BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 1406 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 10, 2014 Counsel: Gabriel Caswell ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Tom Ammiano, Chair SB 1406 (Wolk) - As Amended: April 22, 2014 SUMMARY : Permits officers employed by the Napa County Department of Corrections (DOC) to perform additional duties. Specifically, this bill : 1)Authorizes, upon a resolution by the Napa County Board of Supervisors, custodial officers employed by the Napa County DOC to perform the same duties as Santa Clara custodial officers. 2)Makes the existing Santa Clara County intent language applicable to Napa County. 3)Provides that custodial officers employed by Napa County DOC are authorized to perform the following additional duties in the facility: a) Arrest a person without a warrant whenever the custodial officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor or felony in the presence of the officer that is a violation of a statute or ordinance that the officer has the duty to enforce; b) Search property, cells, prisoners, or visitors; c) Conduct strip or body cavity searches of prisoners pursuant to Section 4030; d) Conduct searches and seizures pursuant to a duly issued warrant; e) Segregate prisoners; and, f) Classify prisoners for the purpose of housing or participation in supervised activities. SB 1406 Page 2 EXISTING LAW : 1)States that all cities and counties are authorized to employ custodial officers (public officers who are not peace officers) for the purpose of maintaining order in local detention facilities. (Pen. Code, § 831.) 2)Provides in counties with a population of 425,000 or less - and San Diego, Fresno, Kern, Riverside, and Stanislaus counties - "enhanced powers" custodial officers may be employed. Santa Clara County is also included in this section with specified authority for custodial officers who are employed by the Santa Clara County DOC. These custodial officers are public officers, not peace officers. (Pen. Code, § 831.5 subds. (a) & (g).) 3)Provides enhanced powers custodial officers may carry firearms under the direction of the sheriff while fulfilling specified job-related duties. (Penal Code § 831.5(b).) This section does not authorize a custodial officer to carry or possess a firearm when the officer is not on duty. (Pen. Code, § 831.5 subd. (i).) 4)Provides enhanced powers custodial officers are empowered to serve warrants, writs, or subpoenas within the custodial facility, and, as with regular custodial officers, they may use reasonable force to establish and maintain custody, and may release from custody misdemeanants on citation to appear or individuals arrested for intoxication who are not subject to further criminal proceedings. And, these custodial officers are allowed to make warrantless arrests within the facility pursuant to Section 836.5 (misdemeanor in the presence of the officer). (Pen. Code, § 831.5 subds. (a) & (f).) 5)Requires that every enhanced powers custodial officer complete the training course described in Pen. Code, § 832 (introductory course of training prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training). (Pen. Code, § 831.5 subd. (c).) 6)Requires a peace officer to be present in a supervisorial capacity whenever 20 or more custodial officers are on duty. SB 1406 Page 3 (Pen. Code, § 831.5 subd. (d).) 7)Provides that custodial officers employed by the Santa Clara County DOC are authorized to perform the following additional duties in the facility: (Pen. Code, § 831.5 subd. (g).) a) Arrest a person without a warrant whenever the custodial officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor or felony in the presence of the officer that is a violation of a statute or ordinance that the officer has the duty to enforce; b) Search property, cells, prisoners, or visitors; c) Conduct strip or body cavity searches of prisoners pursuant to Section 4030; d) Conduct searches and seizures pursuant to a duly issued warrant; e) Segregate prisoners; and, f) Classify prisoners for the purpose of housing or participation in supervised activities. 8)States that it is the intent of the Legislature, as it relates to Santa Clara County, to enumerate specific duties of custodial officers and to clarify the relationship of correctional officers and deputy sheriffs in Santa Clara County. And, that it is the intent of the Legislature that all issues regarding compensation for custodial officers remain subject to the collective bargaining process. The language is, additionally, clear that it should not be construed to assert that the duties of custodial officers are equivalent to the duties of deputy sheriffs or to affect the ability of the county to negotiate pay that reflects the different duties of custodial officers and deputy sheriffs. (Pen. Code, § 831.5 subd. (i).) FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : 1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "SB 1406 seeks SB 1406 Page 4 to address safety concerns raised by the correctional officers employed at Napa County Jail. "Under existing law, the correctional officers employed at Napa County jail are not classified as peace officers. As a result, correctional officers are prohibited from performing many of the procedures that enable peace officers to better protect themselves and the inmate population. Unlike other county jails, Napa County Jail is under the jurisdiction of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, not the Sheriff. While this arrangement has many benefits, and is working particularly well in the context of realignment, it means that the officers employed in the jail are not employed by the Sheriff, and as such, are not peace officers (deputy sheriffs)." 