BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1032
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1032 (Wright) - As Amended: April 27, 2010
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:6-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill specifies that enforcement provisions of the Peace
Officer Bill of Rights (POBOR), which make it unlawful for a
public safety department to deny a public safety officer
specified rights and protections concerning interrogations and
investigations, also apply to the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG).
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown, potentially moderate annual GF costs, to the extent
this bill results in additional legal costs for the state. Costs
would depend on the number and quality of cases lodged against
the OIG.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author contends this bill corrects an anomaly
in current law by which the enforcement provisions of POBOR do
not apply to the OIG, even though the OIG is subject to the
provisions of POBOR relating to the investigation of officers.
2)Background.
a) Current law establishes POBOR , which provides procedural
protections for peace officers in employment-related
matters. Current law specifies it is unlawful for a public
safety department to deny a public safety officer the
rights and protections guaranteed under POBOR and that the
superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any
SB 1032
Page 2
proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any
public safety department for alleged violations of the
POBOR.
Upon a finding by a superior court that a public safety
department or its employees violated provisions of POBOR
with the intent to injure a public safety officer, the
public safety department shall be liable for a civil
penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000) to be awarded to the public safety officer whose
right or protection was denied. If the court so finds, and
there is sufficient evidence to establish actual damages
suffered by the officer whose right or protection was
denied, the public safety department shall also be liable
for the amount of the actual damages. (Gov Code 3309.5)
b) Current law establishes the OIG to conduct audits and
investigations of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR). The OIG may require any employee of
the department to be interviewed on a confidential basis.
Current law specifies it is not the purpose of these
communications to address disciplinary action or grievance
procedures that may occur, and that if it appears the facts
of the case could lead to punitive action, the IG is
subject to POBOR provisions governing investigations of
public safety officers. (PC 6126.5)
PC 6126.5, however, does not include a cross reference
to the enforcement provisions of POBOR.
3)This bill specifies the enforcement provisions contained in
Gov Code 3309.5(a)(b)(c)(d) pertaining to POBOR violations,
apply to the OIG.
4)Opposition . The OIG opposes this bill, stating it is
unnecessary and could prove costly, to the extent it results
in additional officer lawsuits against the OIG. According to
IG David Shaw, "This bill is unnecessary because there are
several existing safeguards and remedies available to a public
safety officer at the CDCR who believes his/her rights may
SB 1032
Page 3
have been violated by the OIG.
"As required by statute, the OIG conducts investigations of
CDCR public safety officers in conformity with POBOR, and
fully believes that it should do so. With the exception of the
failed complaint filed by CCSO (CA Correctional Supervisors
Association), the source of this bill, the OIG has not been
subjected to any complaints from other employee unions or
organizations, including SEIU or CCPOA in this regard."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081