BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
2
7
SB 1278 (Leno) 8
As Introduced February 21, 2014
Hearing date: March 25, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:sl
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS
HISTORY
Source: California Animal Control Directors Association;
Humane Society of the United States
Prior Legislation: Senate Bill 655 (Presley)-Ch. 82, Stats. 1990
Assembly Bill 2209 (Vicencia)-Ch. 1575, Stats. 1985
Support: Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA),
Locals 777 &792; City of Chula Vista Police Department;
International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary
Engineers, Local 39
Opposition:None known
(Analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in
committee.)
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD CERTAIN ANIMAL CONTROL PERSONNEL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE
ADDITONAL TRAINING, AS SPECIFIED?
PURPOSE
(More)
SB 1278 (Leno)
Page 2
The purpose of this bill is to expand current training
requirements for animal control personnel by requiring: (1) all
animal control officers to complete a course in the exercise of
powers of arrest and to serve warrants, as specified; (2) each
person appointed as a director, manager, supervisor, or any
person in control of an animal control agency on or after July
1, 2015 complete a course in the exercise of powers of arrest
and to serve warrants within one year of appointment; and, (3)
all animal control officers have 40 hours of continuing training
every three years, as specified.
Existing law provides that animal control officers are not peace
officers but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace
officer, as specified, and the power to serve warrants, as
specified, during the course and within the scope of their
employment, if those officers successfully complete a course in
the exercise of those powers pursuant to Section 832. That part
of the training course specified in Section 832 pertaining to
the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required for any
animal control officer whose employing agency prohibits the use
of firearms. (Penal Code § 830.9.)
Existing law further provides:
An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a
case and in the manner authorized by law and that an
arrest may be made by a peace officer or a private
person. (Penal Code § 834.)
An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the
person, or by submission to the custody of an officer.
The person arrested may be subjected to such
restraint as is reasonable for his or her arrest and
detention. (Penal Code § 835.)
A private person may arrest another person for a
public offense committed or attempted in his or her
presence, when the person arrested has committed a
felony regardless of whether it was committed in his
or her presence, and when a felony has been committed
and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the
person to be arrested has committed it. (Penal Code §
837.)
(More)
SB 1278 (Leno)
Page 3
With limited exceptions, a peace officer may arrest
a person when the officer has reasonable cause to
believe the person to be arrested has committed a
public offense in the officer's presence, when the
person arrested has committed a felony regardless of
whether it was committed in the officer's presence,
and when the officer has reasonable cause to believe
the person to be arrested has committed a felony.
(Penal Code § 836.)
Existing law requires peace officers, and specified other public
officers "not a peace officer," to complete training prescribed
by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)
and to pass an appropriate POST examination. (Penal Code §
832.)
This bill would require all animal control officers to complete
a course in the exercise of powers of arrest and to serve
warrants, administered by POST. Specially, the bill would
require every person appointed as an animal control officer
prior to July 1, 2015, to complete a course in the exercise of
the powers of arrest and to serve warrants no later than July 2,
2016. And, every Animal Control Officer, appointed after July
1, 2015, to complete the course within one year of beginning
employment.
This bill would require each person appointed as a director,
manager, supervisor, or any person in control of an animal
control agency on or after July 1, 2015 complete a course in the
exercise of powers of arrest and to serve warrants, administered
by POST, within one year of appointment, as specified.
This bill would require that during each three-year period
following the date of appointment as animal control officer,
every animal control officer shall satisfactorily complete at
least 40 hours of continuing education and training relating to
the powers and duties of an animal control officer as determined
by the California Animal Control Directors Association.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
(More)
SB 1278 (Leno)
Page 4
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
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
(More)
SB 1278 (Leno)
Page 5
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 February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 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
(More)
SB 1278 (Leno)
Page 6
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
The author states in part:
Currently, some animal control executives and
animal control officers (ACOs) lack even the most
basic training related to laws of arrests and
serving warrants. ACOs enforce state and local
laws pertaining to animal care and control as well
as public safety. While they are not peace
officers, ACOs may exercise the same powers of
arrest and serving warrants within the scope of
their duties. They can investigate felony crimes
and make felony arrests. Unlike peace officers and
humane officers, ACOs are not currently required to
attend any in-service training or education in
order to maintain their proficiency in their law
enforcement duties. Such training is necessary to
ensure ACO safety, service and professionalism.
This bill will require minimum ACO training
standards bringing California in line with other
states such as Connecticut, Florida, Maine, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and
Wisconsin.
(More)
SB 1278 (Leno)
Page 7
SB 1278 requires all ACOs to complete a standardized
training course in the powers of arrest and the
powers of serving warrants and to complete
continuing education and training. Specifically,
the bill will require ACOs employed prior to July 1,
2015 to complete a standardized course no later than
July 1, 2016. ACOs employed after July 1, 2015 must
complete the course within one year from the start
of their employment. The bill also requires ACOs to
complete continuing education and training courses
once every three years. The provisions of the bill
are self-regulating and give local jurisdictions
flexibility how they want to meet the training
guidelines set by the California Animal Control
Directors Association, including no-cost and
in-house training.
