BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
6
2
AB 2623 (Pan) 3
As Amended May 23, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Penal Code
AL/JRD:mc
PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING:
ELDER AND DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE TRAINING
HISTORY
Source: Elder Law Clinic at the McGeorge School of Law
Prior Legislation: SB 110 (Liu) - Ch. 617, Stats. 2010
AB 1819 (Shelley) - Ch. 559, Stats. 2000
AB 1442 (Shelley) - died in Assembly
Appropriations, 2000
Support: Retired Public Employees Association; California Police
Chiefs Association; California Association of Public
Authorities; California Long-Term Care Ombudsman
Association; California School Employees Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 78 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
(More)
AB 2623 (Pan)
Page 2
SHOULD INSTRUCTION ON THE LEGAL RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO
VICTIMS OF ELDER OR DEPENDENT ADULT ABUSE BE INCLUDED IN PEACE
OFFICER TRAINING, AS SPECIFIED?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD THE COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING BE
REQUIRED TO ADDITIONALLY CONSULT WITH LOCAL PROTECTIVE SERVICES
OFFICES AND THE OFFICE OF THE STATE LONG-TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN WHEN
DEVELOPING NEW OR UPDATED TRAINING MATERIALS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) expand the elder and dependent
adult abuse training curriculum requirements mandatory for
specified peace officers, to include legal rights and remedies
available to victims; and 2) require the Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training (POST) to consult with local
protective services offices and the Office of the State
Long-Term Care Ombudsman when creating new or updated training
materials.
Existing law authorizes an elder or dependent adult who has
suffered abuse to seek protective orders, as specified.
(Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657.03.)
Existing law requires that every city police officer or deputy
sheriff at a supervisory level and below, who are assigned field
or investigative duties, complete an elder and dependent adult
abuse training course certified by POST within 18 months of
assignment to field duties. Completion of the course may be
satisfied by telecourse, video training tape, or other
instruction. The training shall, at a minimum, include all of
the following subjects:
a) Relevant laws;
(More)
AB 2623 (Pan)
Page 3
b) Recognition of elder and dependent adult abuse;
c) Reporting requirements and procedures;
d) Neglect of elder and dependent adults;
e) Fraud of elder and dependent adults;
f) Physical abuse of elder and dependent adults;
g) Psychological abuse of elder and dependent adults; and,
h) The role of the local adult protective services public
guardian offices. (Penal Code § 13515(a).)
Existing law requires each county welfare department to
establish and support a system of protective services for
elderly and dependent adults who may be subjected to neglect,
abuse, or exploitation, or who are unable to protect their own
interest. (Welfare and Institutions Code § 15751.)
Existing law establishes the Office of the State Long-Term Care
Ombudsman to protect and advocate for the rights, health, and
safety of long-term care facility residents. (Welfare and
Institutions Code § 9710.5.)
Existing law requires POST to consult with the Bureau of
Medi-Cal Fraud and Elder Abuse, as well as other subject matter
experts, on the production of new or updated training materials
related to mandatory elder and dependent adult abuse training
for specified peace officers. (Penal Code § 13515(b).)
This bill would require POST training on the legal rights and
remedies available to victims of elder or dependent adult abuse,
including emergency protective orders, simultaneous move-out
orders, and temporary restraining orders.
This bill would require POST to consult with local adult
(More)
AB 2623 (Pan)
Page 4
protective services offices and the Office of the State
Long-Term Care Ombudsman when producing new or updated materials
for elder and dependent adult abuse training.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
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
(More)
AB 2623 (Pan)
Page 5
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
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
(More)
AB 2623 (Pan)
Page 6
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
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 This Bill
According to the author:
As of 2010, there were 4.2 million people aged 65 years
or older in CA. Based on monthly reports sent by local
Adult Protection Services offices, the Attorney General
(More)
AB 2623 (Pan)
Page 7
estimates that 200,000 elders or dependent adults are
abused each year. By the year 2021, the elder
population in California will reach 7.7 million people,
as the last parts of the Baby Boomer generation reach
65. Given the projected rise in the elder population,
the so-called "Silver Tsunami," there will likely be a
proportional rise in the number of elder abuse cases.
This bill is a way to prepare for this rise before the
demographic projections and associated rise in abuses
become a reality.
This bill will add to the elder abuse training officers
receive in the Academy. These additions include
training in the use of civil remedies such as Elder
Emergency Protective Orders and the use of local
resources for elder abuse. These modules will be added
in order to increase officer awareness of alternative
measures to arrest that are available to victims of
elder abuse.
(More)
2.Effects of This Bill
AB 2623 would require police officers and deputy sheriffs to be
trained in the legal rights and remedies available to victims of
elder or dependent adult abuse, such as emergency protective
orders, simultaneous move-out orders, and temporary restraining
orders.
In this respect, the bill mirrors a current provision for peace
officer training on domestic violence requiring instruction on
the legal rights and remedies available to victims of domestic
violence.
Also, this bill would require POST to additionally consult with
the local adult protective services offices and the Office of
State Long-Term Care Ombudsman when producing new or updated
training materials.
Representatives from the Elder Law Clinic at the McGeorge School
of Law, the sponsor, state that there is a need for peace
officers to be informed on civil remedies available to a victim
of elder or dependent adult abuse. Supporters argue that
requiring training on the legal rights and remedies available to
victims would allow those directly responding to elder abuse
calls to provide more effective assistance.
***************
(More)