BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 953 (Weber) - Law enforcement: racial profiling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: June 30, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 5 - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 953 would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling
Act of 2015, which would do the following:
Require each state and local agency that employs peace
officers to collect and annually report data to the Attorney
General (AG) on all "stops," as defined, for the preceding
calendar year.
Require any peace officer who has a complaint of racial or
identity profiling that is sustained to participate in
training to correct racial and identity profiling at least
every six months for two years.
Modify the definition of "racial profiling," as specified.
Commencing July 1, 2016, require the AG to establish the
Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA), to
conduct specified activities and issue a report annually on
its analysis of specified reported data, training, and racial
and identity profiling policies/practices.
Fiscal
AB 953 (Weber) Page 1 of
?
Impact:
Data collection, reporting, retention, and training : Major
one-time and ongoing costs, potentially in the tens of
millions of dollars annually to local law enforcement agencies
for data collection, reporting, and retention requirements
specified in the bill. Additional costs for training on the
process would likely be required. There are currently 482
cities and 58 counties in California. To the extent local
agency expenditures qualify as a reimbursable state mandate,
agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs (General
Fund). While costs could vary widely, for context, the
Commission on State Mandates' statewide cost estimate for
Crime Statistics Reports for the DOJ reflects eligible
reimbursement of over $13.6 million per year for slightly over
50 percent of local agencies reporting.
Racial profiling training : Unknown, potentially significant
state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) for mandated training
periodically over two years for peace officers with sustained
complaints of racial or identity profiling.
DOJ impact : Major one-time and ongoing costs of $2.6 million
in 2015-16, $5.9 million in 2016-17, and $5.1 million (General
Fund) annually thereafter, for resources to create the
database to collect and retain the data, complete data
collection, reporting, and analysis requirements. Minor,
absorbable impact to aggregate and post annual reports
received to its website.
RIPA : One-time costs of $1.7 million in 2015-16, and $3
million (General Fund) in 2016-17 and 2017-18 to establish and
oversee activities of the Board. Ongoing costs of $1.5 million
annually (General Fund) for activities including analyzing
data, issuing annual reports, reviewing policies and
procedures, and holding at least three annual public meetings.
CHP impact : Potentially significant one-time costs of about
$1 million (Motor Vehicle Account) to modify its existing
database, create the program to generate the report, and train
personnel. Ongoing increase in workload costs potentially in
the range of $250,000 to $500,000 (Motor Vehicle Account) for
data collection and reporting activities. Data for 2013-14
from the CHP indicates approximately 3.1 million enforcement
actions potentially subject to the data collection and
reporting provisions of this bill.
CSU/UC police impact : Potentially significant ongoing
non-reimbursable costs to California State University police
and University of California police officers - the CSM has
AB 953 (Weber) Page 2 of
?
determined CSU and UC use of campus police is a discretionary
act, and therefore any mandated costs are not subject to state
reimbursement.
Background: Existing law prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging
in racial profiling and provides that the course of basic
training for law enforcement officers must include adequate
instruction on racial and cultural diversity in order to foster
mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and
members of all racial and cultural groups. Existing law
additionally requires every officer to participate in expanded
training provided by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards
and Training that examines the patterns, practices, and
protocols that prevent racial profiling.
Under existing law, "racial profiling" is defined as the
practice of detaining a suspect based on a broad set of criteria
which casts suspicion on an entire class of people without any
individualized suspicion of the particular person being stopped.
(Penal Code § 13519.4.)
This bill seeks to facilitate the development of evidence-based
policing by establishing a system of collecting and reporting
information on law enforcement stops. As noted in the federal
Department of Justice publication, A Resource Guide on Racial
Profiling Data Collection Systems: Promising Practices and
Lessons Learned (2000), "
By providing information about the nature,
characteristics, and demographics of police
enforcement patterns, these data collection
efforts have the potential for shifting the
rhetoric surrounding racial profiling from
accusations, anecdotal stories, and stereotypes
to a more rational discussion about the
appropriate allocation of police resources.
Well-planned and comprehensive data collection
efforts can serve as a catalyst for nurturing and
shaping this type of community and police
discussion.
AB 953 (Weber) Page 3 of
?
Proposed Law:
This bill would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of
2015, as follows:
Requires, beginning March 1, 2018, each state and local
agency that employs peace officers to annually report to
the AG data on all "stops," as defined, conducted by that
agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year.
Requires the reporting to include the following
information for each stop:
o The time, date, and location of the stop.
o The reason for the stop.
o The result of the stop, such as no action,
warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest.
o If a warning or citation was issued, the
warning provided or violation cited.
o If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
o The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and
approximate age of the person stopped. The
identification of these characteristics shall be based
on the observation and perception of the peace officer
making the stop. For motor vehicle stops, this
requirement applies only to the driver unless actions
taken by the officer apply in relation to a passenger,
in which case his or her characteristics shall also be
reported.
o Actions taken by the officer during the stop,
including, but not limited to, the following:
§ Whether the officer asked for
consent to search the person, and if so, whether
consent was provided.
