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