BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 872 Hearing Date: April 5, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Hall |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |January 14, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:| JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Local Law Enforcement: Supplemental Services
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles County Sheriff
Prior Legislation:AB 2164 (La Suer) Chapter 87, Statutes of
2006.
SB 1313 (Margett) Chapter 224, Statutes of 2002
SB 1024 (Johnston) no vote taken, Assembly Local
Government (1995)
AB 2482 (Young) Chapter 953, Statutes of
1982
Support: California Police Chiefs Association; California State
Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:Association of Independent California Colleges and
Universities;
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to allow the board of supervisors of
any county to contract on behalf of the sheriff of that county,
and the legislative body of any city to contract on behalf of the
chief of police of that city, to provide supplemental law
enforcement services to private schools, private colleges, and
SB 872 (Hall )
Page 2 of ?
private universities on an occasional or ongoing basis.
Under existing law the board of supervisors of any county may
contract on behalf of the sheriff of that county, and the
legislative body of any city may contract on behalf of the chief
of police of that city, to provide supplemental law enforcement
services to:
Private individuals or private entities to preserve the
peace at special events or occurrences that happen on an
occasional basis.
Private nonprofit corporations that are recipients of
federal, state, county, or local government low-income
housing funds or grants to preserve the peace on an ongoing
basis.
Private entities at critical facilities on an occasional
or ongoing basis. A "critical facility" means any building,
structure, or complex that in the event of a disaster,
whether natural or manmade, poses a threat to public safety,
including, but not limited to, airports, oil refineries, and
nuclear and conventional fuel powerplants.
(Government Code § 53069.8(a).)
Under existing law contracts entered into must provide for full
reimbursement to the county or city of the actual costs of
providing those services, as determined by the county auditor or
auditor-controller, or by the city, as the case may be.
(Government Code § 53069.8(b).)
Existing law requires that the services provided pursuant
to any such contract be rendered by regularly appointed full-time
peace officers, as defined in Section 830.1 of the Penal Code.
Services provided in connection with special events or
occurrences, as specified, may be rendered by Level I reserve
peace officers, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of
Section 830.6 of the Penal Code, who are authorized to exercise
the powers of a peace officer, as defined in Section 830.1 of the
Penal Code, if there are no regularly appointed full-time peace
officers available to fill the positions as required in the
contract. (Government Code § 53069.8(c).)
SB 872 (Hall )
Page 3 of ?
Existing law requires that peace officer rates of pay be governed
by a memorandum of understanding. (Government Code §
53069.8(d).)
Existing law requires that any such contract encompass only law
enforcement duties and not services authorized to be provided by
a private patrol operator, as defined. (Government § Code
53069.8(e).)
Existing law requires that contracts for law enforcement
services, as authorized by this section, not reduce the normal
and regular ongoing service that the county, agency of the
county, or city otherwise would provide. (Government Code §
53069.8(f).)
Existing law provides that prior to contracting for ongoing
services the board of supervisors or legislative body, as
applicable, must discuss the contract and the requirements of
this section at a duly noticed public hearing. (Government Code
§ 53069.8(g).)
This bill would allow the board of supervisors of any county to
contract on behalf of the sheriff of that county, and the
legislative body of any city to contract on behalf of the chief
of police of that city, to provide supplemental law enforcement
services to private schools, private colleges, and private
universities on an occasional or ongoing basis.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several 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:
SB 872 (Hall )
Page 4 of ?
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 December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February 2015."
(Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One year ago, 115,826
inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult institutions, which
amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity, and 8,864 inmates were
housed in out-of-state facilities. (Defendants' December 2014
Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order,
2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata
v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state 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
SB 872 (Hall )
Page 5 of ?
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1.Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Schools, colleges and universities throughout the United
States have seen a tragic increase in acts of violence and
domestic terrorism on campus. In 2015 alone, there were 23
shootings on college campuses across the country that caused
the deaths of seventeen people and injured another 27.
In response to these tragic events, some individuals have
irresponsibly suggested that schools should arm faculty or
administrative staff with guns as a line of defense on
campus. Going even further, there has been a suggestion that
students on college campuses should be allowed to openly
carry loaded weapons. Such reckless decisions fly in the
face of the intent of California's Gun Free School Zones and
would only make school campuses less safe by increasing the
number of firearms in the hands of untrained and unprepared
individuals.
SB 872 would authorize a local law enforcement agency to
enter into contracts with private schools, colleges, and
universities to provide law enforcement services.
Just as local law enforcement can currently contract with
public school districts, colleges, and universities to
provide on campus security services, SB 872 will allow a
private school, college, or university to also benefit from
the professionalism and skill offered by trained law
enforcement officers, should they desire.
