BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó




           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                        SB 872|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                                UNFINISHED BUSINESS 


          Bill No:  SB 872
          Author:   Hall (D) 
          Amended:  5/19/16  
          Vote:     21 

           SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE:  7-0, 4/5/16
           AYES:  Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone

           SENATE FLOOR:  38-0, 4/7/16
           AYES:  Allen, Anderson, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Block,  
            Cannella, De León, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall,  
            Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Huff, Lara, Leno,  
            Leyva, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach,  
            Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Pavley, Roth, Stone, Vidak,  
            Wieckowski, Wolk
           NO VOTE RECORDED:  Jackson, Runner

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  76-0, 8/4/16 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT:   Local law enforcement:  supplemental services


          SOURCE:    Los Angeles County Sheriff
          
          DIGEST:   This bill allows 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.


          Assembly Amendments state that services may be rendered by any  
          category of peace officer including reserve peace officers.  The  
          amendments additionally provide that nothing in this bill shall  








                                                                     SB 872  
                                                                    Page  2



          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.


          ANALYSIS: 


          Existing law: 


          1)Provides that a 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:


             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.


             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,  
               whether natural or manmade, poses a threat to public  
               safety, including, but not limited to, airports, oil  
               refineries, and nuclear and conventional fuel power plants.  
                (Government Code § 53069.8(a).)


          2)Provides that contracts entered into must provide for full  








                                                                     SB 872  
                                                                    Page  3



            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).)


          3)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).)


          4)Requires that peace officer rates of pay be governed by a  
            memorandum of understanding.  (Government Code § 53069.8(d).)


          5)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).)


          6)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).)


          7)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 allows the board of supervisors of any county to  
          contract on behalf of the sheriff of that county, and the  








                                                                     SB 872  
                                                                    Page  4



          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.


          Background


          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 Committee on Local Government.  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.









                                                                     SB 872  
                                                                    Page  5




            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  
          131, 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  
          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  
          power plants.


          Comments


          This bill allows payment under contract for law enforcement  
          services that a local sheriff or city police chief could  
          otherwise provide as a matter of regular policing.  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  








                                                                     SB 872  
                                                                    Page  6



          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)?


          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No          Fiscal  
          Com.:NoLocal:    No


          SUPPORT:   (Verified8/4/16)


          Los Angeles County Sheriff (source)
          California Police Chiefs Association
          California State Sheriffs' Association


          OPPOSITION:   (Verified8/4/16)


          Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities 


          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:     The Los Angeles County Sheriff states:  



            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, causing the  
            deaths of seventeen people and injury to another 27.  


            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  








                                                                     SB 872  
                                                                    Page  7



            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, should they desire, to also benefit  
            from the professionalism and skill offered by trained law  
            enforcement officers. 


            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  
            public safe while on a school or university campus.


          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:     The Association of Independent  
          California Colleges and Universities states:


            I am writing to express our opposition to your Senate Bill  
            (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  








                                                                     SB 872  
                                                                    Page  8



            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.     


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  76-0, 8/4/16
           AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker,  
            Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke,  
            Calderon, Campos, Chang, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Dababneh,  
            Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher,  
            Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,  
            Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Holden, Irwin,  
            Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low,  
            Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,  
            Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk,  
            Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark  
            Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams,  
            Wood, Rendon
           NO VOTE RECORDED: Chávez, Cooley, Roger Hernández, Linder

          Prepared by: Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. / 
          8/5/16 14:52:39


                                   ****  END  ****