BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 237 Hearing Date: March 24, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Anderson |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 17, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Animal Control Officers
HISTORY
Source: Roy Curtis Marcum Foundation and Humane Society of the
United States
Prior Legislation:SB 1278 (Leno) - 2014, held in Senate
Appropriations
SB l655 (Presley) - Ch. 82, Stats. 1990
AB 2209 (Vicencia) - Ch. 1575, Stats. 1985
Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; LIUNA
Locals 777 and 792
Opposition:None known
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to expand current training
requirements for animal control personnel by requiring: (1) all
animal control officers to complete a course in the exercise of
powers of arrest and to serve warrants, as specified; (2) each
person appointed as a director, manager, supervisor, or any
SB 237 (Anderson ) Page
2 of ?
person in control of an animal control agency on or after July
1, 2016 complete a course in the exercise of powers of arrest
and to serve warrants within one year of appointment; and, (3)
all animal control officers have 40 hours of continuing training
every three years, as specified.
Existing law provides that animal control officers are not peace
officers but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace
officer, as specified, and the power to serve warrants, as
specified, during the course and within the scope of their
employment, if those officers successfully complete a course in
the exercise of those powers pursuant to Section 832. That part
of the training course specified in Section 832 pertaining to
the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required for any
animal control officer whose employing agency prohibits the use
of firearms. (Penal Code § 830.9.)
Existing law further provides:
An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a
case and in the manner authorized by law and that an
arrest may be made by a peace officer or a private
person. (Penal Code § 834.)
An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the
person, or by submission to the custody of an officer.
The person arrested may be subjected to such
restraint as is reasonable for his or her arrest and
detention. (Penal Code § 835.)
A private person may arrest another person for a
public offense committed or attempted in his or her
presence, when the person arrested has committed a
felony regardless of whether it was committed in his
or her presence, and when a felony has been committed
and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the
person to be arrested has committed it. (Penal Code §
837.)
With limited exceptions, a peace officer may arrest
a person when the officer has reasonable cause to
believe the person to be arrested has committed a
SB 237 (Anderson ) Page
3 of ?
public offense in the officer's presence, when the
person arrested has committed a felony regardless of
whether it was committed in the officer's presence,
and when the officer has reasonable cause to believe
the person to be arrested has committed a felony.
(Penal Code § 836.)
Existing law requires peace officers, and specified other public
officers "not a peace officer," to complete training prescribed
by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)
and to pass an appropriate POST examination. (Penal Code §
832.)
Existing law requires that fees for the issuance of dog license
tags and fines collected for a violation of the provisions
regulating and licensing dogs be paid into the county, city or
city and county treasury and that they be used for specified
purposes, including to pay costs and expenses related to: (1)
the issuance of dog license tags, (2) to pay fees, salaries,
costs, expenses, or any or all of them for the enforcement of
the dog licensing provisions, (3) to pay damages to owners of
livestock which are killed by dogs, and (4) to pays costs of any
hospitalization or emergency care of an abandoned and neglected
animals. (Food and Agriculture Code § 30652.)
This bill would require all animal control officers to complete
a course in the exercise of powers of arrest and to serve
warrants, administered by POST. Specially, the bill would
require every person appointed as an animal control officer
prior to July 1, 2016, to complete a course in the exercise of
the powers of arrest and to serve warrants no later than July 2,
2017. And, every Animal Control Officer, appointed after July
1, 2016, to complete the course within one year of beginning
employment.
This bill would require each person appointed as a director,
manager, supervisor, or any person in control of an animal
control agency on or after July 1, 2016 complete a course in the
exercise of powers of arrest and to serve warrants, administered
by POST, within one year of appointment, as specified.
This bill would require that during each three-year period
SB 237 (Anderson ) Page
4 of ?
following the date of appointment as an animal control officer,
every animal control officer shall satisfactorily complete at
least 40 hours of continuing education and training relating to
the powers and duties of an animal control officer as determined
by the California Animal Control Directors Association.
