a specified replacement fee for lost or destroyed cards and requires biennial renewals filed on bureau forms.
Finally, the text references the statutory definition of proprietary private security officer in subdivision (f) of Section 7574.01 and sets an operative date in the statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires fingerprint images and related information to be submitted to the California Department of Justice for every proprietary private security officer registration applicant.
The Department of Justice must forward federal requests to the FBI, review FBI responses, and compile a combined state-and-federal criminal-history response for the licensing bureau.
The initial application fee must be at least $55 and may be increased up to $60; the renewal fee must be at least $40 and may be raised to no more than $44.
Upon director approval an applicant may work immediately if carrying a hardcopy printout of the bureau’s online approval plus a valid driver’s license or state ID; the physical registration card is valid for two years.
The statute requires the bureau to request subsequent-arrest notification service from DOJ and authorizes DOJ to charge a fee sufficient to cover processing costs; replacement of a lost or destroyed registration card costs $25.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Application on bureau forms
Mandates that applicants seeking proprietary private security officer registration must use forms provided by the department (the bureau). Practically, this centralizes intake and gives the bureau control over the data fields collected, which matters for how employers prepare packets and how electronic intake will be implemented.
Fingerprint submission and DOJ/FBI processing
Requires submission of fingerprint images and related information to the State DOJ. The DOJ will forward federal requests to the FBI, review the returned data, and compile a state-and-federal response for the bureau. The provision ties the process to Penal Code authorities (including the form of response under Section 11105) and requires the bureau to enroll applicants in subsequent-arrest notification service under Section 11105.2. That creates both a one-time vetting step and an ongoing notification stream that the bureau will receive about post‑registration arrests.
Application fee floor and ceiling
Sets a statutory minimum and maximum for the application fee rather than a single fixed amount, leaving the exact fee to be set within the range by the bureau. This approach constrains fee-setting while preserving administrative flexibility to adjust for costs.
Issuance, two‑year validity, and provisional work authorization
Directs the director to cause issuance of a registration card upon approval and specifies a two-year term for the card. It allows approved applicants to begin working before receiving the physical card provided they carry a bureau website approval printout and a valid driver’s license or state ID. That creates a short-term compliance workaround to avoid employment gaps while the bureau issues the physical credential.
Replacement fee and biennial renewal
Prescribes a $25 charge for replacing a lost or destroyed registration card and requires biennial renewals on bureau forms with a renewal fee band set by statute. Those mechanics impose a recurring administrative and cost obligation on registrants and require the bureau to maintain renewal processing systems aligned to the two‑year cadence.
DOJ processing fee authority and operative date
Authorizes the Department of Justice to charge a fee sufficient to cover its processing of fingerprint/background requests. The statute also contains an operative date clause; the version of the text provided sets an operative date (July 1, 2018) that the bureau and counsel will need to reconcile during implementation planning.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individual registrants — Receive a clear statutory pathway for registration, immediate provisional work authorization after approval, and an explicit renewal cycle that clarifies when to reapply.
- Employers with proprietary security forces — Gain a standardized, state‑administered background-check process and a predictable credentialing cycle to manage workforce eligibility and scheduling.
- Licensing bureau and public safety overseers — Obtain consolidated state-and-federal criminal-history responses and ongoing subsequent-arrest notifications, improving the bureau’s ability to monitor registrant fitness over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Applicants — Must pay the application fee, potential DOJ processing fees, replacement fees, and renewal fees; those charges are explicit and recurring on a biennial schedule.
- Employers and HR teams — Face administrative costs to collect forms, verify approval printouts, and coordinate fingerprint submission; small employers without dedicated compliance staff will feel the burden more acutely.
- Department of Justice and the licensing bureau — Must operationalize fingerprint intake, FBI forwarding, response compilation, and subsequent-arrest notifications; although DOJ may recoup processing costs, the bureau must still update forms, online approval systems, and data flows.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing public-safety benefits of comprehensive, ongoing state-and-federal background checks and subsequent-arrest notifications against the administrative cost, privacy exposure, and operational friction those systems impose on applicants, employers, and agencies — a trade-off between tighter monitoring and higher recurring compliance burdens with ambiguous fee authority and potential retroactivity.
Several implementation details will determine how burdensome or effective this regime becomes. The DOJ is authorized to charge a fee “sufficient to cover” processing costs, but the statute does not set transparency or caps for that fee; absent clear rules, applicants could face variable or rising charges.
The requirement that the DOJ request subsequent-arrest notification places the bureau on a path to receive continuous arrest information, which improves monitoring but raises questions about data handling, timeliness, and how arrests (as distinct from convictions) will affect employment status.
The provisional-work rule eases short-term staffing challenges by allowing work once the director has approved and the applicant carries an approval printout, but relying on a printed website approval creates fraud and verification risks; employers must know how to validate those printouts and whether the bureau will provide a machine‑readable or signed document. Finally, the statute’s operative date language (July 1, 2018) conflicts with the bill’s 2026 introduction; practitioners will need to resolve whether the date is a drafting error, whether retroactive effect was intended, and what that implies for currently employed proprietary officers who may not have complied with the statute in the intervening years.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.