BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
6
2
AB 2626 (Jones) 6
As Amended March 18, 2010
Hearing date: June 15, 2010
Penal Code
SM:dl
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S SECURITY OFFICERS
HISTORY
Source: Sacramento Deputy Sheriff's Association
Prior Legislation: AB 2164 (La Suer) - Ch. 87, Stats of 2006
SB 1313 (Margett) - Ch. 224, Stats. of 2002
SB 1163 (Ortiz) - Ch.112, Stats. of 1999
AB 2651(Hawkins) - Ch. 143, Stats. of 1996
Support: Sacramento County Sheriff
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 73 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE SHERIFF OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO ASSIGN
SHERIFF'S SECURITY OFFICERS, AS DEFINED, TO PROVIDE SECURITY AT
PROPERTIES OWNED, OPERATED, OR ADMINISTERED BY ANY PUBLIC AGENCY,
PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY, OR NONPROFIT ENTITY, WHOSE PRIMARY BUSINESS
SUPPORTS NATIONAL DEFENSE, OR WHOSE FACILITY IS QUALIFIED AS
NATIONAL CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE UNDER FEDERAL LAW OR BY A FEDERAL
AGENCY, OR WHO STORES OR MANUFACTURES MATERIAL WHICH, IF STOLEN,
(More)
AB 2626 (Jones)
PageB
VANDALIZED, OR OTHERWISE COMPROMISED, MAY COMPROMISE NATIONAL
SECURITY OR MAY POSE A DANGER TO RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Sheriff of
Sacramento County to assign sheriff's security officers, as
defined, to provide physical security and protection to
properties owned, operated, or administered by any public
agency, privately owned company, or nonprofit entity, whose
primary business supports national defense, or whose facility is
qualified as national critical infrastructure under federal law
or by a federal agency, or who stores or manufactures material
which, if stolen, vandalized, or otherwise compromised, may
compromise national security or may pose a danger to residents
of the County of Sacramento.
Existing law provides for a variety of peace officer categories
and categories of public officers who are not peace officers but
who may exercise some of the powers of a peace officer. (Penal
Code sections 830 et seq.)
Existing law creates a category of police or sheriff's security
officer - who is not a peace officer - as follows:
A police or sheriff's security officer is a public
officer - employed by the police chief or sheriff - whose
primary duty is the security of locations or facilities as
directed by the sheriff.
Duties may include physical security and protection of
facilities owned, operated, or administered by the county
or other entities contracting with the city or county for
police services.
A police or sheriff's security officer is not a public
peace officer nor a peace officer for purposes of
Government Code Section 3301 - Public Safety Officers
Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
A police or sheriff's security officer may carry a
firearm, baton and other safety equipment as authorized by
(More)
AB 2626 (Jones)
PageC
the sheriff while performing authorized duties; he or she
may not exercise peace officer powers of arrest but may
issue citations if authorized by the sheriff.
Each police or sheriff's security officer shall complete
a course of training pursuant to existing Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training peace officer training
requirements within 90 days of assuming his or her duties
(Section 832 training - 64 hours of basic peace officer
instruction: 40 hours of classroom "arrest and tactics"
training and 24 hours of firearms training.)
The authority of a police or sheriff's security officer
shall only be conferred while on duty.
No additional retirement benefits - safety officer
benefits - shall be conferred on police or sheriff's
security officers.
Police or Sheriff's security officers shall not be
required to comply with the Department of Consumer Affairs
training or permitting to carry a club or baton if they
complete such a course of instruction approved by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training within
90 days of employment. (Penal Code section 12002) (Penal
Code section 831.4.)
Existing law provides that a public officer or employee, when
authorized by ordinance, may arrest a person without a warrant
whenever the officer or employee has reasonable cause to believe
that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor in
the presence of the officer or employee that is a violation of a
statute or ordinance that the officer or employee has the duty
to enforce. (Penal Code section 836.5(a).)
Existing law provides that the board of supervisors of any
county may contract on behalf of the sheriff of that county, and
the legislative body of any city may contract on behalf of the
chief of police of that city, to provide supplemental law
enforcement services to:
Private individuals or private entities to preserve the
peace at special events or occurrences that happen on an
occasional basis.
