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 ****