BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 651 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jimmy Gomez, Chair AB 651 (Cooper) - As Amended April 9, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill allows a peace officer or firefighter to have a representative present when questioned by his or her employer regarding the investigation of another peace officer or firefighter, if that interview may result in punitive action AB 651 Page 2 against the officer who is not formally under investigation, when representation is mutually agreed upon, as specified. FISCAL EFFECT: The state has deferred over $65 million in Peace Officer Bill of Rights (POBOR) mandate costs alone over the past seven years, with almost $7 million last fiscal year, but it does not include anything for the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights (FBOR). Assuming the clarification results in a two percent increase in costs, the costs to local agencies would be about $140,000. However, since AB 651 allows for representation when it has been mutually agreed, this would not be a reimbursable state mandated cost. COMMENTS: 1)Background. Current law establishes: 1) FBOR, which provides procedural guarantees to firefighters, who include, but are not limited to, any firefighter who is a paramedic or emergency medical technician, under investigation, and 2) POBOR, which provides procedural guarantees to public safety officers, as defined, under investigation. 2)Purpose. According to the author, "AB 651 seeks to clarify the permissibility of agencies to witnesses being interrogated in internal affairs investigations. It also seeks to clarify that the right of witness representation can also be mutually agreed upon by a city or county and a recognized employee bargaining unit." 3)Argument in Support: The Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs' Association states, "The right to representation is a foundational right in POBOR and FPBOR. In many departments, peace officers and firefighters are routinely allowed AB 651 Page 3 representation when being questioned as a witness under the existing provisions of POBOR and FPBOR. "Unfortunately, some departments have recently interpreted Government Code Sections 3253 and 3303 in a manner to deny peace officer and firefighter representation requests. This new interpretation has not only led to reduced rights, but has also created unnecessary and costly litigation." 4)Argument in Opposition: The California State Sheriffs' Association argues, "The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights balances the public interest in maintaining the efficiency and integrity of a law enforcement agency with a peace officer's interest in receiving fair treatment. As such, it requires certain protections when an officer faces a formal investigation into matters that are likely to result in punitive action by an employer." "This measure is similar to last year's Senate Bill 388 (Lieu), which was vetoed by the Governor. We appreciate the fact that this bill permits rather than mandates representation for "witness officers." However, we must remain opposed. Although permissive, we believe this measure will ultimately interfere with a law enforcement agency's ability to discipline officers for engaging in job-related misconduct. Discouraging officers from cooperating in investigations by encouraging representation during any questioning that may involve officer discipline will chill investigations and result in the retention of officers that have engaged in noncriminal misconduct." 5)Related Legislation: SB 388 (Lieu) of the 2013-14 Legislative AB 651 Page 4 Session was similar to this bill, but gave the officer being interviewed the right to representation. SB 388 was vetoed with Governor stating, "This bill would allow peace officers and firefighters who have witnessed an alleged misconduct incident to have a representative present during questioning if there is a chance the witness could be the subject of punitive action. "The need for this bill is unclear. Under current law, as soon as an employer learns during an interview that the witness is subject to punitive action, questioning must stop until a representative is provided if requested by the employee. If this doesn't happen any information obtained can be excluded at trial." Analysis Prepared by:Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081