BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Mark Leno, Chair A 2009-2010 Regular Session B 1 5 3 AB 1532 (Lieu) 2 As Amended February 24, 2010 Hearing date: June 15, 2010 Penal Code (URGENCY) JM:mc CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HISTORY Source: California Association of Code Enforcement Officers Prior Legislation: SB 919 (Ortiz) - Chapter 274, Statutes of 2003 Support: California Police Chiefs Association; California Peace Officers Association; California Narcotic Officers Association Opposition:None known Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 71 - Noes 0 KEY ISSUE SHOULD THE TERM "CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" BE DEFINED IN A STAND-ALONE SECTION OF THE PENAL CODE? PURPOSE (More) AB 1532 (Lieu) PageB The purpose of this bill is to create a stand-alone section of the Penal Code defining a "code enforcement officer." Existing law concerning assault and battery defines a "code enforcement officer" as any person who is not a peace officer and who is employed by any governmental subdivision, public or quasi-public corporation, public agency, public service corporation, any town, city, county, or municipal corporation, whether incorporated or chartered, that has enforcement authority for health, safety, and welfare requirements, and whose duties include enforcement of any statute, rules, regulations, or standards, and who is authorized to issue citations, or file formal complaints. A "code enforcement officer" also includes any person who is employed by the Department of Housing and Community Development who has enforcement authority for health, safety, and welfare requirements pursuant to the Employee Housing Act; the State Housing Law; the Mobilehomes-Manufactured Housing Act; the Mobilehome Parks Act; and the Special Occupancy Parks Act. (Pen. Code 241, subd. (d)(9)(A) and (B), and 243, subd. (f)(11)(A) and (B).) This bill enumerates a separate Penal Code section for the existing definition of a "code enforcement officer," apart from the reference in the assault and battery provisions. RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION The severe prison overcrowding problem California has experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity -- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years. In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4, 2009, that court stated in part: (More) AB 1532 (Lieu) PageC "California's correctional system is in a tailspin," the state's independent oversight agency has reported. . . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report, "Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased the population of California's prisons dramatically while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a result, the state's prisons have become places "of extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while contributing little to the safety of California's residents, California "spends more on corrections than most countries in the world," but the state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . . Although California's existing prison system serves neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has for years been unable or unwilling to implement the reforms necessary to reverse its continuing deterioration. (Some citations omitted.) . . . The massive 750% increase in the California prison population since the mid-1970s is the result of political decisions made over three decades, including the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole system. Unfortunately, as California's prison population has grown, California's political decision-makers have failed to provide the resources and facilities required to meet the additional need for space and for other necessities of prison existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the state could safely reduce its prison population, their recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or postponed indefinitely. The convergence of (More) AB 1532 (Lieu) PageD tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend the necessary funds to support the population growth has brought California's prisons to the breaking point. The state of emergency declared by Governor Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to this day, California's prisons remain severely overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison system continue to languish without constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.<1> The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation, is not anticipated until later this year or 2011. This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis described above. COMMENTS 1. Need for This Bill According to the author: There are a number of pieces of federal legislation that contemplate giving federal grants for local code enforcement functions. Virtually every jurisdiction performs code enforcement functions; however, many jurisdictions lack a definition of code enforcement functions. As a consequence, those jurisdictions are disadvantaged in the effort to obtain federal funding for code enforcement purposes. AB 1532 establishes a free-standing definition for code enforcement officers ---------------------- <1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the Northern District of California United States District Court composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28 United States Code (August 4, 2009). (More) AB 1532 (Lieu) PageE that can be used by any local jurisdiction in their application for code enforcement funding. California lacks a free-standing definition for code enforcement officers that a local jurisdiction could reference in applications for code enforcement funding. AB 1532 establishes this free-standing definition and is verbatim from current law (Penal Code Sec. 241 and 243). This bill is not intended to expand the powers of code enforcement officers, but just merely provide a definition so that California jurisdictions may compete on an even playing field in securing federal dollars. 2. Available Grants and Funding for Code Enforcement Program (More) The sponsor and the author submit that California government entities are losing opportunities for federal funding and grants because California law does not include a stand-alone definition of a code enforcement officer. According to the sponsor: [The fact that California does not have a free-standing definition of code enforcement] has placed local agencies at a disadvantage in seeking federal money that is available through competitive grant processes. Currently, funds for code enforcement can be made available from Byrne JAG Grant funding, Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) funding, federal COPS funding, Byrne Discretionary funding, Byrne Competitive Grants, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and possibly through legislation introduced by Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu. 3. Code Enforcement Officers - Background Code enforcement officers enforce the regulations and standards of state and local governments. Unlike police officers, however, code enforcement officers are not "peace officers" under California law and are not empowered to effectuate arrests or to carry weapons during the course of duty. (Pen. Code 830 to 832.6.) Code enforcement officers investigate violations of and require compliance with the various ordinances and regulations. Correcting deficient conditions is often inconvenient and costly. Perhaps more important, code violations often involve a person's residence or business. Many, if not most, people are likely to be very protective of and defensive about their residence or business, as a residence or personal business is likely to be closely tied to a person's identity. It thus appears that code enforcement officers often face people who are adversarial and even hostile. (More) AB 1532 (Lieu) PageG Attacks on code enforcement officers have included the use of firearms, explosives, all manners of bludgeons, knives, motor vehicles, beatings and even human bites on the officer's person. (See, California Association of Code Enforcement & California Environmental Health Association, 2001 Survey Results 8 (2002).) The survey included statements from code enforcement officers about dangerous experiences in the field. The survey noted that over 63 percent of those who responded to the survey had been assaulted or threatened. (Ibid.) Confronting unlawful, aggressive individuals in the course of enforcing the law has long been the responsibility of peace officers. Yet, code enforcement officers consistently encounter felons, gang members, unstable homeless individuals, irate tenants and potentially violent property owners. In addition, code enforcement officers investigate violations, issue citations, prepare criminal cases, arrange arrests for failures to appear, and obtain court orders. 4. Suggested Amendment Existing provisions in the misdemeanor assault and misdemeanor battery statutes include (identical) definitions of a code enforcement officer, as part of provision providing higher penalties for assault or battery against a person with a specified status. (Pen. Code 240 and 243.) This bill creates a stand-alone definition of a code enforcement officer that is identical to the definition found in the assault and battery sections. The assault and battery sections in the Penal Code are very lengthy and complicated. Including definitions of various classes of victims in the assault and battery sections exacerbates this complexity. Arguably, if this bill is enacted, there will be no need to define a code enforcement officer within the assault and battery sections. A simple cross-reference to the definitions provided by this bill would suffice. A similar cross-reference to the definition of a "peace officer" is included in the assault and battery provisions in existing law. (Pen. Code 240, subd. (d)(1).) AB 1532 (Lieu) PageH The use of a cross-reference could eliminate confusion and inconsistency in the future if the definition of "code enforcement officer" in either the section created by this bill or the assault and battery sections is changed. SHOULD THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY SECTIONS BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE A CROSS REFERENCE TO THE DEFINITION OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THIS BILL, RATHER THAN INCLUDING AN ESSENTIALLY REDUNDANT DEFINITION OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY SECTIONS? ***************