BILL NUMBER: AB 1443	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  JUNE 15, 2009
	AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY  MAY 6, 2009

INTRODUCED BY    Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife
  (   Huffman (Chair), Fuller (Vice
Chair), Arambula, Tom Berryhill, Blumenfield, Caballero, Fletcher,
Bonnie Lowenthal, John A. Perez, Salas, and Yamada  
)   Assembly Member   Huffman 

                        FEBRUARY 27, 2009

    An act to add Sections 392, 393, 2020, and 12014 to the
Fish and Game Code, relating to fish and wildlife.   An
act to add Section 12012.87 to the Government Code, relating to
gaming. 



	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   AB 1443, as amended,  Committee on Water, Parks and
Wildlife   Huffman .  Fish and wildlife:
enforcement.   Gaming compacts: local support. 

   The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act provides for the
negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the
purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within
a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to
negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the
Legislature.  
   This bill would authorize the Governor to consider the presence or
absence of local support when negotiating a tribal-state gaming
compact to allow class III gaming on Indian lands, as specified. The
bill would include a related statement of legislative findings and
declarations.  
   (1) Existing law provides for reciprocal agreements with adjoining
states with regard to fishing rights and law enforcement. 

   This bill would authorize the Director of Fish and Game, or a
designated representative, to enter into reciprocal operational
agreements with authorized representatives of any Oregon, Nevada, or
Arizona state law enforcement agency to promote expeditious and
effective law enforcement service to the public, and assistance
between the members of the department and those agencies, in areas
adjacent to the borders of this state and each of the adjoining
states. The bill would deem any regularly employed law enforcement
officer of an Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona state law enforcement agency
a peace officer in this state, if specified conditions are met.
 
   (2) Under existing law, except as expressly provided otherwise,
any violation of the Fish and Game Code, or of any rule, regulation,
or order made or adopted under the code, is a misdemeanor. 

   This bill would provide that it is unlawful to violate specific
regulations adopted by the department and the commission, thereby
imposing a state-mandated local program by creating new crimes.
 
   (3) Under existing law, the violation of certain provisions of the
code are subject to administrative penalties.  
   This bill would authorize the department, after the expiration of
the time period to appeal an administrative penalty, to apply to the
clerk of the appropriate court for a judgment to collect the
administrative civil penalty.  
   (4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.  
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason. 
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program:  yes   no  .


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

   SECTION 1.    The Legislature finds and declares all
of the following:  
   (a) The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA)
authorizes federally recognized Indian tribes to conduct class III
gaming on Indian lands within the tribe's jurisdiction, to the extent
those games are permitted by state law, and pursuant to a gaming
compact negotiated between a tribe and the state.  
   (b) IGRA requires the state to negotiate in good faith for the
conclusion of tribal-state gaming compacts with Indian tribes that
request negotiations when those tribes have eligible Indian lands
located in the state.  
   (c) In 1998, California voters approved Proposition 5, a statutory
measure designed to allow for the operation of slot machine and
house banked card gaming by California Indian tribes on Indian lands
in accordance with federal law. In 1999, the California Supreme Court
held that most of the provisions enacted by Proposition 5 were
unconstitutional.  
   (d) In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 1A, amending
the California Constitution to authorize the Governor to negotiate
and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature,
for the operation of slot machines, and for the conduct of lottery
games and banked and percentage card games by federally recognized
Indian tribes on Indian lands in California in accordance with
federal law.  
   (e) During the campaigns to approve Propositions 5 and 1A,
proponents assured California voters that Indian lands were mainly in
remote, rural areas of the state and that approval of these measures
would not result in tribal casinos being located in urban areas.
 
