Twin Falls, Idaho Regulations Remind Us of Need for State-Level Regulation

The article in the Daily News Clips today about the city of Twin Falls, Idaho adopting city-level regulation of private security firms is a good reminder that state-level regulation, as we have in California, is a far better model.

There is nothing wrong with Twin Fall's stated reason for the need to regulate the firms.  But imagine if that trend took hold in California.  If, for example, Pasadena, Glendale, and Burbank each had different ruules and regulations for security firms and security officers, a company might be allowed to work in one city, but not another.  You might have to keep track of different training or uniform or licensing rules for each city, and perhaps certain officers of yours might be able to work in one city, but not another.

It would be an administrative nightmare.

That is why we are lucky to have state-level regulation of security here in California, and why CALSAGA has aggressively responded to any city-level regulations and encouraging BSIS to continue to assert state pre-emption on undue city regulation of our industry.

Recently, CALSAGA worked with the City of Oxnard in responding to draft regulations their City Council had discussed, some of which would have intruded on the state's realm of regulating security.

If you are aware of city level regulations that you believe cross the line into the areas that are supposed to be covered only by the state, let us know.