Security Guards and Security Guard Employers - Registration, Certification, and Regulation
Summary
SB299 makes two related changes to Maryland law governing cannabis agents and security guard regulation. First, it creates an exception to the criminal history records check requirement for a cannabis agent who is employed to provide security services for a cannabis licensee or cannabis registrant, so long as that person is already authorized to work as a security guard under Maryland’s security guard laws. Second, it amends the definition of “security guard employer” to exclude video lottery facilities, sports wagering facility licensees, and health care facilities from that category.
The bill also preserves the existing framework for cannabis agent registration: applicants must generally be at least 21 and register with the Cannabis Administration, registrations remain valid for two years, and the Administration may still disqualify applicants for crimes involving moral turpitude. It does not change the rule that cannabis-related offenses before July 1, 2023, cannot be used to deny registration, and it keeps the annual responsible vendor training requirement. The bill takes effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
SB299 narrows the background-check burden for a specific subset of cannabis workers by aligning cannabis agent registration with existing security guard authorization under Title 19. It also clarifies that certain regulated facilities—video lottery operators, sports wagering facilities, and health care facilities—are not treated as “security guard employers” for purposes of Maryland’s security guard licensing and certification laws. In practical terms, the bill affects cannabis businesses, security guard agencies, security guard employers, and the state agencies that administer cannabis registration and security guard regulation.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support for the bill, with third-reading passage in both chambers by wide margins and no recorded opposition votes. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a technical or clarifying change rather than a controversial policy shift. Overall sentiment appears broadly favorable and nonpartisan.
Contention
No major controversy is evident in the provided record. The main policy issue is whether cannabis security workers who already meet security guard authorization standards should still have to undergo a separate State and national criminal history records check; SB299 resolves that in favor of an exemption. A secondary clarification is the exclusion of video lottery facilities, sports wagering licensees, and health care facilities from the definition of “security guard employer,” which appears intended to align the statute with existing industry structures rather than expand regulation.