This bill would expand the list of purposes for which dog
license fees can be used to include paying for initial and
in-service training for persons charged with enforcement animal
control laws, including animal control officers.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In its most recent status report to the court (February 2015),
the administration reported that as "of February 11, 2015,
112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which
amounts to 136.6% of design bed capacity, and 8,828 inmates were
housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design
bed capacity."( Defendants' February 2015 Status Report In
Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC,
SB 237 (Anderson ) Page
5 of ?
3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
The author states:
Animal control officers (ACOs) enforce state and
local laws pertaining to animal care and control as
well as public safety. ACOs are not peace
officers, but they may exercise the same powers of
SB 237 (Anderson ) Page
6 of ?
arrest and serving warrants within the scope of
their duties. They can investigate felony crimes
and make felony arrests, ACOs also routinely enter
private property to seize animals when there is
evidence of animal cruelty, neglect or the need for
quarantine. This is often done over the angry and
sometimes violent objections of owners that put
ACOs in dangerous situations.
Humane officers, who work on behalf of non-profit
humane societies issuing citations for violations,
have clear and strict training requirements.
Humane officers are required to complete basic
training and must complete 40 hours of continuing
education every three years. Despite ACOs having
greater authority to enforce animal welfare and
other laws, humane officers are subject to stricter
and more standardized training than ACOs.
2. Effect of This Legislation
The impetus behind this legislation is the 2012 death of Animal
Control Officer Roy Marcum. In November 2012:
An unarmed animal control officer was shot and killed
in Sacramento County . . . while trying to retrieve
pets from a home whose owner was evicted the previous
day.
The officer had gone to the home to rescue dogs and
cats authorities thought had been left behind, a day
after Joseph Francis Corey was served an eviction
notice and a sheriff's deputy changed the locks.
The officer - Roy Curtis Marcum, 45, of Elk Grove -
and a bank employee knocked on the door when Corey
SB 237 (Anderson ) Page
7 of ?
fired a shotgun through the door, striking the officer
in the torso, Sacramento County Sheriff's Sgt. Jason
Ramos said.
(Calif. animal control officer killed in eviction, The
Daily Republic, November 30, 2012.)
According to the Humane Society and the Roy Curtis Marcum
Foundation, who are co-sponsoring this legislation:
Despite the duties of enforcing state and local laws,
including felonies, there is no standardized training
or in-service training for ACOs. In fact, humane
officers and security guards have stricter training
requirements than ACOs. The lack of officer training
can contribute to tragic results. In 2012, Sacramento
County Animal Care and Regulation Officer Roy C.
Marcum was fatally shot through the front door by an
irate animal owner. Despite Officer Marcum's years of
experience, he lacked the necessary and ongoing
training to safely address the hazards he faced.
Given this, the legislation seeks to not only standardize
training on the powers of arrest and serving warrants, but also
requires continuing education and training.
3.Argument in Support
LIUNA Locals 777 and 792, representing animal control officers,
state:
SB 237 seeks to institute standardized training for
animal control officers in order to provide better
officer safety, to protect the rights of animal owners
and to ensure animal welfare. The bill brings animal
control officers on par to similar training standards
required of humane officers.
Animal control officers (ACOs) enforce state and local
law pertaining to animal control and care as well as
public safety. ACOs are not peace officers, but they
may exercise the same powers of arrest and serving
SB 237 (Anderson ) Page
8 of ?
warrants within the scope of their duties. The can
investigate felony crimes and make felony arrests
pertaining to state animal welfare laws. ACOs also
routinely enter private property to seize animals when
there is evidence of animal cruelty, neglect or need
for quarantine. This is often done over the angry and
sometimes violent objections of the owners that put
ACOs in dangerous situations.
Despite the duties of enforcing felony animal welfare
laws, there is not standardized training for ACOs in
the powers of arrest and serving warrants. In fact,
security guards have stricter training requirements in
these powers than ACOs do. All ACOs should have basic
training in approaching potentially dangerous
situations, be better prepared to address combatant
animal owners and know the boundaries of their duties.
-- END --