Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Criminal Justice Services
 
Board
Department of Criminal Justice Services
 
chapter
Regulations Relating to Private Security Services [6 VAC 20 ‑ 171]
Action Comprehensive Review Private Security Services Regulations
Stage Proposed
Comment Period Ended on 6/10/2010
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
3/29/10  3:36 pm
Commenter: Larry Zilliox, Investigative Research Specialists, LLC

DCJS Proposed Regulation Changes
 

I am writing to voice my concern with a portion of the proposed regulation changes put forth by DCJS as found on the Virginia Regulator Town Hall at:

 

http://www.townhall.virginia.gov/l/ViewXML.cfm?textid=4159

 

With particular attention paid to the section found at 6VAC20-171-230.A.10 I object to the use of the phrase "Ensure that regulated employees of the business have not been." This change and the use of the term "Ensure" places an undue burden upon the business owner. A simple Google search shows the common definition of the word "Ensure" is to "guarantee" or "make certain of."  It is not possible for a business owner to guarantee that an employee has no criminal record. Today there exists no centralized database, inside or outside of law enforcement, that would "ensure" or guarantee a potential employee has no record of felony convictions. Short of conducting a physical search of every courthouse in the country it is not possible to "ensure" an employee has not been convicted of a felony.

 

I am deeply concerned that given the litigious nature of society today, the plaintiffs bar will seize upon the proposed language in the regulation to show the private security services business (PSSB) was negligent in failing to "ensure" or guarantee the employee did not have a felonious record. Even if the employee failed to disclose this information to the PSSB and checking every court in the United States is an impossible financial burden for businesses, it is very possible that courts will find against a defendant PSSB simply because of the proposed language in the regulation.

 

I ask that this phrase be stricken from the regulation and that this portion of 6VAC20-171-230.A.10 remain as it is currently shown in the regulation. The proposed change to the language places an undue burden on the PSSB because it obligates the business to perform an impossible task. Because of their inability to comply with the proposed language, inclusion of this language exposes the PSSB to increased litigation risk and higher insurance premiums.

CommentID: 13688