Private nonprofit corporations that are recipients of
(More)
AB 2626 (Jones)
PageD
federal, state, county, or local government low-income
housing funds or grants to preserve the peace on an ongoing
basis.
Private entities at critical facilities on an occasional
or ongoing basis. A "critical facility" means any building,
structure, or complex that in the event of a disaster,
whether natural or manmade, poses a threat to public
safety, including, but not limited to, airports, oil
refineries, and nuclear and conventional fuel power plants.
Contracts entered into pursuant to this section shall
provide for full reimbursement to the county or city of the
actual costs of providing those services, as determined by
the county auditor or auditor-controller, or by the city,
as the case may be.
Such services, except as specified, shall be rendered by
regularly appointed full-time peace officers, as defined in
Section 830.1 of the Penal Code.
Peace officer rates of pay shall be governed by a
memorandum of understanding.
A contract entered into pursuant to this section shall
encompass only law enforcement duties and not services
authorized to be provided by a private patrol operator, as
defined in Section 7582.1 of the Business and Professions
Code.
Contracting for law enforcement services, as authorized
by this section, shall not reduce the normal and regular
ongoing service that the county, agency of the county, or
city otherwise would provide.
Prior to contracting for ongoing services, the board of
supervisors or legislative body, as applicable, shall
discuss the contract and the requirements of this section
at a duly noticed public hearing.(Gov. Code section
53069.8.)
This bill would authorize the Sacramento County Sheriff to
assign sheriff's security officers, as defined, to provide
physical security and protection to any properties owned,
operated, or administered by any public agency, privately owned
company, or nonprofit entity, whose primary business supports
national defense, or whose facility is qualified as national
(More)
AB 2626 (Jones)
PageE
critical infrastructure under federal law or by a federal
agency, or who stores or manufactures material which, if stolen,
vandalized, or otherwise compromised, may compromise national
security or may pose a danger to residents of the County of
Sacramento.
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:
"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.)
(More)
AB 2626 (Jones)
PageF
. . .
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
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.
---------------------------
<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 2626 (Jones)
PageG
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Existing law authorizes Sheriff's and Police Security
Officers to guard only those properties owned or
operated by a City, County, or a municipality that
contracts for their services. This bill would expand
the potential properties to be guarded to included
those public and privately owned facilities that
qualify as a national critical infrastructure, or who
store or manufacture materials that might jeopardize
national security or pose a danger to the community if
compromised.
2. Expanding the Role of "Police or Sheriff's Security Officers"
In 1996, the Legislature created the "sheriff's security
officer" classification of public employee. (AB 2651(Hawkins)
Chap. 143, Stats. of 1996.) In 1999, this was expanded to allow
police chiefs to also employ these officers. (SB 1163 (Ortiz)
Chap. 112, Stats. of 1999.) These employees are not peace
officers and are required by statute only to receive basic
arrest and firearms training. Employing police or sheriff's
departments may require these employees to receive further
training, however.
Existing section 831.4 provides that the duties of a police or
sheriff's security officer may include physical security and
protection of properties owned, operated, or administered by the
county or any municipality or special district contracting for
police services from the county pursuant to Section 54981 of the
Government Code, or necessary duties with respect to the
(More)
AB 2626 (Jones)
PageH
patrons, employees, and properties of the employing county or
contracting entities. The purpose of this bill is to expand
those authorized duties to allow these Police or Sheriff's
Security Officers to be used to guard property belonging to
private companies "whose primary business supports national
defense, or whose facility is qualified as national critical
infrastructure under federal law or by a federal agency, or who
stores or manufactures material which, if stolen, vandalized, or
otherwise compromised, may compromise national security or may
pose a danger to residents of the County of Sacramento."
