BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 953|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 953
Author: Weber (D), et al.
Amended: 8/31/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 7/7/15
AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 45-27, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Law enforcement: racial profiling
SOURCE: American Civil Liberties Union of California
Asian Americans Advancing Justice Sacramento
California State Conference of the NAACP
Dignity & Power Now
PICO California
Reform California
Youth Justice Coalition
DIGEST: This bill 1) modifies the definition of "racial
profiling;" 2) requires local law enforcement agencies to report
specified information on stops to the Attorney General's office;
and, 3) establishes the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory
Board (RIPA).
AB 953
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial
profiling. (Penal Code § 13519.4(f).)
2) Defines "racial profiling," 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(e).)
3) Requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to present to the
Governor, on or before July 1st, an annual report containing
the criminal statistics of the preceding calendar year.
(Penal Code § 13010(g).)
4) Mandates that the annual report contain specified
information (Penal Code § 13012.)
5) Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report
statistical data to the DOJ at those times and in the manner
that the Attorney General prescribes. (Penal Code § 13020.)
This bill:
1) Requires each state and local agency that employs peace
officers to report, at least annually, to the Attorney
General's office data on stops, as specified, conducted by
that agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year.
2) Phases-in the mandated data reporting requirement on law
enforcement agencies, as follows:
a) Each agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers
shall issue its first round of reports on or before April
1, 2019.
b) Each agency that employs 667 or more but less than
1,000 peace officers shall issue its first round of
reports on or before April 1, 2020.
AB 953
Page 3
c) Each agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667
peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on
or before April 1, 2022.
d) Each agency that employs one or more but less than 334
peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on
or before April 1, 2023.
1) Requires the reporting to include the following information
for each stop:
a) The reason for the stop;
b) The result of the stop, such as no action, warning,
citation, property seizure, or arrest;
c) If a warning or citation was issued, the warning
provided or violation cited;
d) If an arrest was made, the offense charged;
e) 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
auto 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; and
f) Actions taken by the officer during the stop,
including, but not limited to, the following:
i) Whether the officer asked for consent to search
the person, and if so, whether consent was provided;
ii) 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; and,
iii) Whether the officer seized any property and, if
so, the type of property that was seized, and the basis
for seizing the property.
AB 953
Page 4
1) Requires the Attorney General, to issue regulations for the
collection and reporting, as specified.
2) Mandates that the Attorney General annually analyze the data
collected and report its findings, as specified. Reports are
to be posted on the DOJ Web site.
3) Revises the content of the DOJ annual report on criminal
statistics to report the total number of citizen complaints,
as specified.
4) 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."
5) Mandates the Attorney General establish RIPA beginning July
1, 2016, for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity
profiling, and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in
law enforcement.
6) Provides that RIPA shall include a number of members, a
specified.
7) Tasks RIPA with the following:
a) Analyzing data reported, as specified;
b) Analyzing law enforcement training on racial and
identity profiling;
c) Working in partnership with state and local law
enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and
AB 953
Page 5
identity profiling policies and practices across
geographic areas in California;
d) Conducting, and consulting available, evidenced-based
research on intentional and implicit biases, and law
enforcement stop, search, and seizure tactics;
e) Issuing an annual report the first of which shall be
issued by January 1, 2018, and posting the reports on its
Internet Web site; and,
f) Holding at least three annual public meetings to
discuss racial and identity profiling and potential
reforms, as specified.
Comments
Although racial profiling is prohibited, studies show that
racial profiling by law enforcement does occur. For example,
according to a report by the Oakland Police Department,
African-Americans, who compose 28 percent of Oakland's
population, accounted for 62 percent of police stops from last
April to November. The figures also showed that stops of
African-Americans were more likely to result in felony arrests.
And, while African-Americans were more likely to be searched
after being stopped, police were no more likely to find
contraband from searching African-Americans than members of
other racial groups.
(http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25410009/report-black
s-comprise-62-percent-oakland-police-stops.)
NOTE: See Senate Public Safety Committee analysis for a
complete discussion of this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Data collection, reporting, retention, and training: Major
future one-time and ongoing costs, potentially in the millions
to tens of millions of dollars annually, once fully phased in,
to local law enforcement agencies for data collection,
reporting, and retention requirements specified in this bill.
AB 953
Page 6
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.
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 and reporting 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
determined CSU and UC use of campus police is a discretionary
act, and therefore any mandated costs are not subject to state
reimbursement.
