BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 546|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 546
Author: Gonzalez (D)
Amended: 6/29/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/23/15
AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 4/23/15 (Consent) - See last page for
vote
SUBJECT: Peace officers: basic training requirements
SOURCE: Chief Probation Officers of California
DIGEST: This bill requires the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training (POST), when evaluating a certification
request from a probation department for a training course
described Penal Code Section 832, to deem there to be an
identifiable and unmet need for the training course.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)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
AB 546
Page 2
appropriate POST-developed or approved examination. (Penal
Code § 832(a).)
2)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).)
3)Requires, in Penal Code Section 832(e), any person completing
the introductory training course described above who does not
become employed as a peace officer within three years from the
date of passing the examination, or who has a three-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:
a) Is returning to a management position that is at the
second level of supervision or higher;
b) Has successfully requalified for a basic course through
the POST;
c) Has maintained proficiency through teaching the
introductory training course described above;
d) During the break in California service, was continuously
employed as a peace officer in another state or at the
federal level; or,
e) 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).)
4)Authorizes POST, notwithstanding any other law, to 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
AB 546
Page 3
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).)
5)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).)
6)States that 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 California Code of
Regulations 1051 (2015).)
7)States, in Section 1052 of Title 11 of the California Code of
Regulations, each instructor-led training (Web-based,
classroom, or other) course certification request shall be
evaluated in accordance with the following factors:
a) Need and Justification for Course
b) Course Content
c) Hours of Instruction
d) Qualification of Instructors, Coordinators, and/or
Academy Staff (Reference Regulations 1070 and 1071 for
minimum training standards)
e) Potential Clientele and Volume of Trainees
f) Physical Facilities Appropriate for the Training
g) Methods of Course Presentation
h) Availability of Staff to Administer the Course
i) Course Evaluation Processes
j) Cost of Course
AB 546
Page 4
aa) Instructor/Trainee Ratios
bb) Provisions for Student Safety
This bill requires POST, when evaluating a certification request
from a probation department for a training course described
Penal Code Section 832, to deem there to be an identifiable and
unmet need for the training course.
Background
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
[Penal Code] 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
AB 546
Page 5
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.
Comments
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).
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
AB 546
Page 6
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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified7/6/15)
Chief Probation Officers of California (source)
California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Los Angeles County Probation Officers
Riverside Sheriffs Association
OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/6/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:
The Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC), this bill's
sponsor, 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
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
AB 546
Page 7
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 4/23/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Chang, Chau,
Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly,
Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
AB 546
Page 8
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder,
Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Salas
Prepared by:Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /
7/7/15 17:20:18
**** END ****