The bill does not change a local jurisdiction's
ability to decide the level of authority that ACOs may
ultimately exercise. The bill does not change ACO's
status as a non-peace officer, and will not expand the
authority of ACOs to carry firearms or expand the use
of firearms by ACOs. The bill does not provide a
pathway for peace officer status and simply seeks to
standardize ACO training in existing powers. In
addition, the training will help reduce a
jurisdiction's costs related to liability and workers'
compensation claims.
2. Effect of this Legislation
The impetus behind this legislation is the 2012 death of
Animal Control Officer Roy Marcum. In November 2012:
An unarmed animal control officer was shot and killed
in Sacramento County . . . while trying to retrieve
pets from a home whose owner was evicted the previous
day.
(More)
SB 1278 (Leno)
Page 8
The officer had gone to the home to rescue dogs and
cats authorities thought had been left behind, a day
after Joseph Francis Corey was served an eviction
notice and a sheriff's deputy changed the locks.
The officer - Roy Curtis Marcum, 45, of Elk Grove -
and a bank employee knocked on the door when Corey
fired a shotgun through the door, striking the officer
in the torso, Sacramento County Sheriff's Sgt. Jason
Ramos said.
(Calif. animal control officer killed in eviction, The
Daily Republic, November 30, 2012,
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/usworld/calif-animal-contr
ol-officer-killed-in-eviction/.)
According to the author:
A lack of officer safety training contributed to the
recent tragic on-duty death of ACO Roy C. Marcum at
the hand of an irate animal owner. With a lack of
training also comes the opportunity for inadvertent
abuse of authority and imposition of well-intentioned
yet unlawful demands by enforcement officers. ACOs
are no less law enforcement professionals than any
other specialized law enforcement officers. Their
treatment of the public and the cases they submit for
prosecution face the exact same level of scrutiny by
the courts and the public. ACOs need the skills to
protect themselves, their agencies and others - both
humans and animals - from harm.
To this end, the legislation seeks to not only standardize
training on the powers of arrest and serving warrants, but also
requires continuing education and training.
While the legislation mandates continuing education, it does not
(More)
SB 1278 (Leno)
Page 9
specify that training include refresher training on the powers
of arrest or executing search warrants. Members may wish to
consider addressing this issue by recommending the following
language be substituted for penal code section 830.9(f)(2):
The minimum hours and required topics of continuing
education and training, and the minimum hours of
training associated with those topics, shall be
determined by the California Animal Control Directors
Association. Continuing education shall include at
least four hours of course work, taught by a Peace
Officer Standards and Training-certified instructor,
in the exercise of the powers of arrest and to serve
warrants.
3. Proposed Amendments
The author has agreed to amend this bill to: (1) add California
Veterinary Medical Association to the list of entities that can
provide continuing training; (2) make clarifying changes to the
three-year continuing education requirement, specifically that
every animal control officer appointed prior to July 1, 2015,
shall complete the continuing training requirements by July 2,
2018, and every animal control officers appointed on or after
July 1, 2015 shall complete the training requiring within three
years after his her appointment date; (3) clearly exempt animal
control officers that are peace officers under penal code 830.1,
including sheriff and police officers, from the requirements of
the legislation; (4) clearly exempt animal control officers who
have already had the training described in section 830.9(a), of
the proposed legislation, from the requirements of that
section; and, (5) state that continuing education and training
may be recommended by the California Animal Control Directors
Association.
(More)
4. Argument in Support
LIUNA Locals 777 and 792, representing animal control
officers, state:
SB 1278 seeks to institute standardized training for
animal control officers in order to provide better
officer safety, to protect the rights of animal owners
and to ensure animal welfare. The bill brings animal
control officers on par to similar training standards
required of humane officers.
Animal control officers (ACOs) enforce state and local
law pertaining to animal control and care as well as
public safety. ACOs are not peace officers, but they
may exercise the same powers of arrest and serving
warrants within the scope of their duties. They can
investigate felony crimes and make felony arrests
pertaining to state animal welfare laws. ACOs also
routinely enter private property to seize animals when
there is evidence of animal cruelty, neglect or need
for quarantine. This is often done over the angry and
sometimes violent objections of the owners that put
ACOs in dangerous situations.
Despite the duties of enforcing felony animal welfare
laws, there is not standardized training for ACOs in
the powers of arrest and serving warrants. In fact,
security guards have stricter training requirements in
these powers than ACOs do. All ACOs should have basic
training in approaching potentially dangerous
situations, be better prepared to address combatant
animal owners and know the boundaries of their duties.
***************
(More)
SB 1278 (Leno)
Page 11