BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2484
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2000
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sheila James Kuehl, Chair
AB 2484 (Romero) - As Introduced: February 24, 2000
SUBJECT : CIVIL RIGHTS: ATTORNEY GENERAL
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BE
CLARIFIED TO SPECIFY THAT IT INCLUDES THE ABILITY TO BRING A
CIVIL ACTION TO ELIMINATE A PATTERN OR PRACTICE OF CONDUCT BY
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR OFFICIALS THAT DEPRIVES A PERSON OF
THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS?
SUMMARY : Clarifies the authority of the Attorney General (AG)
to include bringing a civil action for declaratory and
injunctive relief to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct
by law enforcement officers or officials that deprives a person
of their civil rights. Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that, no governmental authority, or person or agent
acting on behalf of a governmental authority, shall engage in
a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers,
that deprives any person of rights, privileges, or immunities
protected by law or constitution.
2)Allows the AG to bring a civil action in the name of the
people to obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief
to eliminate the pattern or practice of conduct specified
above whenever the AG has reasonable cause to believe that
such a violation has occurred.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, generally, that the AG is the chief law enforcement
officer of California, with the duty to see that this state's
laws are uniformly and adequately enforced. (Cal. Const.,
Art. 5, sec. 11; see also Government Code section 12510 et
seq .)
2)Provides the AG with specific statutory authority to bring
civil actions against persons for violations of a number of
state laws, including, but not limited to: the Unfair
Business Practices Act (Business & Professions Code section
17204); the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code
AB 2484
Page 2
section 12980(b)); the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code
section 52(c)); and the Hate Crimes statute (Civil Code
section 52.1).
3)Provides that, under the federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice may
sue for declaratory and equitable relief if any governmental
authority or person acting on behalf of any governmental
authority engages in a pattern or practice of conduct by law
enforcement officers that deprives persons of their rights
under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. (42
U.S.C. section 14141.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to clarify the AG's ability to
investigate and prosecute civil rights violations potentially
committed by law enforcement agencies or personnel. According
to the author:
AB 2484 is an effort to increase accountability and
oversight when police misconduct permeates a law
enforcement agency. This bill is not designed to
respond to single incidents of police misconduct.
Instead, it applies only when the policies, both
official and unofficial, of a police department result
in civil rights violations of Californians. This
could include a pattern of unlawful searches, arrests,
excessive force, as well as a variety of other
violations . . .
The recent allegations of police misconduct in the
Rampart Division of the LAPD is a vivid reminder of
the damage that can be done when police officers
violate the civil rights of California's residents.
Innocent individuals can be sent to jail and prison.
In Rampart, over 3,000 cases have been tainted by the
misconduct of police officers. Lives can be
completely shattered as a result of false arrests and
imprisonment. And the public trust is severely
undermined when officers betray their duties to serve
and protect Californians.
Simply put, this bill provides the State's top law
enforcement officer, the Attorney General, the
authority to try to reform the policies of police
AB 2484
Page 3
departments in our state if there is a demonstrated
pattern and practice of civil rights violations. The
AG would do so by filing for injunctive relief, and
then obtaining a court-approved and supervised consent
decree, similar to what is used in school segregation
violations . . . a similar model is used at the
federal level. Attorney General Janet Reno currently
has the discretion to investigate and file civil
actions against police departments around the country
that have a proven pattern and practice of civil
rights violations. However, AB 2484 provides a
mechanism of accountability that does not exist in
federal law, in that the California Attorney General
is an elected official whose authority is ultimately
subject to voter approval. This same power does not
exist with the Federal Attorney General who is
appointed . . . the Attorney General's office has
successfully used its authority to seek injunctive
relief to respond to a litany of civil rights
violations. It is time to allow the AG to respond to
the types of civil rights violations.
Background . As noted above, this bill was introduced, at least
in part, in response to the worst police scandal in the history
of Los Angeles - the Los Angeles Police Department's Ramparts
corruption scandal. As widely reported in the media, the
Ramparts scandal includes a litany of systemic police abuses:
unjustified shootings, beatings, perjury and tampering with and
stealing evidence. Nearly three dozen related convictions have
been overturned and more cases - 3,000 so far - require review.
It is estimated that the currently known abuses may result in
$125 million in damages against the city. According to the
author, "the cost of the Ramparts scandal is incalculable with
respect to the systematic violations of civil and human rights,
as well as the loss in public trust - trust not only in the
police, but in the entire criminal justice system."
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 -
Model for this Legislation . This bill is modeled after a
provision in the federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, which allows the U.S. Department of
Justice to enforce the constitutional rights of individuals
abused by police officers. Under this act, the federal
Department of Justice may sue for declaratory and equitable
relief if any governmental authority or person acting on behalf
AB 2484
Page 4
of any governmental authority engages in "a pattern or practice
of conduct by law enforcement officers . . . that deprives
persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or
protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (42
U.S.C. section 14141.)