2)Similarities Between Santa Clara County and Napa County : On June 6, 1988, Santa Clara transferred control of its jails from the sheriff to the county DOC. In 1999, Santa Clara was given the ability to utilize enhanced power custodial officers. Santa Clara sought legislative intervention due to years of confusion and litigation regarding the status of the county's custodial officers, The California Supreme Court decided a dispute which arose in Santa Clara County regarding the power of the Santa Clara County Director of Corrections to confer limited peace officer status on some deputies when staffing fell below limits required by law. The Supreme Court held that "[t]he Legislature has made clear its intention to retain the exclusive power to bestow peace officer status on state, county and city employees. Since that chapter [Chapter 4.5 of the Penal Code, sections 830 et seq.] does not authorize the director of a county jail facility to designate custodial officers as peace officers, the director's action cannot be sustained." County of Santa Clara v. Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Santa Clara County, (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 873, 886. Santa Clara County found itself in this situation after the voters changed the county charter in 1988 to transfer control of the jails out of the jurisdiction of the sheriff and instead to the County Department of Corrections. Id. at p. 876. The lawful way for Santa Clara County SB 1406 Page 5 custodial officers to gain peace officer powers not currently granted them by state law requires enacting another state law. (Assembly Committee on Public Safety Analysis, SB 1019 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 635, Statutes of 1999) Like Santa Clara, the Napa County DOC was separated from the Sheriff's Department by the Board of Supervisors in 1975. They were the first in the state of California to become a civilian-run facility, and are currently one of two in the state not operated by the Sheriff's Department. While Napa County has a population less than 425,000, the county is not able to utilize enhanced powers custodial officers because the penal code requires that the custodial officers be employed by a law enforcement agency. (See generally Pen. Code, § 831.5.) This legislation would not turn Napa County custodial officers into peace officers, but would instead give the custodial officers the enhanced powers described above. 3)Argument in Support : According to the Napa County Board of Supervisors , "On behalf of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, I am pleased to inform you of the Board's sponsorship and support for SB 1406 (Wolk) which seeks to address safety concerns raised by the correctional officers employed at Napa County Jail. "Under existing law, the correctional officers employed at Napa County jail are not classified as peace officers. As a result, correctional officers are prohibited from performing many of the procedures that enable peace officers to better protect themselves and the inmate population. Unlike other county jails, Napa County Jail is under the jurisdiction of the Napa County Board of Supervisors, not the Sheriff. While this arrangement has many benefits, and is working particularly well in the context of realignment, it means that the officers employed in the jail are not employed by the Sheriff, and as such, are not peace officers (deputy sheriffs). "The Napa County Department of Corrections was separated from the Sheriff's Department by the Board of Supervisors in 1975. Napa was the first in the state of California to become a civilian-run facility, and is currently one of two in the SB 1406 Page 6 state not operated by the Sheriff's Department. While Napa County has a population less than 425,000, the county is not able to utilize enhanced powers custodial officers because the penal code requires that the custodial officers be employed by a law enforcement agency. SB 1404 would not turn Napa County custodial officers into peace officers, but would instead give the custodial officers some enhanced powers. This arrangement is similar to that already in law for Santa Clara County. "This constraint on Napa's classification status impedes the ability of the County to retain officers, who are frequently lured away by competing agencies who offer limited peace officer status to correctional officers- which inhibit public safety within the County. "This legislative remedy is already successful in counties with a population of 425,000 or less and San Diego, Fresno, Kern, Riverside, Stanislaus and Santa Clara Counties. For the reasons stated, Napa County seeks to be added to this list of Counties through SB 1406 (Wolk) and respectfully requests your "aye" vote when it comes before your committee." 4)Prior Legislation : a) SB 1019 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 635, Statutes of 1999, added Santa Clara County to those counties with a population of 425,000 or less which, by virtue of population, are eligible to utilize "enhanced power" custodial officers, as specified. b) SB 1695 (Beall), Chapter 575, Statutes of 2010, extended the authority of custodial officers in Santa Clara County to perform specified duties not only at the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, but at other health care facilities in the County of Santa Clara, as needed and only as they directly relate to guarding in-custody inmates. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support SB 1406 Page 7 Napa County Board of Supervisors Opposition None Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744