BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 872
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
872 (Hall)
As Amended May 19, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 38-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Local |8-1 |Waldron, Alejo, |Eggman |
|Government | |Bonilla, Chiu, | |
| | |Cooley, Beth Gaines, | |
| | |Gordon, Linder | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SB 872
Page 2
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.
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
SB 872
Page 3
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,
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
SB 872
Page 4
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.
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
SB 872
Page 6
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."
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
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
SB 872
Page 8
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 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
SB 872
Page 9
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).
"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
SB 872
Page 10
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 Legislature 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
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,
SB 872
Page 11
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."
Analysis Prepared by:
Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN:
0003582
SB 872
Page 12