§ Whether the officer searched the
person or any property, and if so, the basis for
the search, and the type of contraband or
evidence discovered, if any.
§ Whether the officer seized any
property and, if so, the type of property that
was seized, and the basis for seizing the
property.
Provides that if more than one peace officer performs a
stop, only one officer is required to collect and report
the necessary information.
Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from
reporting the name, address, social security number, or
other unique personal identifying information of persons
AB 953 (Weber) Page 4 of
?
stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure.
States that, notwithstanding any other law, the data
reported shall be made available to the public to the
extent which release is permissible under state law, with
the exception of badge number, or other unique identifying
information of the officer involved.
Requires the AG, to issue regulations for the collection
and reporting of the required data by January 1, 2017.
States the AG should consult with specified stakeholders in
issuing the regulations.
Mandates that the regulations specify all data to be
reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical
specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices. To
the extent possible, the regulations should also be
compatible with any similar federal data collection or
reporting program.
Requires each state and local law enforcement agency to
publicly report the data on an annual basis beginning on
July 1, 2018. The report should be posted on the law
enforcement agency's website. In the event the agency does
not have a website, it is to be posted on the DOJ website.
Requires retention of the reported data for at least
five years.
Mandates that the AG annually analyze the data collected
and report its findings from the first analysis by January
1, 2019. Reports are to be posted on the DOJ website.
Specifies that all data and reports made under these
provisions are public records, as specified, and are open
to public inspection.
Limits the definition of a "peace officer" for purposes
of this section to "members of the California Highway
Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency and
California state or university educational institutions."
And, the definition explicitly states that peace officer,
as used in this section, does not include probation
officers and officers in a custodial setting.
Defines "stop" for purposes of this section, as "any
detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace
officer interaction with a person in which the peace
officer conducts a search, including a consensual search,
of the person's body or property in the person's possession
or control."
Revises and expands the content of the DOJ annual report
on criminal statistics to report the total number of each
AB 953 (Weber) Page 5 of
?
of the following citizen complaints, to be made available
to the public and disaggregated for each law enforcement
agency:
o Citizen complaints against law enforcement
personnel;
o Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct
of either a felony or misdemeanor;
o Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity
profiling, disaggregated by the specific type of
racial or identity profiling alleged.
Specifies that the statistics on citizen complaints must
identify their dispositions as being sustained, exonerated,
not sustained, or unfounded, as specified.
Renames "racial profiling" as "racial or identity
profiling" and redefines it as "consideration of or
reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race,
color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender
identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or
physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to
a stop or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law
enforcement activities following a stop, except that an
officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a
specific suspect description. The activities include, but
are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions
during a stop, such as, asking questions, frisks,
consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any
property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants
during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an
arrest."
Requires any peace officer who has a complaint of racial
or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in
training to correct racial and identity profiling at least
every six months for two years.
Mandates the AG establish the RIPA beginning July 1,
2016, to include the Attorney General or a designee, and 18
other members, as specified.
Tasks RIPA with the following:
o Analyzing data reported both under this Act
and other data, as specified;
o Analyzing law enforcement training on racial
and identity profiling;
o Working in partnership with state and local
AB 953 (Weber) Page 6 of
?
law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial
and identity profiling policies and practices;
o Issuing an annual report the first of which
shall be issued by January 1, 2018, and posting the
reports on its website; and,
o Holding at least three annual public meetings
to discuss racial and identity profiling and potential
reforms, as specified.
Prior Legislation: AB 2133 (Torrico) 2006 would have created a
state policy of prohibiting racial profiling and provided for
required information to be gathered and tracked regarding the
specifics of traffic stops. This bill was not provided a hearing
in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.
AB 788 (Firebaugh) 2001 would have required the CHP and
specified law enforcement agencies to report to the DOJ
statistical data regarding traffic stops until January 1, 2008.
This bill died on the Assembly Floor.
SB 1102 (Murray) Chapter 684/2000 states findings and
declarations of the Legislature regarding racial profiling and
requires law enforcement officers to participate in expanded
training as prescribed and certified by POST.
SB 78 (Murray) 1999 would have required the Commissioner of the
CHP to gather data on traffic stops conducted by the CHP and law
enforcement agencies of specified counties, and provide a report
to the Legislature and the Governor. This bill was vetoed by the
Governor.
AB 1264 (Murray) 1998 would have required the DOJ until January
1, 2003, in its annual report on criminal justice statistics to
include specified statistics regarding all motorists stopped by
law enforcement officers. This bill was vetoed by the Governor
whose message stated in part:
AB 953 (Weber) Page 7 of
?
