BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2361
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
AB
2361 (Santiago) - As Introduced February 18, 2016
As Proposed to be Amended in Committee
SUMMARY: Authorizes security guards employed by the University
of Southern California (USC) to be appointed as peace officers
while enforcing the law on the USC campus and surrounding
university property. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that a security guard employed by the Board of
Trustees of the University of Southern California may be a
peace officer, when appointed and sworn by the Board of
Trustees if the primary duty of the peace officer is enforcing
the law on the campus of the University of Southern
California, and an area within one mile of the exterior
boundaries of the campus, or in and about other grounds or
properties, owned, operated, controlled, or administered by
the Board of Trustees of the University of Southern
California, and the University has a memorandum of
understanding with the Los Angeles Police Department or the
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department that permits the
exercise of the above peace officer authority.
2)States that before exercising the powers of a peace officer
appointed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall successfully
complete a course of training prescribed by the Commission on
AB 2361
Page 2
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
3)Provides that notwithstanding any other law, the appointment
as a USC peace officer shall serve only to define those
persons as peace officers, the extent of their jurisdiction
and the nature and scope of their authority, powers and
duties, and their status shall not change for purposes of
retirement, worker's compensation, or similar injury or death
benefits, or other employee benefits.
4)A person appointed as a USC peace officer shall not be
reimbursed with state funds for any training he or she
receives.
5)A person appointed as a USC peace officer pursuant to
subdivision (a) may carry a firearm in the course of his or
her duties only if authorized and under the terms and
conditions of his or her employing agency.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires that any person or persons desiring peace officer
status under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of
Title 3 of Part 2 who, on January 1, 1990, were not entitled
to be designated as peace officers under that chapter shall
request the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and
Training (POST) to undertake a feasibility study regarding
designating that person or persons as peace officers. The
request and study shall be undertaken in accordance with
regulations adopted by POST. POST may charge any person, with
specified exceptions, requesting a study, a fee, not to exceed
the actual cost of undertaking the study. (Pen. Code, §
13540, subd. (a).)
2)Provides that any study undertaken under this article shall
include, but shall not be limited to, the current and proposed
duties and responsibilities of persons employed in the
category seeking the designation change, their field law
enforcement duties and responsibilities, their supervisory and
management structure, their proposed training methods and
funding sources and the extent to which their current duties
and responsibilities require additional peace officer powers
AB 2361
Page 3
and authority. (Pen. Code, § 13540, subd. (b).)
3)Defines "independent institutions of higher education" as
those nonpublic higher education institutions that grant under
graduate degrees, graduate degrees, or both, and are formed as
nonprofit corporations in this state and are accredited by an
agency recognized by the United States Department of Education
(USDOE). (Ed. Code § 66010, subd. (b).)
4)Provides that every peace officer shall satisfactorily
complete an introductory course of training prescribed by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and
that after July 1, 1989 satisfactory completion of the course
shall be demonstrated by passage of an appropriate examination
developed or approved by POST. (Pen. Code. § 832, subd. (a).)
5)Provides that prior to the exercise of peace officer powers,
every peace officer shall have satisfactorily completed the
POST course. (Pen. Code, § 832, subd. (b).)
6)Provides that a person shall not have the powers of a peace
officer until he or she has satisfactorily completed the POST
course. (Pen. Code, § 832, subd. (c).)
7)Provides that the following are peace offices, who may carry
firearms only if authorized and under terms and conditions
specified by their employing agency, whose authority extends
to any place in California for the purpose of performing their
primary duty, or when making an arrest for a public offense
where there is immediate danger to a person or property or to
prevent the perpetrator's escape, as specified, or during a
state of emergency, as specified:
a) Members of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District Police Department if their primary duty is
enforcement of the law in or about property owned, operated
or administered by the district or when performing a
necessary duty with respect to patrons, employees and
properties of the district.
b) Harbor or port police if their primary duty is
AB 2361
Page 4
enforcement of law in or about property owned, operated or
administered by harbor or port or when performing a
necessary duty with respect to patrons, employees and
properties of the harbor or port.
c) Transit police officers or peace offices of a county,
city, transit development board or district if the primary
duty is the enforcement of the law in or abut property
owned, operated or administered by the employing agency or
when performing a necessary duty with respect to patrons,
employees and properties of the employing agency.
d) Persons employed as airport law enforcement officers by
a city, county or district operating the airport or a joint
powers agency operating the airport if their primary duty
is the enforcement of the law in or about property owned,
operated and administered by the employing agency or when
performing a necessary duty with respect to patrons,
employees and properties of the employing agency.
e) Railroad police officers commissioned by the Governor if
their primary duty is the enforcement of the law in or
about property owned, operated or administered by the
employing agency or when performing necessary duties with
respect to patrons, employees and properties of the
employing agency. (Penal Code Section 830.33.)
