BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
3
9
AB 1390 (Blumenfield) 0
As Amended June 1, 2009
Hearing date: July 14, 2009
Education Code
SM:mc
SCHOOL NOTIFICATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT REGARDING
WEAPONS OR EXPLOSIVES ON CAMPUS
HISTORY
Source: Los Angeles City Attorney's Office
Prior Legislation: AB 1859 (Papan) - Chap. 492, Stats. 2002
SB 232 (Hughes) - Chap. 205, Stats. 1995
SB 2635 - Chap. 1697, Stats. 1990
Support: California District Attorneys Association; Los Angeles
Unified School District; Los Angeles School Police Department
Opposition:California Public Defenders Association
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 76 - Noes 1
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD A SCHOOL SECURITY DEPARTMENT, OR SCHOOL POLICE DEPARTMENT, AS
SPECIFIED, BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES OF ANY
ACT COMMITTED ON SCHOOL GROUNDS IN WHICH THE PERSON ALLEGEDLY
(More)
AB 1390 (Blumenfield)
PageB
POSSESSED, OR FURNISHED A FIREARM, AS SPECIFIED, OR POSSESSED AN
EXPLOSIVE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require a school security
department, or school police department, as specified, to
notify within 24 hours, in electronic format, the appropriate
county or city law enforcement authorities having jurisdiction
where the incident occurred, of any act committed by a pupil or
nonpupil on a schoolsite in which the student allegedly
possessed, sold or otherwise furnished a firearm, where this
act is verified by an employee of the school district and is
not otherwise authorized, as specified, or possessed an
explosive.
Existing law requires that the principal of a school or the
principal's designee, prior to the suspension or expulsion of
any pupil, notify the appropriate law enforcement authorities
of the county or city in which the school is situated, of any
acts of the pupil that may constitute an assault with a deadly
weapon or with force likely to produce great bodily injury.
(Education Code 48902(a).)
Existing law requires that the principal of a school or the
principal's designee shall, within one school day after
suspension or expulsion of any pupil, notify, by telephone or
any other appropriate method chosen by the school, the
appropriate law enforcement authority of the county or the
school district in which the school is situated of any acts of
the student that involve possession, being under the influence
of, or distribution of alcohol, controlled substances or any
intoxicant. (Education Code 48902(b).)
Existing law prohibits possession of a firearm in a place that
the person knows, or reasonably should know, is within 1,000
feet of a school, as specified, unless it is with the written
permission of the school district superintendent, his or her
(More)
AB 1390 (Blumenfield)
PageC
designee, or equivalent school authority, except as specified.
(Penal Code 626.9.)
Existing law requires that the principal of a school or the
principal's designee notify the appropriate law enforcement
authorities of the county or city in which the school is
located of any acts of a student that may involve the bringing
a firearm or other specified weapons on campus. (Education
Code 48902(c).)
Existing law specifies that a principal, the principal's
designee, or any other person reporting a known or suspected
act described herein is not civilly or criminally liable as a
result of making any report authorized by this article unless
it can be proven that a false report was made and that the
person knew the report was false or the report was made with
reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the report.
(Education Code 48902(d).)
Existing law provides that the willful failure to make any
report required by this section is an infraction punishable by
a fine to be paid by the principal or principal's designee who
is responsible for the failure of not more than $500.
(Education Code 48902(e).)
Existing law requires the principal of a school or the
principal's designee reporting a criminal act committed by a
school age individual with exceptional needs, as defined, to
ensure that copies of the special education and disciplinary
records of the pupil are transmitted, as described, for
consideration by the appropriate authorities to whom he or she
reports the criminal act. Any copies of the pupil's special
education and disciplinary records may be transmitted only to
the extent permissible under the federal Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. (Education Code 48902(f).)
