BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
5
1
AB 1511 (Beth Gaines) 1
As Amended June 3, 2014
Hearing date: June 10, 2014
Penal Code
MK:sl
CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION:
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS
HISTORY
Source: Charlotte Marcum-Rush
Prior Legislation: None
Support: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals; Los Angeles District Attorney's Office; City
of Sacramento
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 78 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE DOJ AND LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES BE PERMITTED TO
FURNISH STATE AND LOCAL SUMMARY CRIMINAL HISTORY INFORMATION TO AN
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER UPON A SHOWING OF A COMPELLING NEED?
PURPOSE
(More)
AB 1511 (Beth Gaines)
Page 2
The purpose of this bill is to allow the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and local criminal justice agencies to furnish state and
local summary criminal history information to an animal control
officer (ACO) upon a showing of a compelling need.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
maintain state summary criminal history information. (Penal
Code § 11105(a).)
Existing law authorizes DOJ to furnish state summary criminal
history information to the following specified entities:
the courts of California;
peace officers, as defined;
district attorneys of California;
prosecuting city attorneys;
city attorneys pursuing civil gang injunctions or drug
abatement actions;
probation officers of California;
parole officers of California;
a public defender or attorney of record when
representing a person in proceedings upon a petition for a
certificate of rehabilitation and pardon;
a public defender or attorney of record when
representing a person in a criminal case, or a parole,
mandatory supervision, or postrelease community supervision
revocation or revocation extension proceeding, and if
authorized access by statutory or decisional law;
any agency, officer, or official of the state if the
criminal history information is required to implement a
statute or regulation that expressly refers to specific
criminal conduct applicable to the subject person of the
state summary criminal history information, and contains
requirements or exclusions, or both, expressly based upon
that specified criminal conduct;
any city or county, city and county, district, or any
(More)
AB 1511 (Beth Gaines)
Page 3
officer or official thereof if access is needed in order to
assist that agency, officer, or official in fulfilling
employment, certification, or licensing duties, and if the
access is specifically authorized by the city council,
board of supervisors, or governing board of the city,
county, or district if the criminal history information is
required to implement a statute, ordinance, or regulation
that expressly refers to specific criminal conduct
applicable to the subject person of the state summary
criminal history information, and contains requirements or
exclusions, or both, expressly based upon that specified
criminal conduct;
the subject of the state summary criminal history
information;
any person or entity when access is expressly authorized
by statute if the criminal history information is required
to implement a statute or regulation that expressly refers
to specific criminal conduct applicable to the subject
person of the state summary criminal history information,
and contains requirements or exclusions, or both, expressly
based upon that specified criminal conduct;
Health officers of a city, county, city and county, or
district when in the performance of their official duties
preventing the spread of communicable diseases;
any managing or supervising correctional officer of a
county jail or other county correctional facility;
any humane society, or society for the prevention of
cruelty to animals for the appointment of humane officers;
local child support agencies;
county child welfare agency personnel who have been
delegated the authority of county probation officers to
access state summary criminal history information for the
specified purposes;
the court of a tribe, or court of a consortium of
tribes, that has entered into an agreement with the state
as specified;
child welfare agency personnel of a tribe or consortium
of tribes that has entered into an agreement with the state
as specified;
an officer providing conservatorship investigations;
a person authorized to conduct a guardianship
(More)
AB 1511 (Beth Gaines)
Page 4
investigation; and,
a humane officer for the purposes of performing his or
her duties. (Penal Code § 11105 (b).)
Existing law states that DOJ may furnish state summary criminal
history information, when specifically authorized, and
federal-level criminal history information upon a showing of
compelling need to any of the specified agencies, provided that
when information is furnished to assist an agency, officer, or
official of state or local government, a public utility, or any
other entity in fulfilling employment, certification, or
licensing duties, the employer must follow restrictions listed
in the Labor Code. (Penal Code § 11105(c).)
Existing law states, notwithstanding any other law, a human
resource agency or an employer may request from DOJ records of
all convictions or any arrest pending adjudication involving the
offenses specified of a person who applies for a license,
employment, or volunteer position, in which he or she would have
supervisory or disciplinary power over a minor or any person
under his or her care. Requires DOJ to furnish the information
to the requesting employer and also send a copy of the
information to the applicant. (Penal Code § 11105.3(a).)
