BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
2
1
9
AB 2194 (Beth Gaines) 4
As Introduced February 23, 2012
Hearing date: June 12, 2012
Corporations Code (URGENCY)
MK:mc
CORPORATIONS FOR PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS:
HUMANE OFFICERS: CRIMINAL HISTORY
HISTORY
Source: State Humane Association of California
Prior Legislation: SB 1417 (Cox) - Chapter 652, Stats. 2010
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; County of
Placer Board of Supervisors
Opposition:Public Interest Coalition
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 72 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A FEDERAL CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK BE MADE IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE STATE CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK ON A PERSON WHO IS APPLYING
FOR APPOINTMENT AS A HUMANE OFFICER?
(More)
AB 2194 (Beth Gaines)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to add clarifying language enabling
the Department of Justice (DOJ) to perform a federal-level
criminal offender record information check on a humane officer
applicant.
Existing law requires the DOJ to maintain state summary criminal
history information, as defined, and to provide that information
to persons holding specified occupations including, to any
humane society, or SPCA for the specific purpose of appointing
humane officers. (Penal Code § 11105.)
Existing law provides that an agency, officer, or official of
the state, or any city or county, city and county, district, or
any officer or official thereof, authorized to receive state
summary criminal history information may also transmit
fingerprint images and related information to the DOJ to be
transmitted to the FBI. (Penal Code § 11105(b)(10) and (11).)
Existing law authorizes the DOJ to disseminate federal level
criminal history information received or compiled by the DOJ to
specified entities. (Penal Code § 11105.)
Existing law requires a classifiable set of the fingerprints of
every person employed as a peace officer of the state, or of a
county, city, city and county, or other political subdivision,
whether with or without compensation, to be furnished to the DOJ
and to the FBI by the appropriate appointing authority of the
agency by whom the person is employed. (Government Code
§ 1030.)
Existing law provides that only a humane society or SPCA is
eligible to petition for confirmation of an appointment of an
individual as a humane officer. The duty of a humane officer is
to enforce the laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
(Corporations Code § 14502(a)(1)(A).)
(More)
AB 2194 (Beth Gaines)
Page 3
Existing law requires that the humane society or SPCA seeking
confirmation of a humane officer's appointment to comply with
the following provisions:
Submit to DOJ fingerprint images and related information
of all applicants for the purpose of obtaining information
as to the existence and content of a record of state
conviction and state arrests and also information as to the
existence and content of a record of state arrests for
which the DOJ establishes that the person is free on bail
or on his or her own recognizance.
Serve a copy of the petition for order confirming
appointment of a humane officer to specified parties.
File the petition seeking confirmation of the officer in
the superior court in the county in which the principle
office of the organization is located. (Corporations Code
§ 14502(b).)
Existing law requires the DOJ to provide the Humane Society or
SPCA with a state response regarding summary criminal history
information as provided by Penal Code Section 11105.
(Corporations Code § 14502(b)(1)(A).)
Existing law requires the court to review the appointee's
qualifications and fitness to act as a humane officer and either
confirm or deny the appointment. (Corporations Code §
14502(c)(2),)
Existing law describes the powers and qualifications of level 1
and level 2 humane officers. Level 1 humane officers are
authorized to carry firearms, subject to specified requirements,
including background checks and mental and physical evaluations.
(Corporations Code
§ 14502(h).)
Existing law requires that all humane officers submit
fingerprints to the DOJ for the purposes of obtaining criminal
background information. (Corporations Code § 14502(b)(1).)
(More)
AB 2194 (Beth Gaines)
Page 4
This bill provides that DOJ shall forward the fingerprints
received by a person seeking appointment as a humane officer to
the FBI for a federal background check.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
("ROCA")
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, since
early 2007 it has been the policy of the chair of the Senate
Committee on Public Safety and the Senate President pro Tem to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions. Under
the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which stands for
"Receivership/Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the Committee
has held measures which create a new felony, expand the scope or
penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increase the
application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the
prison overcrowding crisis by expanding the availability or
length of prison terms (such as extending the statute of
limitations for felonies or constricting statutory parole
standards). In addition, proposed expansions to the
classification of felonies enacted last year by AB 109 (the 2011
Public Safety Realignment) which may be punishable in jail and
not prison (Penal Code section 1170(h)) would be subject to ROCA
because an offender's criminal record could make the offender
ineligible for jail and therefore subject to state prison.
Under these principles, ROCA has been applied as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress towards reducing prison
overcrowding by passing legislation which could increase the
prison population. ROCA will continue until prison overcrowding
is resolved.
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
(More)
AB 2194 (Beth Gaines)
Page 5
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances. Design capacity is the number of inmates a
prison can house based on one inmate per cell, single-level
bunks in dormitories, and no beds in places not designed for
housing. Current design capacity in CDCR's 33 institutions is
79,650.
(More)
On January 6, 2012, CDCR announced that California had cut
prison overcrowding by more than 11,000 inmates over the last
six months, a reduction largely accomplished by the passage of
Assembly Bill 109. Under the prisoner-reduction order, the
inmate population in California's 33 prisons must be no more
than the following:
167 percent of design capacity by December 27, 2011
(133,016 inmates);
155 percent by June 27, 2012;
147 percent by December 27, 2012; and
137.5 percent by June 27, 2013.
This bill does not aggravate the prison overcrowding crisis
described above under ROCA.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
The FBI requires very specific language in California
Statute before providing the required background
information established in SB 1417 (Cox).
Unfortunately, that specific language was not included
in the final version of SB 1417, creating a temporary
backlog of criminal background checks for humane
officers.
AB 2194 includes the specific and correct language for
the FBI and Attorney General's office so that the
criminal background information on humane officer
applicants can be obtained and the backlog cleared.
Humane officers play a key role in the health and
safety of animals. These well trained individuals have
been in in limbo due to a technicality leading to the
backlog.
(More)
AB 2194 (Beth Gaines)
Page 7
2. FBI Background Check for Humane Officers
Humane officers are appointed by a humane society or a society
for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Humane officers are
not peace officers but may exercise the powers of a peace
officer in order to prevent the perpetration of any act of
cruelty upon any animal. Level 1 humane officers may carry a
firearm while Level 2 humane officers may not. Both types of
humane officers receive appropriate POST training.
In 2010, SB 1417 (Cox), created background checks for humane
officers. The language in SB 1417 was not drafted correctly and
thus only state criminal background authorization was created;
no authorization for federal background checks was created.
This bill adopts the necessary language for the Department of
Justice to facilitate a federal FBI background check on those
being appointed as humane officers in California.
***************