BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 546 Hearing Date: June 23, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Gonzalez |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 15, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Peace Officers: Basic Training Requirements
HISTORY
Source: Chief Probation Officers of California
Prior Legislation:AB 1860 (V. Manual Perez) Chapter 87,
Statutes of 2014
Support: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors; Los Angeles
County Probation Officers; Riverside Sheriffs
Association; California Probation, Parole and
Correctional Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training (POST), when it is evaluating a
certification request from a probation department for the
training course prescribed in Penal Code section 832, to: (1)
consider the need and justification for the training course; or
(2) require that there be an identifiable and unmet need for the
AB 546 (Gonzalez ) Page
2 of ?
training course as a condition of certifying the training
course.
Existing law requires every peace officer, as specified, except
those whose employing agency prohibits the use of firearms, to
satisfactorily complete an introductory POST-prescribed
introductory training course and that satisfactory completion of
the course is to be demonstrated by passage of an appropriate
POST-developed or approved examination. (Penal Code § 832(a).)
Existing law requires every peace officer, as specified, to
satisfactorily complete the course described above prior to
exercising the powers of a peace officer, and states that peace
officers who have not satisfactorily completed the introductory
training course do not have peace officer powers until they
satisfactorily complete the course. (Penal Code §§ 832 (b) and
(c).)
Existing law requires any person completing the introductory
training course described above who does not become employed as
a peace officer within 3 years from the date of passing the
examination, or who has a 3 year or longer break in service as a
peace officer, to pass the examination prior to exercising peace
officer powers, except for any person who meets any of the
following requirements:
Is returning to a management position that is at the
second level of supervision or higher;
Has successfully requalified for a basic course through
the POST;
Has maintained proficiency through teaching the
introductory training course described above;
During the break in California service, was continuously
employed as a peace officer in another state or at the
federal level; or,
Has previously satisfactorily completed the introductory
training course and passed the appropriate examination; has
been appointed as a peace officer, as specified; and has
been continuously employed as a custodial officer, as
defined, by the agency making the peace officer appointment
since completing the introductory training course. (Penal
Code § 832(e).)
Existing law authorizes POST, notwithstanding any other law, to
AB 546 (Gonzalez ) Page
3 of ?
charge appropriate fees, not exceeding actual costs, for the
examination required to demonstrate satisfactory completion of
the introductory training course to each applicant who is not
sponsored by a local or other law enforcement agency; is not a
peace officer employed by, or under consideration for employment
by, a state or local agency, department, or district; or is not
a custodial officer, as defined. (Penal Code § 832(g).)
Existing law states that a probation department that is a
certified provider of the training course is not required to
offer the course to the general public. (Penal Code § 832(h).)
Under existing regulation POST administers the Course
Certification Program to provide needed and quality training to
law enforcement personnel. References to a course being
"POST-certified" means that the POST has approved presentation
of the course in accordance with POST regulations. (11 CCR 1051
(2015).)
Existing regulation states each instructor-led training
(Web-based, classroom, or other) course certification request
shall be evaluated in accordance with the following factors:
Need and Justification for Course
Course Content
Hours of Instruction
Qualification of Instructors, Coordinators, and/or
Academy Staff (Reference Regulations 1070 and 1071 for
minimum training standards)
Potential Clientele and Volume of Trainees
Physical Facilities Appropriate for the Training
Methods of Course Presentation
Availability of Staff to Administer the Course
Course Evaluation Processes
Cost of Course
AB 546 (Gonzalez ) Page
4 of ?
Instructor/Trainee Ratios
Provisions for Student Safety
(11 CCR 1052 (2015).)
This bill prohibits POST, when it is evaluating a certification
request from a probation department for the training course
prescribed in Penal Code section 832, to: (1) consider the need
and justification for the training course; or (2) require that
there be an identifiable and unmet need for the training course
as a condition of certifying the training course.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
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.
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity." (
Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In Response To February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
AB 546 (Gonzalez ) Page
5 of ?
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Legislation
According to the author:
According to the Chief Probation Officers of
California, probation departments across the state are
facing challenges meeting the PC 832 firearms and
arrest course requirement for their officers to become
fully sworn. Probation departments do all of their
mandated training to become an officer through the
Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC),
except for the PC 832 course-which is required to be
certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards
and Training (POST).
AB 546 (Gonzalez ) Page
6 of ?
