BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 872
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair
SB
872 (Hall) - As Amended May 19, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 38-0
SUBJECT: Local law enforcement: supplemental services
SUMMARY: Allows counties or cities to provide supplemental law
enforcement services to private schools, colleges or
universities. Specifically, this bill:
1)Allows the board of supervisors (board) 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, or
private universities on an occasional or ongoing basis.
2)Allows these services to be rendered by any category of peace
officer, including reserve peace officers, who are authorized
to exercise the powers of a peace officer, as specified, upon
mutual agreement between the provider and the private school,
private college, or private university.
SB 872
Page 2
3)Applies to these contracts existing provisions of law
governing supplemental law enforcement services that counties
and cities may provide to other private individuals and
entities.
4)Provides that nothing in this bill shall prevent a University
of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) police
department that has been certified by the Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training (Commission), as specified,
from entering into agreements with private schools, private
colleges, or private universities to provide law enforcement
services.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Allows a county board to contract on behalf of the sheriff of
that county, and the legislative body of a city to contract on
behalf of the chief of police of that city, to provide
supplemental law enforcement services to the following private
entities for the following purposes:
a) Private individuals or private entities to preserve the
peace at special events or occurrences that happen on an
occasional basis;
b) 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; and,
SB 872
Page 3
c) 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, poses a threat to public safety, including, but
not limited to, airports, oil refineries, and nuclear and
conventional fuel power plants.
2)Requires these contracts to 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.
3)Generally requires services provided pursuant to these
contracts to be rendered by regularly appointed full-time
peace officers, as specified. However, services provided in
connection with special events or occurrences that happen on
an occasional basis may be rendered by Level I reserve peace
officers who are authorized to exercise the powers of a peace
officer, as specified, if there are no regularly appointed
full-time peace officers available to fill the positions as
required in the contract.
4)Requires peace officer rates of pay under these contracts to
be governed by a memorandum of understanding (MOU).
5)Requires these contracts to encompass only law enforcement
duties and not services authorized to be provided by a private
patrol operator, as defined.
6)Prohibits these contracts from reducing the normal and regular
ongoing service that the county, agency of the county, or city
otherwise would provide.
SB 872
Page 4
7)Requires, prior to contracting for these services, the board
or legislative body to discuss the contract and the
requirements governing it at a duly noticed public hearing.
8)Allows the UC and the CSU to create their own police
departments, designates employees of those departments as
peace officers, and generally limits their authority to
headquarters and campuses, including a one-mile radius of
headquarters and campuses; other properties of each
institution; and, any area of the state, provided that the
primary duty of the peace officer is the enforcement of the
law in the aforementioned areas.
9)Creates the Commission to develop regulations and professional
standards for the operation of law enforcement agencies, which
shall serve as a basis for the uniform operation of law
enforcement agencies throughout the state to best serve the
interests of the people of this state.
10)Defines categories of peace officers with varying levels of
authority, duties, supervision and training.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS:
SB 872
Page 5
1)Bill Summary. This bill allows counties or cities to provide
supplemental law enforcement services to private schools,
colleges or universities on an occasional or ongoing basis.
These services can be rendered by any category of peace
officer, including reserve peace officers, who are authorized
to exercise the powers of a peace officer, upon mutual
agreement between the provider and the private school,
college, or university.
Before entering into a contract, a county board or a city
legislative body must discuss the contract and the
requirements that govern it at a duly noticed public hearing.
The bill specifies that it does not prevent a UC or CSU police
department that has been certified by the Commission from
entering into agreements with private schools, colleges, or
universities to provide law enforcement services.
These contracts would generally have to abide by the
requirements for supplemental law enforcement services that
existing law allows counties and cities to provide to a
limited set of private individuals and entities. This bill is
sponsored by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.
2)Author's Statement. 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 17 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
SB 872
Page 6
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."
3)Background. Counties and cities were first granted authority
to provide supplemental law enforcement services to private
individuals or entities in 1982, when the Legislature allowed
counties and cities to provide these services under contract
to preserve the peace at special events or occurrences that
happen on an occasional basis. This authority was apparently
granted for the Los Angeles Summer Olympics. These services
were required to be provided by regularly appointed full-time
peace officers.
This authority was substantially expanded by SB 1313
(Margett), Chapter 224, Statutes of 2002. SB 1313 added two
new private groups for which counties or cities may provide
supplemental law enforcement services:
a) Private nonprofit corporations that are recipients of
federal, state, county, or local government low-income
housing funds or grants; and,
SB 872
Page 7
b) Private entities at critical facilities, defined as any
building, structure, or complex that, in the event of a
disaster, poses a threat to public safety, including, but
not limited to, airports, oil refineries, and nuclear and
conventional fuel power plants.
SB 1313 also allowed these two new categories of contracts to
occur on an ongoing basis, rather than being limited to an
occasional basis.
4)Reserve Peace Officers. AB 2164 (La Suer), Chapter 87,
Statutes of 2006, was introduced to allow all of these
services to be provided by Level I reserve peace officers if
no regularly appointed full-time peace officers were available
to fill the positions as required by the contract. The
rationale for AB 2164 was as follows: "Sheriff's and Police
Departments throughout the State receive requests to provide
supplemental law enforcement services such as providing
services to special events like sporting events, carnivals,
fairs, or other citywide events. Due in large part to a
statewide shortage of full time peace officers, a number of
these events are going understaffed or have to be cancelled
due to manpower shortages. A quick remedy would be [to] allow
reserve peace officers to work these special contracts."