This bill would require California law enforcement
officers to collect information, including race or
ethnicity and approximate age and gender, about all
motorists subject to traffic stops during a three year
reporting period. In addition, the DOJ would be
required to collect and report statistical reports in
its annual crime statistics report? Nonetheless, some
officers, like members of every profession, may fail to
fulfill their duties and indulge in biases. This bill
would seek to record such incidents over a period of
three years at a cost of tens of millions of dollars.
The bill, however, ensures that neither officers nor
motorists would be identified by name, only in the
aggregate. Accordingly, it would be impossible to take
meaningful corrective action.
This bill offers no certain or useful conclusion,
assuredly nothing that would justify the major
commitment of time, money, and manpower that this bill
requires. The investment contemplated by AB 1264 could
be more immediately and productively employed by
enhancing officer training, encouraging dialogue
between enforcement agencies and racially diverse
community groups, and taking forceful action against
those officers who abuse the privilege of serving all
of California's citizens.
Staff
Comments:
Data collection, reporting, retention, and training
This bill requires each state and local agency that employs
peace officers to make an annual report including specified data
on all "stops" conducted by that agency's peace officers to the
DOJ. The bill defines peace officers to include members of the
CHP, city or county law enforcement agencies, and the CSU and UC
who would be subject to the data collection, reporting, and
retention requirements of this bill. There are currently 482
cities and 58 counties in the State. While statewide costs
cannot be estimated with certainty, given the large number of
local agencies and the numerous types of data required to be
collected, reported, and retained, these activities could result
in major one-time and ongoing costs, potentially in the tens of
millions of dollars annually. To the extent local agency
AB 953 (Weber) Page 8 of
?
expenditures qualify as a reimbursable state mandate, agencies
could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). As an
example, the Commission on State Mandates' statewide cost
estimate for Crime Statistics Reports for the DOJ reflects
eligible reimbursement of over $13.6 million per year for
slightly over 50 percent of local agencies reporting.
The costs to individual agencies would vary widely and depend on
various factors, including but not limited to the size of the
agency, the volume of stops to be reported by the agency, the
method of collecting the data (which is not specified in the
bill), the workload involved to collect the data elements
required to be reported, the extent of training conducted by
each agency, and storage requirements for each agency (whether
electronic or paper). For example, while the workload involved
to report the number of stops for an agency that already has an
electronic data collection process in place may only require
revisions to its existing process and minor training to its
officers on the changes, the workload required for an agency
that has no existing process in place would not only potentially
incur the costs of development of a new system to collect and
report the information, the costs of which would be dependent on
how the agency decides to collect the data (whether manually or
electronically), but would also incur substantial costs to test
the system and train its officers. Whether through manual or
electronic collection, agencies at a minimum would likely
require the development of a central database and other system
enhancements to aggregate the data, report to the DOJ, and
retain the information for a minimum of five years as required
by the bill.
Mandated racial profiling training
This bill requires law enforcement officers who have a complaint
of racial or identity profiling that has been sustained to
participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling
at least every six months for two years. By mandating additional
training on local law enforcement agencies, this bill could
result in increased state-reimbursable costs to local agencies
to provide training to officers and backfill behind these
officers during the training period. Costs would be dependent on
the number of officers with sustained complaints, the cost of
the training course, and the frequency of the training attended
(whether every six months or more frequently).
AB 953 (Weber) Page 9 of
?
RIPA and mandated activities
The DOJ has indicated costs of $1.7 million in 2015-16, and $3
million in each of 2016-17 and 2017-18 to establish the
19-member RIPA and oversee/conduct its start-up activities.
Ongoing costs are estimated at $1.5 million for activities
including but not limited to analyzing data and statistics,
issuing annual reports, reviewing and analyzing racial profiling
policies and procedures, and holding at least three annual
public meetings, which would include costs for travel and
overtime.
Amendments for consideration: To reduce the potential costs of
this measure, the author may wish to consider reducing the scope
of the bill to a pilot program narrowed to specified counties or
agencies and/or include a sunset date for the bill's provisions.
Narrowing the collection of data to vehicle stops would also
reduce the potential costs of this bill.
Alternatively, revising the structure of the bill's language to
require the DOJ to include data on stops in its annual report
reflecting information from law enforcement agencies reporting
this information would potentially remove the mandate on local
law enforcement agencies, however, data received would be
limited to those agencies voluntarily collecting and reporting
this information and would preclude uniformity and the ability
to analyze data on a statewide basis.
Additional amendments that could reduce the potential costs of
the bill include 1) eliminating the mandated five-year data
retention period, 2) eliminating the mandated training provision
on specified peace officers, and 3) limiting the analysis of the
stop data to either the AG or the RIPA, instead of requiring
this analysis and separate annual reports by both entities.
-- END --
AB 953 (Weber) Page 10 of
?