BILL ANALYSIS
AB 955
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 955 (De Leon) - As Amended: April 28, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill specifies that discipline need not be imposed upon a
peace officer within the one-year time limit placed upon the
investigation and imposition of penalty by the Public Safety
Officers Procedural Bill of Rights, and states that the officer
shall be notified by a Letter of Intent or by a Notice of
Adverse Action of the proposed discipline within the one-year
time limit.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor state-reimbursable local costs to notify officers via a
Letter of Intent or a Notice of Adverse Action regarding
proposed disciplinary action. This bill is largely consistent
with current practice.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, "AB 955 seeks to clarify
existing law to provide officers administrative guidance and
appropriate information regarding the details and decisions of
any investigations conducted on them in a timely manner."
2)Support . The Peace Officer's Research Association of
California (PORAC) states that the section proposed to be
amended by this bill (Government Code Section 3304(d)) is
intended to protect officers from lengthy investigations that
could result in officers being suspended for long periods of
time. According to PORAC, "Many times, management has used
this investigative tool as discipline or punishment for an
employee they did not personally care for, knowing full well
AB 955
Page 2
that eventually when the case goes to court, the officer would
likely be reinstated with full pay. At that point, the damage
has been done.
"On April 17, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in Mays
v. City of Los Angeles (43 Cal. 4th 313) that the Court of
Appeals erred in interpreting section 3304(d), requiring
notice of specific proposed punishment, and that 'although the
agency is not precluded from proposing specific discipline at
that time, it is not required by Section 3304(d) to do so.'
This means that the original intent of Government Code Section
3304(d), to limit the investigation and notice of the proposed
discipline to one year, has been completely misconstrued and,
in effect, overturned. The language in this bill would simply
clarify the original intent and restore the protection of
Government Code Section 3304(d) that was in effect prior to
this case."
3)Mays v. City of Los Angeles . In Mays, the court was asked to
determine if the one-year statute of limitations imposed for
notice in Government Code Section 3304(d) was satisfied by
notification to the subject officer that discipline would be
imposed. The Supreme Court overturned an appellate court
decision that held the police department was required to
inform the subject officer of the specific proposed punishment
it sought to impose within the one year statute. The Supreme
Court held that the police department need only inform the
subject officer that it has completed the investigation and
seeks to impose some form of disciplinary action for specified
conduct within the one-year statute of limitations.
The Supreme Court interpreted Government Code Section 3304(d),
which provides a statute of limitations period specifying that
"no punitive action" may be imposed upon any public safety
officer for alleged misconduct unless the public agency
investigating the allegations "completes its investigation and
notifies the public safety officer of its proposed
disciplinary action" within one year of discovering the
alleged misconduct.
In Mays, the notice informing the officer of the proposed
board of rights adjudication not only informed the officer
that disciplinary action might be taken as the result of the
investigation into the alleged misconduct, but also identified
the procedural mechanism by which the officer's punishment, if
AB 955
Page 3
any, would be determined. The Supreme Court ruled that this
notice was sufficient under Section 3304. This bill requires
that the officer must be notified "by a Letter of Intent
articulating the proposed discipline, or other document that
initiates the predisciplinary response" prior to the running
of the statute of limitations.
This bill, therefore, abrogates Mays.
4)Current law , Government Code 3304(d), specifies that no
punitive action shall be undertaken against a peace officer
for any act or allegation of misconduct if the investigation
is not completed within one year of the agency's discovery by
a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the
allegation. If the agency determines that discipline may be
taken, it shall complete its investigation and notify the
officer of its proposed disciplinary action within that year,
except in specified circumstances.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081