SB 872 ensures those trained law enforcement officers, not
untrained civilians, are able to promptly address an act of
violence or domestic terrorism on a school campus and is a
responsible step to keep students, faculty, staff and the
SB 872 (Hall )
Page 6 of ?
public safe while on a school or university campus.
2. History of Government Code Section 53069.8
Prior to the 1982 enactment of Government Code Section 26228 by
Chapter 953, Statutes of 1982, there was no explicit authority
for a county to contract with private individuals or entities to
provide supplemental law enforcement services. Section 26228
provided that authority for contracts at special events and
occurrences that happen on an occasional basis. It appears that
the authority was added for the Los Angeles Summer Olympics.
Section 26288 was renumbered to the existing section 53069.8 by
Chapter 307, Statutes of 1986.
SB 1024 (Johnston) was introduced in 1995 to add a new Government
Code section 53069.82 that would have allowed contracts with
private parties to preserve the peace at private business
premises. A vote never occurred on SB 1024 in the Assembly Local
Government Committee. The Senate Committee on Criminal Procedure
analysis of SB 1024 - hearing date: April 25, 1995 - contained
the following in Comment #1:
At the request of constituents, last year the author asked
Legislative Counsel whether or not a county is authorized to
enter into a contract with private business to administer an
auxiliary security services delivery system. The facts
presented included off-duty deputy sheriffs engaging in
private employment as security guards or patrolpersons on a
compensated basis with the private employer directly
reimbursing the off-duty deputies and all other costs being
borne by the county.
Legislative Counsel opined: no.
The same conclusion was reached in Attorney General's
Opinion No. 84-204 (July 19, l985) which found that "Neither
cities, counties, nor their heads of law enforcement have
authority to contract with private parties for regular
ongoing private security services."
Government Code Section 53069.8 was then amended in 2002 (SB 1313
(Margett) Chapter 224, Statutes of 2002) to: (1) add two new
groups with whom local governments may enter contracts for
supplemental services to be provided, and (2) expand the
SB 872 (Hall )
Page 7 of ?
permissible scope of the contracts to allow that such services
may be provided on an ongoing basis. Specifically, SB 1313
permitted contracts with "private nonprofit corporations that are
recipients of federal, state, county, or local government
low-income housing funds or grants to preserve the peace on an
ongoing basis" as well as with private entities at critical
facilities on an occasional or ongoing basis. A "critical
facility" is defined as any building, structure, or complex that
in the event of a disaster, whether natural or manmade, poses a
threat to public safety, including, but not limited to, airports,
oil refineries, and nuclear and conventional fuel powerplants.
3. Effect of This Bill
This bill would allow payment under contract for law enforcement
services that a local sheriff or city police chief could
otherwise provide as a matter of regular policing. This bill
adds to existing law another circumstance in which contracts may
be established to provide supplemental law enforcement services
to private entities. Specially, this bill allows law enforcement
to contract to provide services to private schools, private
colleges, and private universities on an occasional or ongoing
basis. However, the local police agency would still have the
responsibility to provide police services, with or without a
supplemental contract.
Given that 58 counties and 482 cities in California would be able
to use section 53069.8 as it is proposed to be amended, is it
clear in what circumstances this bill might be utilized? Is it
possible that there is at least some risk that this bill may lead
to law enforcement decisions on the basis of the ability to pay
for at least some sites and locations? This bill adds a new
circumstance where contracts may be established for services
provided on an ongoing basis. Is there realistically any way for
those services to be provided on an ongoing basis without
impacting "the normal and regular ongoing services" as is
prohibited in the existing statute in subdivision (f)?
4. Argument in Opposition
The Association of Independent California Colleges and
Universities states:
I am writing to express our opposition to your Senate Bill
SB 872 (Hall )
Page 8 of ?
(SB) 872. While we greatly appreciate your concern for the
safety of students and campuses, and the support our local
law enforcement agencies provide higher education
institutions, we believe this legislation would create
unnecessary confusion for our institutions that already have
agreements with their local law enforcement agencies.
California's independent, nonprofit higher education
institutions operate under Memorandums of Understanding,
pursuant to current penal codes, with their local police or
sheriff's departments that allow them varying degrees of
responsibilities, depending on the needs of the campus and
the agreement of their local law enforcement agency. Our
campuses, and their respective agencies, work closely on
these MOUs and they work well for our institutions. We are
not aware of any campuses who wish to use their local law
enforcement agency for full-time enforcement in a manner
that is consistent with the intent of this bill.
Ultimately, we are very concerned that this legislation
would create unnecessary confusion for our institutions and
local law enforcement agencies regarding their current MOUs
and the services that are already provided to and by
campuses. For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB
872.
-- END -