This bill requires a school security department, or school
police department, as specified, to notify within 24 hours, in
electronic format, the appropriate county or city law
(More)
AB 1390 (Blumenfield)
PageD
enforcement authorities having jurisdiction where the incident
occurred, of any act committed by a pupil or nonpupil on a
schoolsite in which the person allegedly possessed, sold or
otherwise furnished a firearm, where this act is verified by an
employee of the school district and is not otherwise
authorized, as specified, or possessed an explosive.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
California continues to face a severe prison overcrowding
crisis. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) currently has about 170,000 inmates under its
jurisdiction. Due to a lack of traditional housing space
available, the department houses roughly 15,000 inmates in gyms
and dayrooms. California's prison population has increased by
125% (an average of 4% annually) over the past 20 years,
growing from 76,000 inmates to 171,000 inmates, far outpacing
the state's population growth rate for the age cohort with the
highest risk of incarceration.<1>
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against
CDCR sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
February 9, 2009, the three-judge federal court panel issued a
tentative ruling that included the following conclusions with
respect to overcrowding:
No party contests that California's prisons are
overcrowded, however measured, and whether considered
in comparison to prisons in other states or jails
within this state. There are simply too many
prisoners for the existing capacity. The Governor,
----------------------
<1> "Between 1987 and 2007, California's population of ages 15
through 44 - the age cohort with the highest risk for
incarceration - grew by an average of less than 1% annually,
which is a pace much slower than the growth in prison
admissions." (2009-2010 Budget Analysis Series, Judicial and
Criminal Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (January 30,
2009).)
(More)
AB 1390 (Blumenfield)
PageE
the principal defendant, declared a state of
emergency in 2006 because of the "severe
overcrowding" in California's prisons, which has
caused "substantial risk to the health and safety of
the men and women who work inside these prisons and
the inmates housed in them." . . . A state
appellate court upheld the Governor's proclamation,
holding that the evidence supported the existence of
conditions of "extreme peril to the safety of persons
and property." (citation omitted) The Governor's
declaration of the state of emergency remains in
effect to this day.
. . . the evidence is compelling that there is no
relief other than a prisoner release order that will
remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions.
. . .
Although the evidence may be less than perfectly
clear, it appears to the Court that in order to
alleviate the constitutional violations California's
inmate population must be reduced to at most 120% to
145% of design capacity, with some institutions or
clinical programs at or below 100%. We caution the
parties, however, that these are not firm figures and
that the Court reserves the right - until its final
ruling - to determine that a higher or lower figure
is appropriate in general or in particular types of
facilities.
. . .
Under the PLRA, any prisoner release order that we
issue will be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of constitutional
rights, and be the least intrusive means necessary to
correct the violation of those rights. For this
reason, it is our present intention to adopt an order
requiring the State to develop a plan to reduce the
(More)
AB 1390 (Blumenfield)
PageF
prison population to 120% or 145% of the prison's
design capacity (or somewhere in between) within a
period of two or three years.<2>
The final outcome of the panel's tentative decision, as well as
any appeal that may be in response to the panel's final
decision, is unknown at the time of this writing.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Under current law (Education Code section 48902
(a)-(c)), school principals are required to notify the
appropriate law enforcement authorities of the county
or city in which the school is located of certain
offenses. In large jurisdictions, where district
security/police respond to calls for service on
campus, principals often mistake school police as "the
appropriate law enforcement authority" within the
meaning of Education Code 48902. As a result, local
law enforcement agencies are left out of the loop.
AB 1390 seeks to clarify and strengthen reporting
requirements for school police to notify local law
enforcement agencies of serious crime incidents on
campus. This, in turn, leads to the identification of
patterns and behaviors within the broader context of
the community around the school and makes it possible
----------------------
<2> Three Judge Court Tentative Ruling, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (Feb. 9, 2009).
(More)
AB 1390 (Blumenfield)
PageG
to more immediately identify opportunities to work
collaboratively on effective prevention and
intervention strategies. This bill does not require
or trigger prosecution; it is merely a reporting
requirement.
2. Existing Reporting Requirements and What This Bill Would Do
Currently the principal of a school or the principal's designee
must:
prior to the suspension or expulsion of any pupil ,
notify the appropriate law enforcement authorities of the
county or city in which the school is situated, of any
acts of the pupil that may constitute an assault with a
deadly weapon or with force likely to produce great bodily
injury. (Education Code 48902(a).);
within one school day after suspension or expulsion of
any pupil , notify, by telephone or any other appropriate
method chosen by the school, the appropriate law
enforcement authority of the county or the school district
in which the school is situated of any acts of the student
that involve possession, being under the influence of, or
distribution of alcohol, controlled substances or any
intoxicant. (Education Code 48902(b).); and
notify the appropriate law enforcement authorities of
the county or city in which the school is located of any
acts of a student that may involve the bringing a firearm
or other specified weapons on campus. (Education Code
48902(c).)
A willful failure to make any of these reports is an infraction
punishable by a fine to be paid by the principal or principal's
designee who is responsible for the failure of not more than
$500. (Education Code 48902(e).)