(More)
Under current law the board of supervisors of any county may
contract on behalf of the sheriff of that county, and the
legislative body of any city may contract on behalf of the chief
of police of that city, to provide supplemental law enforcement
services to "Private entities at critical facilities on an
occasional or ongoing basis." A "critical facility" means any
building, structure, or complex that in the event of a disaster,
whether natural or manmade, poses a threat to public safety,
including, but not limited to, airports, oil refineries, and
nuclear and conventional fuel power plants." (Gov. Code section
53069.8) However, existing law specifies that these services
shall be rendered by full-time peace officers, as defined, and
shall encompass only "law enforcement duties" and not "services
authorized to be provided by a private patrol operator" (i.e.,
private security guards). (Ibid.) By contrast, this bill would
allow the sheriff to provide the services of sheriff's security
officers, who are not peace officers, to these private companies
to perform duties that are currently performed by private
security guards.
3. Limits on "Police or Sheriff's Security Officers"
The current provisions of Penal Code section 831.4 pertaining to
police or sheriff's security officers contain a number of
limitations. They are not covered by the Public Safety Officers
Procedural Bill of Rights; they may not exercise the powers of
arrest; they have no authority except when on duty; and they are
not included in additional retirement benefits. The existing
law provides that the new police or sheriff's security officers
shall not have peace officer arrest powers, but may issues
citations for infractions if authorized by the sheriff. In
addition, existing Penal Code Section 836.5 allows any public
officer authorized by ordinance to "arrest a person without a
warrant whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor in his
presence which is a violation of a statute or ordinance which
the officer or employee has the duty to enforce." Thus, a
sheriff's security officer authorized by ordinance to make such
misdemeanor arrests is authorized to do so pursuant to existing
(More)
AB 2626 (Jones)
PageJ
law. The sheriff's security officers included in this bill
would be subject to the same limitations.
4. Policy Issues and Suggested Amendments
Under current law, in addition to contracting for the use of
peace officers for "law enforcement duties" (see comment 2,
above), private entities can, and often do, employ off-duty
peace officers as security guards. (Penal Code 70, Gov. Code
sections 1126, 1127.) The sponsors of this bill argue that
owners of private facilities, even those that might be of
national security significance, might opt to hire less
well-trained security guards because off-duty peace officers are
too expensive. The Deputy Sheriff's Association also argues
that off duty peace officers are not as well suited for
protecting property as they are for more traditional law
enforcement duties; essentially, that they are overqualified for
the job.
Use of public employees to guard privately owned facilities
might be beneficial to the public if those facilities could
become targets for terrorist attacks or could otherwise pose a
danger to the public, such as a chemical manufacturing plant or
an oil refinery. The public has an interest in keeping these
facilities secure and use of public employees to guard them
could provide greater accountability and standards as to the
level of security at these facilities. However, one policy
issue this raises is whether allowing these private companies to
receive these security services could come at the taxpayers'
expense. Existing law requires public entities who wish to use
the services of these police or sheriff's security officers to
contract for these services pursuant to Government Code section
54981.<2> The current language of the bill expands the duties
that these security officers could be assigned to include
guarding privately owned facilities but does not require a
---------------------------
<2> Gov. Code section 54981 states, "The legislative body of any
local agency may contract with any other local agency for the
performance by the latter of municipal services or functions
within the territory of the former.
AB 2626 (Jones)
PageK
contract with these private entities for the use of these
officers. The author may wish to consider amending the bill to
include the following language:
Contracts entered into pursuant to this
section shall provide for full reimbursement to
the county or city of the actual costs of
providing those services, as determined by the
county auditor or auditor-controller, or by the
city, as the case may be.
Prior to contracting for services
pursuant to this section, the city counsel, or
board of supervisors, as applicable, shall
discuss the contract and the requirements of this
section at a duly noticed public hearing.
This bill proposes what amounts to a pilot project by
authorizing these expanded duties only to security officers
hired by the Sheriff of Sacramento County. Piloting this new
arrangement in one county may be a reasonable approach but it
raises the question whether some of these facilities of national
security significance might also be located within the City of
Sacramento and thus fall within the jurisdiction of the police
department. To maintain consistency with the existing statute
as well as to allow for protection of facilities within the city
limits, the author may wish to consider amending the bill to
include police as well as sheriff's security officers.
COULD ALLOWING PUBLIC SECURITY OFFICERS TO GUARD THESE PRIVATE
FACILITIES BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC?
SHOULD THESE AMENDMENTS BE MADE?
***************
AB 2626 (Jones)
PageL