The Senate Public Safety Committee, in its analysis of AB
2164, noted:
"This bill would increase the opportunities for local
government to enter contracts 'to provide supplemental law
enforcement services to private individuals or private
SB 872
Page 8
entities' by allowing these supplemental services to be
provided not only by full-time peace officers but also by
Level I reserve peace officers. Given the 58 county boards
and 477 cities in California who would be able to contract
out the use of reserve officers under (SB 2164), is it
clear in what circumstances this bill might be utilized?
Is it possible that there is at least some risk that this
bill is likely to lead to law enforcement decisions on the
basis of the ability to pay for at least some sites and
locations? 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 an opinion letter issued in 1985, the Attorney General
stated some of the policy concerns that arise from any
public entity contracting to provide supplemental law
enforcement services with private parties on a
pay-as-you-go basis:
When the police act, then, they perform public
governmental functions that are fundamental to the
principal purpose of any representative government, to
wit, the protection of the people. And when they act,
they do so on behalf and in the name of the people. In
short, they and other law enforcement agencies act as the
people's representatives in the enforcement of the
people's laws, and the duty they own in that regard is to
the public generally (within a respective territorial
jurisdiction) and not to any particular segment or
person. An assault or theft works the same duty on the
police whether the victim be prince or pauper. Thus
while it is true that with finite resources a sheriff or
chief of police can provide but a limited degree of
protection from crime, the duty nonetheless remains to
provide that degree, as appropriate, throughout the city
or county without unjustifiably deploying protective
SB 872
Page 9
services in one area at the expense of another.
The sale of police services is not only antithetical to
the notion of a public law enforcement function, but it
also violates sound public policy, expressed in Penal
Code Section 70, subdivision (a), by making law
enforcement services subservient to those who would pay
for them. If the policeman when acting in an official
capacity cannot be paid by the bank for arresting the
bank robber - neither should the city be paid for posting
the officer in front of the bank. The influence of such
payments is as potentially corrupting on city or county
officials deploying their police forces as it is on the
actions of the individual officers, and time and again we
have inveighed against it as providing fertile field for
a possible conflict of interest. Inevitably too, such
payments lead to the concentration of police services for
those who make the payments and a diminution of police
services for the rest of the community. The end result
would be a system of law enforcement which could not
rightly be called a public service. 68 Op. Atty. Gen.
Cal. 175 (1985) (citations omitted.)
"Since the issuance of the Attorney General's Opinion in
1985, the authority granted to local governments to enter
into contracts with private parties to provide
'supplemental police services' has been substantially
expanded by SB 1313. This bill would result in a further
expansion of that authority. Although the author's
statement refers only to provision of these supplemental
law enforcement services at 'special events like sporting
events, carnivals, fairs, or other citywide events,'?the
bill would also permit use of reserve peace officers to
provide these services on an ongoing basis (for all types
of private entities specified in existing law).
SB 872
Page 10
"Because these services may currently only be provided by
full-time peace officers, there is, of necessity, some
built-in limitation on the degree to which local
governments can enter into these contracts due to the
limited number of full-time peace officers available to be
hired out. Allowing reserve peace officers to be utilized
for these private contracts will substantially expand the
ability of local governments to enter into such contracts.
Members may wish to consider whether this practice is one
that, while occasionally necessary, should not become
commonplace and whether the risks of a conflict of
interest, as identified in the Attorney General's opinion,
are magnified by allowing the expansion of these services
to include reserve peace officers."
AB 2164 was subsequently amended to allow the use of Level 1
reserve officers only for services provided in connection with
special events or occurrences on an occasional basis.
5)Policy Considerations. As noted above, existing law requires
most contracts for supplemental law enforcement services to be
met with regularly appointed full-time peace officers. There
is one exception, which allows supplemental law enforcement
services at special events or occurrences that happen on an
occasional basis to be provided by Level 1 reserve peace
officers, if no regularly appointed full-time peace officers
are available. Contracts for ongoing services are limited to
regularly appointed full-time peace officers. This bill
allows contracted services at private schools, colleges and
universities - which can be occasional or ongoing - to be
rendered by any category peace officer, as long as the county
or city and the private institution mutually agree. Given
concerns raised by AB 2164 and the Attorney General's 1985
opinion, the Committee may wish to consider whether
contracting for supplemental law enforcement services for
private entities should be expanded, and whether all
categories of peace officers should be allowed to provide
SB 872
Page 11
supplemental law enforcement services to private educational
institutions.
6)Arguments in Support. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, sponsor of this measure, states, "In the wake of
the recent tragic school shooting, more schools, colleges and
universities are reviewing their school safety plans and are
looking at ways to provide the best level of protection for
our children. Due to this, schools, both public and private,
have recently expressed interest in contracting with local law
enforcement agencies for police services.
"SB 872 would?(allow) local law enforcement to contract with
private schools, private colleges, or private universities in
order to provide supplemental law enforcement services on an
occasional or ongoing basis. SB 872 ensures that 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 public safe while on a school or
university campus."
7)Arguments of Concern. The California Association of Private
School Organizations (CAPSO), which represents K-12 non-profit
private educational institutions, writes, "We are concerned
that the opportunity to offer law enforcement services through
a contract can introduce a financial incentive that might
induce a law enforcement agency to delay, reduce, or withhold
the normal and regular ongoing services to which all
Californians are entitled. Moreover, our Public Policy
Committee is unaware of any CAPSO-affiliated private K-12
school that is currently seeking additional law enforcement
services that are not already permissible under existing law."
SB 872
Page 12
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department [SPONSOR]
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Sheriffs' Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
SB 872
Page 13
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Concerns
California Association of Private School Organizations
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958