SUPPORT: (Verified8/28/15)
AB 953
Page 7
American Civil Liberties Union of California (co-source)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Sacramento (co-source)
California State Conference of the NAACP (co-source)
Dignity & Power Now (co-source)
PICO California (co-source)
Reform California (co-source)
Youth Justice Coalition(co-source)
A New Path
Advancement Project
Advancing Justice
AIDS Project Los Angeles
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
API Equality-LA
Asian Law Alliance
Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
Bay Area Youth Summit
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
Brown Boi Project
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Black Health Network
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Nurses Association
California Partnership
California State Council of Service Employees International
Children's Defense Fund-California
City of West Hollywood
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Community Coalition
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Courage Campaign
Dignity & Power Now
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
Equal Justice Society
FACTS Education Fund and Faire Chance Project
Friends Committee of Legislation of California
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Immigrant Youth Coalition
Interfaith Center for Worker Justice
Islamic Shura Council
Japanese American Citizens League
AB 953
Page 8
Justice for Immigrants Coalition of Inland Southern California
LA Progressive
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay
Area
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Black Worker Center
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Project
Los Angeles Urban League
Lutheran Office of Public Policy
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Lawyers Guild
PACT: People Acting in Community Together
PolicyLink
Priority Africa Network
Progressive Christians Uniting
San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium
San Diego LGBT Community Center
San Francisco Public Defender
South Asian Network
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
The Greenlining Institute
The K.W. Lee Center for Leadership
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/28/15)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
California State Sheriffs' Association
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Advancement Project:
AB 953
Page 9
People throughout California have long been plagued by
the humiliating and frightening act of racial and
identity profiling. In 2000, for example, the Legislature
found that "racial profiling is a practice that presents
a great danger to the fundamental principles of a
democratic society," and declared that "it is abhorrent
and cannot be tolerated." [Footnote omitted.]
Subsequently, the Legislative Analyst's Office concluded
that California's current prohibition against such acts
is over-vague and that law enforcement agencies have
resisted following it. [Footnote omitted.]
As one of numerous examples, a 2015 report by a police
department in California found that blacks were stopped
twice as often as their driving age demographic
representation, and that blacks and Latinos were
respectively searched at three and two times the rate of
whites. To add, those searches showed that blacks and
Latinos were less likely to be arrested. [Footnote
omitted.]
The persistence of profiling in our state violates the
U.S. and California Constitutions by betraying the
fundamental promise of equal protection, and infringing
upon the guarantee that all people shall be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures. It also misdirects
limited resources away from evidenced-based policing and
the efficient pursuit of individuals who actually pose a
threat to public safety, thus making all Californians
less safe.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California State
Sheriffs' Association:
AB 953 significantly expands the definition of racial
profiling such that it prevents an officer from relying
on identifying characteristics in any way in terms of
deciding how to conduct police work. Specifically, by
prohibiting an officer from considering or relying on, to
any degree, a person's 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
AB 953
Page 10
to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of
law enforcement activities following a stop, this bill
would prevent an officer from using the fact that a
person appears to be a Caucasian female in deciding how
to respond to a "be on the lookout" order that indicates
that a white woman is suspected to have committed a
crime. If such a person were stopped because of a
traffic violation, the perceived race and gender
characteristics could not be considered in deciding
whether to escalate enforcement activities.
Additionally, AB 953 would require every law enforcement
agency to annually report to the Attorney General (AG)
data on all stops. Some of the data points that must be
collected at every stop include: the reason for, and
result of, the stop; if an arrest was made, the offense
charged; whether the subject was searched; and the
perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age
of the person stopped, provided that the identification
of these characteristics shall be based on the
observation and perception of the peace officer making
the stop, and the information shall not be requested
from the person stopped. In essence, and
counterintuitively, the bill seeks to combat racial
profiling by requiring peace officers to pay very close
attention to the race of the people with whom they
interact.
Respectfully, AB 953 will hamstring peace officers and
prevent them from doing their jobs effectively. The bill
is overly broad and will result in negative impacts on
public safety and local budgets. For these reasons, CSSA
must oppose AB 953.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 45-27, 6/3/15
AYES: Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chiu, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman,
Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer,
Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Perea,
Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone,
Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang,
AB 953
Page 11
Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto, Grove, Harper,
Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez,
Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu, Cooper, Hadley, Irwin, Maienschein,
O'Donnell, Rodriguez, Wood
Prepared by:Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /
8/30/15 19:42:25
**** END ****