   (f) In the general election of 2004, two initiative measures,
Propositions 68 and 70, that would have expanded gaming activities in
urban areas were placed before the California voters.  
   (g) Proposition 68 was defeated with 83.8 percent of the
electorate voting against it and Proposition 70 was defeated with
76.3 percent of the electorate voting against it.  
   (h) There is increasing public concern over the location,
expansion, and impact of tribal gaming on nontribal lands in
California.  
   (i) There are over 100 federally recognized Indian tribes in
California and many of those tribes have Indian lands within the
tribe's jurisdiction that are eligible for class III gaming. 

   (j) Subdivision (d) of Section 12012.25 of the Government Code
designates the Governor as the state official with authority to
negotiate and execute tribal gaming compacts on behalf of the state.
 
   (k) Subdivisions (c) and (e) of Section 12012.25 of the Government
Code provide that tribal-state gaming compacts negotiated by the
Governor are subject to ratification by the Legislature.  
   (l) An increasing number of Indian tribes are seeking to take new
land into trust for purposes of conducting class III gaming
activities pursuant to the provisions of IGRA, often in urban areas.
 
   (m) In May 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a
proclamation that he would (1) oppose proposals for the federal
acquisition of lands within any urbanized area where the lands sought
to be acquired in trust are to be used to conduct or facilitate
gaming activities; (2) decline to engage in negotiations for
tribal-state gaming compacts where the Indian tribe does not have
Indian lands eligible for class III gaming; (3) consider requests for
gubernatorial concurrence to allow a tribe to conduct class III
gaming on newly acquired land only when (A) the land that is sought
for class III gaming is not within any urbanized area, (B) the local
jurisdiction in which the tribe's proposed gaming project is located
supports the project, (C) the tribe and the local jurisdiction
demonstrate that the affected local community supports the project,
such as by a local advisory vote, and (D) the project substantially
serves a clear, independent public policy, separate and apart from
any increased economic benefit or financial contribution to the
state, community, or the Indian tribe that may arise from gaming.
 
   (n) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature, with respect to
all Indian gaming proposals on nontribal lands, to encourage the
Governor to negotiate a tribal-state gaming compact only when land
has been taken into trust and when the local jurisdiction and the
local community in which the tribe's proposed gaming project would be
located actually support the project, and, in the absence of that
local support, it is the intent of the Legislature not to ratify the
compact. 
   SEC. 2.    Section 12012.87 is added to the 
 Government Code   , to read:  
   12012.87.  When engaging in negotiations for a tribal-state gaming
compact to allow class III gaming on Indian lands within the tribe's
jurisdiction, the Governor may consider the presence or absence of
local support demonstrated by both of the following:
   (a) The results of an advisory vote in the county or counties in
which the tribe's Indian lands are located, either approving or
disapproving a proposed gaming facility.
   (b) One or more intergovernmental agreements enforceable in state
court, that include provisions to mitigate the impacts of the
proposed gaming and related activities, executed by the Indian tribe
and each of the following entities:
   (1) The incorporated city or city and county in which the Indian
lands are located, or, if the land is not located within an
incorporated city or city and county, the county or counties in which
the land is located.
   (2) Each county that is contiguous to the county in which the land
is located and that is likely to be substantially impacted by the
proposed gaming and related activities, as reasonably determined by
the board of supervisors of the county and set forth in a measure
specifying the nature of anticipated impacts that are no more than 75
miles from the proposed gaming facility, and the estimated costs of
mitigation.  
  SECTION 1.    Section 392 is added to the Fish and
Game Code, to read:
   392.  (a) The director, or a designated representative, may enter
into reciprocal operational agreements with authorized
representatives of any Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona state law
enforcement agency, including, but not limited to, the Oregon State
Police, the Nevada Department of Wildlife, and the Arizona Game and
Fish Department, to promote expeditious and effective law enforcement
service to the public, and assistance between the members of the
department and those agencies, in areas adjacent to the borders of
this state and each of the adjoining states pursuant to Section 393.
   (b) The reciprocal operational agreement shall be in writing and
may cover the reciprocal exchange of law enforcement services,
resources, facilities, and any other necessary and proper matters
between the department and the respective agency.
   (c) Any agreement shall specify all of the following:
   (1) The involved departments, divisions, or units of the agencies.

