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