BILL ANALYSIS
AB 955
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 955 (De Leon)
As Amended June 22, 2009
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |77-0 |(May 21, 2009) |SENATE: |38-0 |(August 27, |
| | | | | |2009) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY : Specifies that discipline need not be imposed upon
peace officers within the one-year time limit placed upon the
investigation and imposition of penalty by the Public Safety
Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBOR).
The Senate amendments specify that the tolling of the one year
statute begins when the discovery could be made by a person
authorized to initiate a disciplinary investigation.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the POBOR.
2)States that no public safety officer shall be subjected to
punitive action, or denied promotion, or be threatened with any
such treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights
granted under this chapter, or the exercise of any rights under
any existing administrative grievance procedure. Nothing in
this section shall preclude a head of an agency from ordering a
public safety officer to cooperate with other agencies involved
in criminal investigations. If an officer fails to comply with
such an order, the agency may officially charge him or her with
insubordination.
3)Provides no punitive action nor denial of promotion on grounds
other than merit shall be undertaken by any public agency
against any public safety officer who has successfully
completed the probationary period that may be required by his
or her employing agency without providing the public safety
officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal.
4)States no chief of police may be removed by a public agency, or
appointing authority, without providing the chief of police
with written notice and the reason or reasons therefor and an
AB 955
Page 2
opportunity for administrative appeal. For purposes of this
subdivision, the removal of a chief of police by a public
agency or appointing authority, for the purpose of implementing
the goals or policies, or both, of the public agency or
appointing authority, for reasons including, but not limited
to, incompatibility of management styles or as a result of a
change in administration, shall be sufficient to constitute
"reason or reasons." Nothing in this subdivision shall be
construed to create a property interest, where one does not
exist by rule or law, in the job of Chief of Police.
5)Except as specified, no punitive action, nor denial of
promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken for
any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the
investigation of the allegation is not completed within one
year of the public agency's discovery by a person authorized to
initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act,
omission, or other misconduct. This one-year limitation period
shall apply only if the act, omission, or other misconduct
occurred on or after January 1, 1998. In the event that the
public agency determines that discipline may be taken, it shall
complete its investigation and notify the public safety officer
of its proposed disciplinary action within that year, except in
specified circumstances:
6)Provides where a pre-disciplinary response or grievance
procedure is required or utilized, the time for this response
or procedure shall not be governed or limited by this chapter.
7)States if, after investigation and any pre-disciplinary
response or procedure, the public agency decides to impose
discipline, the public agency shall notify the public safety
officer in writing of its decision to impose discipline,
including the date that the discipline will be imposed, within
30 days of its decision, except if the public safety officer is
unavailable for discipline.
8)Specifies, notwithstanding the one-year time period specified,
an investigation may be reopened against a public safety
officer if both of the following circumstances exist:
a) Significant new evidence has been discovered that is
likely to affect the outcome of the investigation.
b) One of the following conditions exist:
AB 955
Page 3
i) The evidence could not reasonably have been
discovered in the normal course of investigation without
resorting to extraordinary measures by the agency.
ii) The evidence resulted from the public safety
officer's pre-disciplinary response or procedure.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill stated that:
1)Agencies need not actually impose prescribed discipline within
the one-year time limit placed upon investigations and the
resolution of disciplinary actions of peace officers by POBOR.
2)The officer shall be notified by a Letter of Intent
articulating the proposed discipline, or Notice of Adverse
Action within the one-year time limit imposed by POBOR.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : 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."
Please see the policy committee for a full discussion of this
bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
FN: 0002259