A recent informal survey of 22 counties showed that
half of them have experienced difficulty in gaining
access to PC 832 training within the last year, with
seven of those counties having officers on formal
waitlists for courses. Locally, in some jurisdictions
the only choice is via the local junior college, which
may be structured differently and require a semester
long commitment usually held in the evening for four
hours a week. In certain regions, particularly smaller
counties, there are no local courses offered which
then require departments to send officers out of
county to the nearest training facility.
Despite the abovementioned training needs, additional
courses have not been considered for certification by
POST. To ensure we are meeting local and regional
demands, AB 546 would allow probation departments that
have met all other training and testing
specifications, and that are willing to pay for
putting on the course, the ability to be certified by
POST even if their internal view of "needs" is not
met. Operationally, this is what has been happening.
POST doesn't see a need for more courses yet probation
is asking to be certified and willing to do what is
necessary to start these trainings. Allowing probation
departments to get courses certified will give County
probation departments across the state the ability to
decide what best fits their training needs.
AB 546 will not impact other agencies such as police
and sheriffs with their trainings or course offerings.
2. Effect of Legislation
This legislation would allow a probation department to have an
introductory peace officer course certified by POST, without
having to show a need or justification for the course. The
Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC), who are the
sponsors of this legislation state:
Probation departments across the state are facing
significant access issues to attending this particular
PC 832 training. This is due to fewer courses being
AB 546 (Gonzalez ) Page
7 of ?
offered over the last few years, attendance slots can
be difficult to identify for non-POST agencies and
therefore not available when probation seeks
registration, and travel challenges in regions where
fewer courses are offered.
A recent informal survey of 22 counties showed that
half of the counties have experienced difficulty in
gaining access to PC 832 training within the last
year, with seven of those counties having officers on
formal waitlists for courses. 17 of the 22 respondents
have to send officers out of county at a cost of
$500-$1,700 per officer due to costs associated with
mileage, meals, lodging and tuition. The cost will
vary by the distance of travel required and length of
time. This is causing new hires to delay the start of
their service, in some cases for several months, and
is forcing numerous departments to send personnel out
of county which can be time-consuming and expensive.
CPOC has been in conversations with POST toward this
end and while we appreciate the efforts of the current
POST administration to address these concerns, it is
important that we address this legislatively to
mitigate this in future years and find lasting
resolution.
Despite the abovementioned training needs, additional
courses have not been certified at this time. This is
due in part to current POST regulatory requirements
that state that "only those courses for which there is
an identifiable and unmet need shall be certified."
POST determines needs based off of the number of
courses offered, available participant slots, and
vacancies, but it does not take into account the
unique issues that non-POST agencies like probation
face. Therefore, probation departments have a
difficult time fitting the POST regulatory definition
of the needs assessment for a variety of reasons. As
such, we are seeking to remove this requirement for
purposes of probation course certification without
removing the other training and course requirements so
that probation departments can offer the same level of
training more efficiently.
AB 546 (Gonzalez ) Page
8 of ?
According to information provided by POST, "prior to Riverside
County, Santa Clara County Probation Department was the only
probation department that sought course certification for the PC
832 course. Santa Clara was able to show a demonstrated need and
certification was granted in July 2006. The last two classes
Santa Clara held were in September 2014 and April 2015 with 10
and 16 attendees respectively. In 2013/2014 Riverside County
requested certification . . . but did not show a demonstrated
need. . ."
In determining an identifiable and unmet training need, POST
considers:
Is there a demonstrated ongoing unmet need expressed by
a survey of agencies, Training Needs Assessment, and a
commitment of trainees/students?
Are there existing courses available locally or that can
be imported into the area to meet this need?
Will this course adversely impact another similar course
locally or statewide (student distribution and/or fiscal
considerations)?
Is the course an expressed priority by legislation,
commission regulation or policy?
Is the course content an appropriate training subject
for POST certification?
Is there required POST standardized curriculum?
Is there a demonstrated ability of the presenter to
deliver the course?
Are there other factors and/or circumstances to be taken
into consideration?
With regard to Riverside, POST states, "[t]hey were denied
certification until recently when Chief Hake met with POST staff
and demonstrated the need for the course. Riverside has since
been approved for certification." POST is not aware of any
additional probation departments that have applied for
certification and have been denied.
SHOULD POST BE PROHIBITED FROM REQUIRING A PROBATION DEPARTMENT
TO DEMONSTRATE A NEED AND JUSTIFICATION IN ORDER TO HAVE A BASIC
TRAINING COURSE CERTIFIED?
AB 546 (Gonzalez ) Page
9 of ?
-- END -