Existing law authorizes any local criminal justice agency as
defined to compile local summary criminal history information
and requires the local criminal justice agency to furnish this
information to any of the specified entities. (Penal Code §
13300.)
This bill allows the DOJ or local criminal justice agencies to
supply criminal history information to an animal control
officer, as defined, for the purpose of performing his or her
duties and upon a showing of a compelling need.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
(More)
AB 1511 (Beth Gaines)
Page 5
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
(More)
AB 1511 (Beth Gaines)
Page 6
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
(More)
AB 1511 (Beth Gaines)
Page 7
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for The bill
According to the author:
In today's society, owning pets is almost universal.
In performing their duties, animal control officers
interact with members of the community from every
background and walk of life much like peace officers.
Unfortunately not all those they interact with on a day
to day basis are upstanding citizens. They often work
on complex criminal cases alone or in concert with
local law enforcement. Animal control officers,
however, lacking status as traditional peace officers,
often do not have the same protections.
Under current law, animal control officers are not
afforded access to detailed criminal histories as
traditional law enforcement officers, even though they
are often encountering the same individuals. Most ACOs
do not carry firearms, stun guns, batons or other
personal protection devices.
(More)
AB 1511 (Beth Gaines)
Page 8
AB 1511 would amend existing law to allow Animal
Control Officers the ability to request local and state
criminal history summaries from the Department of
Justice and local agencies based upon showing a
compelling need. By affording this information to
ACOs, law enforcement can then prioritize their
resources to accompany ACOs to the most dangerous
areas.
(More)
The bill would also permit the agencies to charge a
reasonable fee to sufficiently cover the costs
associated with providing such information.
2. Access to Criminal History Information by Animal Control
Officer
Existing law sets forth who is authorized to receive criminal
history information compiled by the DOJ or by local agencies.
Those authorized to receive the information include humane
officers. This bill would give animal control officers the
right to receive that information to be used in the performance
of their duties when they show a compelling need.
Supporters argue that animal control officers and humane
officers are similarly situated and since current law authorizes
humane officers access to state and local summary criminal
history information, animal control officers should be provided
that same access. Animal control officers' duties are not
prescribed by state law, they are tasked, generally speaking,
with animal control and compliance functions. Alternatively,
humane officers are employed by a humane society or a society
for the prevention of cruelty to animals and are statutorily
tasked to prevent animal cruelty, using reasonable force if
necessary to accomplish their duties. (Corp. Code, §14502,
subds. (a) & (h).) To be appointed a humane officer, a person
must undergo a criminal background check, file a petition for
order confirming the appointment that must be served to the
local police department, local sheriff's department, Department
of California Highway Patrol, State Humane Association of
California, local animal control agency, and DOJ, all of who
have the right to oppose the petition, and take and subscribe
the oath of office prescribed for peace officers. (Corp. Code, §
14502, subd. (b).)
Additionally, state law requires that all humane officers
furnish a set of fingerprints to DOJ and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to be kept on file and "[b]e of good moral
(More)
AB 1511 (Beth Gaines)
Page 10
character, as determined by a thorough background check." (Corp.
Code, § 14502, subd. (h); Gov. Code, §§ 1030 & 1031.) Humane
officers also must be removed from their position upon the
occurrence of any one of a list of specified condition, such as
the conviction of a felony or finding that the person is
mentally incompetent or being adjudged addicted or in danger of
becoming addicted to narcotics. (Corp. Code, § 14502, subd. (h);
Gov. Code, § 1029.) No such similar requirements are placed on
animal control officers.
This bill distinguishes animal control officers from humane
officers by requiring the animal control officers make a showing
of compelling need before accessing state criminal history
information from the DOJ.
3. Argument in Support
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
supports this bill stating:
AB 1511 recognizes the dangers animal control officers
face by authorizing the Department of Justice and local
criminal justice organizations to provide access to
criminal background information to ACOs. Knowing this
information is critical in keeping animal control
officers safe as they seek to enforce the animal
welfare laws throughout their communities.
***************