Triggers for AG Involvement - What Constitutes a "Pattern or
Practice"? Section 14141 has not yet been the subject of
judicial interpretation. In the Title VII context, however, the
Supreme Court has suggested that the term "pattern or practice"
has a "usual meaning" - a meaning denoting something more "than
the mere occurrence of isolated or 'accidental' or sporadic
[unlawful] acts." ( Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United
States (1977) 431 U.S. 324, 336 & n.16.) A "pattern or practice
of conduct by law enforcement officers" depriving persons of
constitutional or statutory rights, then, likely denotes a
course of conduct that is "standard operating procedure" within
a police department - in the Court's words, a course of conduct
that is "the regular rather than the unusual practice." ( Id .,
at 336.) (See also D. Livingston, Police Reform and The
Department of Justice: An Essay on Accountability, 2 Buffalo
Criminal Law Review 817, 824-825 (1999).)
The Need for Injunctive Relief in Police Abuse Cases . Recent
U.S. Supreme Court cases have severely limited the use of
individual civil rights actions under 42 USC section 1983 in
providing protection against future police abuse. For example,
in Lyons v. City of Los Angeles (1983) 461 U.S. 95, the Supreme
Court overturned an injunction issued by a lower federal court
prohibiting the use of chokeholds by the LAPD. The use of
chokeholds was extremely controversial in large part because
more than a dozen people died as a result of their use in Los
Angeles, most of them African-Americans, between 1975 and 1980.
The Supreme Court reasoned that Lyons had no "standing" to bring
a claim for relief against future uses of the chokehold because
he could not allege that he was likely to be stopped by the LAPD
again and unjustifiably subjected to a chokehold. Because it
would always be difficult for almost any person claiming relief
from future police abuse to make such a showing, the Lyons case
has been seen as an insuperable barrier to many suits seeking to
challenge ongoing police practices.
In a recent decision in the case of Board of the County
Commissioners of Bryan County, Oklahoma v. Brown, et al. (U.S.
Sup. Ct, No. 95-1100, April 28, 1997), the Supreme Court ruled
AB 2484
Page 5
that municipalities could not be held liable for the hiring of
law enforcement officers with criminal histories indicating
violent behavior who then went on to use excessive force. The
majority opinion contended that it must be shown that "this
officer was highly likely to inflict the particular injury
suffered by the plaintiff." ( Id .) By doing so, the court
limited an individual's ability to sue successfully in cases in
which the screening and hiring procedures and decisions are
faulty, and thus whittled one of the most frequently used
remedies for police abuse in the United States. This is an
important development because police abuse experts point to
massive hiring periods - and poor background investigations,
screening, and training that often accompany such hiring surges
- as a key contributor to the recruitment of individuals who
become abusive as officers.
According to proponents, police abuse experts have long
supported giving federal and state authorities the power to
bring civil actions against police departments engaging in a
pattern or practice of misconduct. They argue that recent
cases, like the ones discussed above, make it clear that this
legislation is drastically needed to remedy the types of
systemic police abuses that can no longer be reached through
individual civil actions.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Attorney General Bill Lockyer writes in
support of the bill, stating that it "will provide this office
with an important statutory directive to investigate and
prosecute violations of civil rights committed by law
enforcement personnel that reflect a pattern or practice. In
order to maintain public trust in law enforcement, it is
necessary to eliminate unlawful conduct committed by some law
enforcement personnel that violates that trust. We think that
justification for such statutory authority is apparent at the
state level as it has been on the federal level."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also supports the
bill, stating that it "provides a remedy to address systemic
violations of constitutional rights by law enforcement officials
such as use of excessive force, false arrest, discriminatory
harassment, searches or arrests. The [bill] is modeled on a
federal statute (42 U.S.C. Section 14141) enacted in 1994 which
granted the federal Department of Justice similar authority."
The ACLU further states that "[t]he Legislature has granted the
AB 2484
Page 6
Attorney General statutory authority to bring civil actions
against persons or entities engaging in violations of
constitutional or civil rights in numerous areas, including
housing, employment, public accommodations, unfair business
practices, and hate crimes. However, no such specific statutory
authority is granted the Attorney General where there is
evidence of systemic violations of constitutional rights by law
enforcement agencies. AB 2484 remedies that deficiency."
The ACLU also contends that the bill "will allow the Attorney
General to address and reform law enforcement practices that
permit or promote misconduct. Unlike criminal prosecutions that
focus on the bad conduct of individual officers, this civil
remedy focuses on management practices that condone
constitutional violations, and provides the Attorney General the
authority to seek injunctive relief to remedy management systems
in order to better train, supervise, monitor and discipline
officers."
Pending Related Legislation : AB 1993 (Romero), which makes it a
felony for a peace officer, or any person acting at the request
of a peace officer, to knowingly alter, place or move physical
matter with the specific intent that such an action results in a
person being charged with a crime, is currently pending in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Civil Liberties Union
Attorney General
Coalition for Police Accountability
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Daniel Pone / JUD. / (916) 319-2334