BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
5
3
AB 1532 (Lieu) 2
As Amended February 24, 2010
Hearing date: June 15, 2010
Penal Code (URGENCY)
JM:mc
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
HISTORY
Source: California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
Prior Legislation: SB 919 (Ortiz) - Chapter 274, Statutes of
2003
Support: California Police Chiefs Association; California Peace
Officers Association; California Narcotic Officers
Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 71 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE TERM "CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER" BE DEFINED IN A
STAND-ALONE SECTION OF THE PENAL CODE?
PURPOSE
(More)
AB 1532 (Lieu)
PageB
The purpose of this bill is to create a stand-alone section of
the Penal Code defining a "code enforcement officer."
Existing law concerning assault and battery defines a "code
enforcement officer" as any person who is not a peace officer
and who is employed by any governmental subdivision, public or
quasi-public corporation, public agency, public service
corporation, any town, city, county, or municipal corporation,
whether incorporated or chartered, that has enforcement
authority for health, safety, and welfare requirements, and
whose duties include enforcement of any statute, rules,
regulations, or standards, and who is authorized to issue
citations, or file formal complaints. A "code enforcement
officer" also includes any person who is employed by the
Department of Housing and Community Development who has
enforcement authority for health, safety, and welfare
requirements pursuant to the Employee Housing Act; the State
Housing Law; the Mobilehomes-Manufactured Housing Act; the
Mobilehome Parks Act; and the Special Occupancy Parks Act.
(Pen. Code 241, subd. (d)(9)(A) and (B), and 243, subd.
(f)(11)(A) and (B).)
This bill enumerates a separate Penal Code section for the
existing definition of a "code enforcement officer," apart from
the reference in the assault and battery provisions.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
(More)
AB 1532 (Lieu)
PageC
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house,
(Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, California "spends more on corrections
than most countries in the world," but the state
"reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
(More)
AB 1532 (Lieu)
PageD
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010, ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of this litigation,
is not anticipated until later this year or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
There are a number of pieces of federal legislation
that contemplate giving federal grants for local code
enforcement functions. Virtually every jurisdiction
performs code enforcement functions; however, many
jurisdictions lack a definition of code enforcement
functions. As a consequence, those jurisdictions are
disadvantaged in the effort to obtain federal funding
for code enforcement purposes. AB 1532 establishes a
free-standing definition for code enforcement officers
----------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, 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 (August 4, 2009).
(More)
AB 1532 (Lieu)
PageE
that can be used by any local jurisdiction in their
application for code enforcement funding.
California lacks a free-standing definition for code
enforcement officers that a local jurisdiction could
reference in applications for code enforcement
funding. AB 1532 establishes this free-standing
definition and is verbatim from current law (Penal
Code Sec. 241 and 243). This bill is not intended to
expand the powers of code enforcement officers, but
just merely provide a definition so that California
jurisdictions may compete on an even playing field in
securing federal dollars.
2. Available Grants and Funding for Code Enforcement
Program
(More)
The sponsor and the author submit that California
government entities are losing opportunities for federal
funding and grants because California law does not include
a stand-alone definition of a code enforcement officer.
According to the sponsor:
[The fact that California does not have a
free-standing definition of code enforcement] has
placed local agencies at a disadvantage in seeking
federal money that is available through competitive
grant processes. Currently, funds for code
enforcement can be made available from Byrne JAG Grant
funding, Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS)
funding, federal COPS funding, Byrne Discretionary
funding, Byrne Competitive Grants, Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG) and possibly through
legislation introduced by Louisiana Senator Mary
Landrieu.
3. Code Enforcement Officers - Background
Code enforcement officers enforce the regulations and standards
of state and local governments. Unlike police officers,
however, code enforcement officers are not "peace officers"
under California law and are not empowered to effectuate arrests
or to carry weapons during the course of duty. (Pen. Code
830 to 832.6.)
Code enforcement officers investigate violations of and require
compliance with the various ordinances and regulations.
Correcting deficient conditions is often inconvenient and
costly. Perhaps more important, code violations often involve
a person's residence or business. Many, if not most, people are
likely to be very protective of and defensive about their
residence or business, as a residence or personal business is
likely to be closely tied to a person's identity. It thus
appears that code enforcement officers often face people who are
adversarial and even hostile.
(More)
AB 1532 (Lieu)
PageG
Attacks on code enforcement officers have included the use of
firearms, explosives, all manners of bludgeons, knives, motor
vehicles, beatings and even human bites on the officer's person.
(See, California Association of Code Enforcement & California
Environmental Health Association, 2001 Survey Results 8 (2002).)
The survey included statements from code enforcement officers
about dangerous experiences in the field. The survey noted that
over 63 percent of those who responded to the survey had been
assaulted or threatened. (Ibid.)
Confronting unlawful, aggressive individuals in the course of
enforcing the law has long been the responsibility of peace
officers. Yet, code enforcement officers consistently encounter
felons, gang members, unstable homeless individuals, irate
tenants and potentially violent property owners. In addition,
code enforcement officers investigate violations, issue
citations, prepare criminal cases, arrange arrests for failures
to appear, and obtain court orders.
4. Suggested Amendment
Existing provisions in the misdemeanor assault and misdemeanor
battery statutes include (identical) definitions of a code
enforcement officer, as part of provision providing higher
penalties for assault or battery against a person with a
specified status. (Pen. Code 240 and 243.) This bill
creates a stand-alone definition of a code enforcement officer
that is identical to the definition found in the assault and
battery sections.
The assault and battery sections in the Penal Code are very
lengthy and complicated. Including definitions of various
classes of victims in the assault and battery sections
exacerbates this complexity. Arguably, if this bill is enacted,
there will be no need to define a code enforcement officer
within the assault and battery sections. A simple
cross-reference to the definitions provided by this bill would
suffice. A similar cross-reference to the definition of a
"peace officer" is included in the assault and battery
provisions in existing law. (Pen. Code 240, subd. (d)(1).)
AB 1532 (Lieu)
PageH
The use of a cross-reference could eliminate confusion and
inconsistency in the future if the definition of "code
enforcement officer" in either the section created by this bill
or the assault and battery sections is changed.
SHOULD THE ASSAULT AND BATTERY SECTIONS BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE
A CROSS REFERENCE TO THE DEFINITION OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER
IN THIS BILL, RATHER THAN INCLUDING AN ESSENTIALLY REDUNDANT
DEFINITION OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE ASSAULT AND
BATTERY SECTIONS?
***************