This bill would require that, in addition to the reporting
requirements described above which are imposed on the principal
or his or her designee, a school security department, or school
police department must also, within 24 hours, in electronic
(More)
AB 1390 (Blumenfield)
PageH
format, notify the appropriate county or city law enforcement
authorities, of any act committed by any person on a school
site in which the person allegedly possessed, sold or otherwise
furnished a firearm, where this act is verified by an employee
of the school district and is not otherwise authorized, as
specified, or possessed an explosive.
The author states that this is necessary because, in large
jurisdictions, the principal, or their designee, may report the
incident to campus police, as opposed to the local municipal
police or sheriff's department, believing the campus police to
be the "appropriate law enforcement authorities." This bill
would create parallel requirements for both the principal and
the campus police to report incidents involving firearms or
explosives on campus to the local police or sheriff's
department.
(More)
One issue this bill raises is that confusion could result when
both the principal and someone from campus police report the
same incident to the local police or sheriff, who would then
have to determine whether there were two incidents or simply
one incident being reported twice by two different school
officials. Another issue raised by the approach taken in this
bill is the possibility for further confusion by its failure to
specify an individual on the campus police department
responsible for making this report. Is it the agency chief or
the officer responding to the incident? Or could this duty be
delegated to someone else?
Another issue raised by the bill is that, while the bill
creates a duty for the campus police to report these incidents,
there appears to be no sanction for any failure to comply. The
$500 fine that exists under current law applies only to "the
principal or principal's designee who is responsible for the
failure [to file the report.]" The bill does not extend this
sanction to campus police who fail to file a required report.
The problem this bill attempts to address appears to stem from
the ambiguous language of the existing statute, that is, its
failure to specify what the "appropriate law enforcement
authorities" are to whom the principle must report. Members
may wish to consider whether, rather than set up a dual
reporting requirement for the same incident on campus, with all
the attendant possibilities for confusion, it would be more
appropriate to amend the existing statute to clarify the
reporting requirement.
COULD CREATING DUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS CAUSE CONFUSION AS
WELL AS DUPLICATION OF EFFORT?
IS THE GOAL OF GREATER COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY BETTER
REACHED BY MAKING ONE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR REPORTING THESE
INCIDENTS TO POLICE?
WOULD CLARIFYING WHO IS THE "APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITY" WITH WHICH THE REPORT IS TO BE FILED HELP INCREASE
(More)
AB 1390 (Blumenfield)
PageJ
COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY?
3. Suggested Amendment
Members may wish to consider amending the current language in
subdivisions (a) - (c) of Education Code section 48902, which
directs the principal or his or her designee to report
specified incidents on campus to "appropriate law enforcement
authorities of the county or city in which the school is
located" to read instead that the principal or his or her
designee shall report these same incidents to "the local police
or sheriff's department with jurisdiction in the county or city
in which the school is located."
SHOULD THE BILL BE SO AMENDED?
4. Argument in Support
The Los Angeles City Attorney's Office states:
Prompt, accurate and transparent reporting of school
related crimes is a critical first step toward the
development of effective early warning, prevention and
intervention strategies for at-risk youth. This is
particularly important in large urban settings where
school police and city police departments share some
concurrent responsibilities and one or both may be
involved in the investigation of a school incident
depending on the nature of the crime. To effectively
address school crime, districts must first acknowledge
it exists (transparency) and principals and school
police must cross report all serious crime to local
law enforcement at the earliest possible stage to
assist in early intervention strategies.
In large jurisdictions, where district security/police
respond to calls for service on campus and have
investigative and arrest powers, principals often
mistake school police as the appropriate law
enforcement authority within the meaning of Education
AB 1390 (Blumenfield)
PageK
Code 48902. Frequently, this is not the case and
local law enforcement agencies are left out of the
loop.
Clarifying and strengthening mandates for school
police to report serious crime to local law
enforcement agencies allows for immediate analysis of
crime data by both the school police and county or
municipal law enforcement agencies. This would lead
to immediate identification of patterns and behaviors
and identity opportunities to work collaboratively on
effective prevention and intervention strategies.
5. Argument in Opposition
The California Public Defenders Association states:
Requiring a report when a firearm is either seized or
surrendered might indeed discourage students from
surrendering or reporting the presence of a firearm at
school. Schools already have the discretion, in
appropriate situations, to contact law enforcement.
In fact, research shows that the drastic limitation on
the school officials' discretion to respond to
incidents -'zero-tolerance policies' -have done damage
to youth and contributed to 'the school to prison
pipeline.'
***************