BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1643
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 20, 2012
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1643 (Dickinson) - As Introduced: February 13, 2012
SUMMARY : Expands the duties of a security officer employed by
the Chief of Police of the City of Sacramento or the Sheriff of
the County of Sacramento to include the physical security and
protection of specified properties owned or operated by
specified entities that contract for security services with the
County of Sacramento. Specifically, this bill :
1)Expands the duties of a security officer employed by the Chief
of Police of the City of Sacramento or the Sheriff of the
County of Sacramento to include the physical security and
protection of any properties owned or operated by specified
entities that contract for security services with the County
of Sacramento, whose primary business supports national
defense, or whose facility is qualified as national critical
infrastructure, or who stores or manufactures materials which
if stolen or compromised may threaten national security or
pose a danger to residents of the County of Sacramento.
2)Provides that any contract entered into with the City or
County of Sacramento for security services must provide for
full reimbursement to the City or County for the actual costs
of providing those services, as determined by the county
auditor or auditor-controller, or by the City.
3)Requires the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors or the
governing board of the City of Sacramento, prior to entering
in to a contract for security services, to discuss the
contract and the specified requirements at a duly noticed
public hearing.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes a county sheriff to hire public employees
designated as security officers. The primary duty of a
sheriff's security officer is to provide security and
AB 1643
Page 2
protection to facilities owned, operated, or administered by
the county or other entities contracting with the county for
police services. ÝPenal Code Section 831.4(a).]
2)Provides that a sheriff's or police security officer is
neither a peace officer nor a public safety officer for
purposes of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of
Rights Act (POBOR). Security officers do not receive any
additional retirement benefits. ÝPenal Code Sections 831.4(b)
and (d) and Government Code Section 3301.]
3)Provides that a sheriff's security officer may carry a
firearm, baton, and other safety equipment as authorized by
the sheriff while in the course and scope of his or her
employment. A security officer may issue citations if so
authorized by the sheriff but may not exercise peace officer
arrest powers, but may issue citations for infractions if
authorized by the sheriff or police chief. ÝPenal Code
Section 831.4(b).]
4)Provides that a security officer must satisfactorily complete
a course of training, as specified, by the Commission on Peace
Officers Standards and Training (POST) prior to being assigned
his or her duties. ÝPenal Code Section 831.4 (c).]
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "This bill would
allow private and municipal owners of property, whose primary
business supports national defense, or is qualified as a
national critical structure, or houses material that if
compromised may pose a danger to residents of Sacramento
County, to contract with the Sacramento police chief or the
County sheriff to provide publicly employed security officers
to guard and respond to problems and threats at the property
site. Under the bill's provisions, the property owners would
fully reimburse the city or county for these security
personnel services.
"Use of publicly employed security personnel would be beneficial
should one of the subject properties become the target of
terrorists or face a threat from some other kind of peril.
The public has an interest in keeping these facilities secure
AB 1643
Page 3
and use of publicly employed security personnel would ensure
that the security meets a high standard and is publicly
accountable. It would also mean that the higher level of
security provided by publicly employed security personnel
would reduce overall law enforcement costs due to fewer
incidents occurring at these properties. Fewer incidents,
which would otherwise require a sworn officer response, will
diminish, and thereby reduce the burden on the county
sheriff's or city police department(s)."
2)" Governor's Veto Message . AB 2626 (Jones), of the 2009-10
Legislative Session, was substantially similar to this bill,
but did not expand the duties of security officers employed by
the Chief of Police of the City of Sacramento. AB 2626 was
vetoed. In his veto message, the Governor stated, "Existing
law allows sheriffs and police chiefs to employ public
officers to guard public locations and facilities as directed.
This bill would allow security officers employed by the
Sheriff of the County of Sacramento to be contracted out to a
private company for the purpose of guarding private property.
While off duty law enforcement officers are often hired by
private firms to guard critical infrastructure, it is for a
law enforcement purpose and not to replace private security
guards. This bill, however, would allow public officers to be
contracted out to provide services that private companies
would otherwise provide. These duties should not be performed
at the expense of taxpayers."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association (Sponsor)
California State Sheriffs' Association
Sacramento County Sheriff's Department
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
AB 1643
Page 4