8)Provides that numerous types of publicly employed security
officers are granted the powers of arrest of a peace officer
although they are not peace officers. These persons may
exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer, as
specified, during the course and within the scope of their
employment if they successfully complete a course in the
exercise of those powers, as specified, which has been
certified by POST. Persons currently granted such powers are:
a) Persons designated by a cemetery authority, as
specified;
b) Persons regularly employed as security officers for
independent institutions of higher education, as specified,
if the institution has concluded a MOU permitting the
AB 2361
Page 5
exercise of that authority with the sheriff or the chief of
police within whose jurisdiction the institution lies;
c) Persons regularly employed as security officers for
health facilities, as specified, that are owned and
operated by cities, counties, and cities and counties if
the facility has concluded a MOU permitting the exercise of
that authority with the sheriff or the chief of police
within whose jurisdiction the facility lies;
d) Employees or classes of employees of the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP)
designated by the CDFFP Director, provided that the primary
duty of the employee shall be the enforcement of the law,
as specified;
e) Persons regularly employed as inspectors, supervisors,
or security officers for transit districts, as specified,
if the district has concluded a MOU permitting the exercise
of that authority with, as applicable, the sheriff, the
chief of police, or the Department of the California
Highway Patrol within whose jurisdiction the district lies;
f) Non-peace officers regularly employed as county parole
officers, as specified;
g) Persons appointed by the Executive Director of the
California Science Center, as specified; and,
h) Persons regularly employed as investigators, as
specified, by the Department of Transportation for the City
of Los Angeles and designated by local ordinance as public
officers to the extent necessary to enforce laws related to
public transportation and authorized by a MOU with the
chief of police permitting the exercise of that authority.
(Pen. Code, § 830.7.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
AB 2361
Page 6
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "AB 2361
authorizes security guards employed by USC to be appointed as
peace officer when enforcing the law on the USC campus,
provided (1) the institution has a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with local law enforcement that permits this action and
(2) the individual has completed the regular basic course as
prescribed by POST. This measure will improve campus safety by
affording independent college public safety departments the
same status given to public university public safety
departments, all while ensuring these departments remain under
the control of local law enforcement."
2)POST Feasibility Study: In 1989, SB 353 (Presley), Chapter
1165, Statutes of 1989, was introduced as a result of interim
hearings of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Corrections
and Law Enforcement Agencies. SB 353 regrouped peace officer
categories according to the nature of their jurisdiction
rather than the scope of their authority. SB 353 also
required a POST review of all classification requests prior to
legislative consideration of granting peace officer status in
the future or where there is a request to change peace officer
designation or status.
Pursuant to SB 353, Penal Code Section 13540 provides that POST
may charge a fee to the person or entity requesting a
feasibility study. The study must be completed within 18
months and include a review of the proposed duties and
responsibilities of the person employed in the category
seeking peace officer designation. (Penal Code Sections 13541
and 13542.)
It is a general rule that one legislative body cannot limit or
restrict the power of subsequent Legislatures, and the act of
one Legislature does not bind its successors (see In re Collie
(1952) 38 Cal.2d 396, 398). Thus a statute purporting to
condition future legislative action on compliance with
conditions in that statute may be superseded by subsequent
contrary legislative action.
3)Argument in Support: According to the University of Southern
AB 2361
Page 7
California, "In California, unlike their counterparts at
public institutions, security officers at public institutions,
security officers at private institutions are not classified
as peace officers, limiting their ability to protect their
campus community. Campus administrators need to be able to
provide assurance to their communities that campus safety
officials will not only take proactive measures to prevent
campus violence, but will also effectively respond to any acts
of violence and thereby minimize harm to the communities.
Campus violence, in particular campus shooting incidents, has
been occurring with increasing frequency. In addition, many
universities are major centers of research and would also be
considered attractive targets for acts of terrorism."
4)Argument in Opposition: According to the American Civil
Liberties Union, "Penal Code section 13540 requires that "Any
person or persons desiring peace officer status?shall request
the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to
undertake a feasibility study regarding designating that
person or persons as peace officers." By failing to require
such a study, this bill would violate Penal Code section
13540. The requirements of Penal Code section 13540 were
enacted precisely because so many groups would like peace
officers authority extended to them. This reflected in the
Legislature's understanding that it is frequently approached
with such requests but the decision is too important to be
dealt with in the absence of an objective evaluation of the
need.
"Additionally, this bill would grant the powers reserved for
peace officers in making arrests and in the use of force
without any of the accountability that accompanies these
awesome powers. The power given to police officers should
never be divorced from the democratic institutions that confer
that power and regulate its use. Despite their status as peace
officers, these private employees would not be accountable to
the public in any way.
"At a time when communities throughout the country are striving
for greater accountability for their public police agencies,
AB 2361
Page 8
the Legislature should not be conferring police powers on
private parties with no public accountability whatsoever."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
University of Southern California
University of California, Los Angeles
Claremont College Campus Safety Department
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Narcotics Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union
California Public Defenders Association
Analysis Prepared
by: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744