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  ****