   (2) The duration and purpose of the agreement.
   (3) Responsibility for damages.
   (4) The method of financing any joint or cooperative undertaking.
   (5) The methods to be employed to terminate an agreement.
   (d) The director may establish operational procedures in
implementation of any reciprocal operational agreement that are
necessary to achieve the purposes of the agreement. 

  SEC. 2.    Section 393 is added to the Fish and
Game Code, to read:
   393.  (a) Any regularly employed law enforcement officer of an
Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona state law enforcement agency, including,
but not limited to, the Oregon State Police, the Nevada Department of
Wildlife, or the Arizona Game and Fish Department, is a peace
officer in this state if all of the following conditions are met:
   (1) The officer is providing, or attempting to provide, law
enforcement services within this state, within a distance of up to 50
statute miles of the contiguous border of this state and the state
employing the officer, or within waters offshore of this state in the
Exclusive Economic Zone.
   (2) The officer is providing, or attempting to provide, law
enforcement services pursuant to either of the following:
   (A) In response to a request for services initiated by a member of
the department.
   (B) In response to a reasonable belief that emergency law
enforcement services are necessary for the preservation of life, and
a request for services by a member of the Department of Fish and Game
is impractical to obtain under the circumstances. In those
situations, the officer shall obtain authorization as soon as
practical.
   (3) The officer is providing, or attempting to provide, law
enforcement services for the purpose of assisting a member of the
Department of Fish and Game in response to misdemeanor or felony
criminal activity, pursuant to the authority of a peace officer as
provided in subdivision (e) of Section 830.2 of the Penal Code, or,
in the event of emergency incidents or other similar public safety
problems, whether or not a member of the department is present at the
scene of the event.
   (4) An agreement pursuant to Section 392 is in effect between the
Department of Fish and Game and the agency of the adjoining state
employing the officer, the officer acts in accordance with that
agreement, and the agreement specifies that the officer and employing
agency of the adjoining state shall be subject to the same civil
immunities and liabilities as a peace officer and his or her
employing agency in this state.
   (5) The officer receives no separate compensation from this state
for providing law enforcement services within this state.
   (6) The adjoining state employing the officer confers similar
rights and authority upon a member of the department who renders
assistance within that state.
   (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who is
acting as a peace officer in this state in the manner described in
this section shall be deemed to have met the requirements of Section
1031 of the Government Code and the selection and training standards
of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training if the
officer has completed the basic training required for peace officers
in his or her state.
   (c) A peace officer of an adjoining state shall not provide
services within a California jurisdiction during any period in which
officers of the department are involved in a labor dispute that
results in a formal work slowdown or stoppage.  
  SEC. 3.    Section 2020 is added to the Fish and
Game Code, to read:
   2020.  It is unlawful to violate any provision of Division 1
(commencing with Section 1.04) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations. Violation of such a provision may be charged as a
violation of this section or of the specific section of Title 14
provision, and shall be punishable as provided in Section 12000.
 
  SEC. 4.    Section 12014 is added to the Fish and
Game Code, to read:
   12014.  After the expiration of the time period to appeal an
administrative penalty imposed pursuant to Sections 2301, 2302, 2582,
or 2583, or any other provision of this code, the department may
apply to the clerk of the appropriate court for a judgment to collect
the administrative civil penalty. The application, including a
certified copy of the order imposing the civil penalty, a hearing
officer's decision, if any, or a settlement agreement, if any, shall
constitute a sufficient showing to warrant issuance of the judgment.
The court clerk shall enter the judgment immediately in conformity
with the application. The judgment so entered has the same force and
effect as, and is subject to all the provisions of law relating to, a
judgment in a civil action, and may be enforced in the same manner
as any other judgment of the court in which it is entered. 

  SEC. 5.    No reimbursement is required by this
act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local
agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a
new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or
changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of
Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a
crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the
California Constitution.