BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair S
2009-2010 Regular Session B
1
1
9
SB 1190 (Cedillo) 0
As Amended March 22, 2010
Hearing date: April 6, 2010
Penal Code
SM:mc
ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS: BATON TRAINING
HISTORY
Source: California Animal Control Directors Association
Prior Legislation: AB 2245 (Soto) - Chap. 96, Stats. of 2008
Support: Bell Gardens Police Department, City of Santa Ana;
California Peace Officers'
Association; California Police Chiefs Association; Laborers'
International Union of
North America, Locals 777 and 792; City of South Gate Police
Department
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE BATON TRAINING COURSE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS BE THE
COURSE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND
TRAINING, AND NOT A COURSE CERTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER
AFFAIRS?
SHOULD THE TRAINING INSTITUTION BE PERMITTED TO CHARGE A FEE
COVERING THE COST OF THE TRAINING?
(More)
SB 1190 (Cedillo)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) provide that the baton
training course for animal control officers be the course
approved by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training and not a course certified by the Department of
Consumer Affairs; and (2) permit the training institution to
charge a fee covering the cost of the training.
Existing law provides that animal control officers are not peace
officers but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace
officer, as specified, and the power to serve warrants, as
specified, during the course and within the scope of their
employment, if those officers successfully complete a course in
the exercise of those powers pursuant to Section 832. That part
of the training course specified in Section 832 pertaining to
the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required for any
animal control officer whose employing agency prohibits the use
of firearms. (Penal Code 830.9.)
Existing law further provides:
An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a
case and in the manner authorized by law and that an
arrest may be made by a peace officer or a private
person. (Penal Code 834.)
An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the
person, or by submission to the custody of an officer.
The person arrested may be subjected to such
restraint as is reasonable for his or her arrest and
detention. (Penal Code 835.)
A private person may arrest another person for a
public offense committed or attempted in his or her
presence, when the person arrested has committed a
felony regardless of whether it was committed in his
or her presence, and when a felony has been committed
(More)
SB 1190 (Cedillo)
PageC
and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the
person to be arrested has committed it. (Penal Code
837.)
With limited exceptions, a peace officer may arrest
a person when the officer has reasonable cause to
believe the person to be arrested has committed a
public offense in the officer's presence, when the
person arrested has committed a felony regardless of
whether it was committed in the officer's presence,
and when the officer has reasonable cause to believe
the person to be arrested has committed a felony.
(Penal Code 836.)
Existing law states that police officers, special police
officers, peace officers, or law enforcement officers are not
prohibited from carrying any wooden club, baton, or any
equipment authorized for the enforcement of law or ordinance in
any city or county. (Penal Code 12002(a).)
Existing law provides that a uniformed security guard,
regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any
lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in
protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of
his or her employment, is not prohibited from carrying any
wooden club or baton if the uniformed security guard has
satisfactorily completed a course of instruction certified by
the Department of Consumer Affairs in the carrying and use of
the club or baton. The training institution certified by the
Department of Consumer Affairs to present this course, whether
public or private, is authorized to charge a fee covering the
cost of the training. (Penal Code 12002(b).)
Existing law requires that the Department of Consumer Affairs,
in cooperation with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards
and Training, develop standards for a course in the carrying
and use of the club or baton. (Penal Code 12002(c).)
Existing law provides that any uniformed security guard who
successfully completes a course of instruction under this
(More)
SB 1190 (Cedillo)
PageD
section is entitled to receive a permit to carry and use a club
or baton within the scope of his or her employment, issued by
the Department of Consumer Affairs. The department may
authorize certified training institutions to issue permits to
carry and use a club or baton. A fee in the amount provided by
law shall be charged by the Department of Consumer Affairs to
offset the costs incurred by the department in course
certification, quality control activities associated with the
course, and issuance of the permit. (Penal Code 12002(d).)
Existing law provides that any person employed as a county
sheriff's or police security officer, as specified, shall not
be required to obtain a club or baton permit or to complete a
course certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs in the
carrying and use of a club or baton, provided that the person
completes a course approved by the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training in the carrying and use of the club or
baton, within 90 days of employment. (Penal Code 12002(f).)
Existing law provides that an animal control officer, as
specified, or an illegal dumping enforcement officer, as
specified, is not prohibited from carrying any wooden club or
baton if the animal control officer or illegal dumping
enforcement officer has satisfactorily completed a course of
instruction certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs in
the carrying and use of the club or baton. The training
institution certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs to
present this course, whether public or private, is authorized
to charge a fee covering the cost of the training. (Penal Code
12002(g).)
This bill would provide that, to be authorized to carry a
baton, animal control officers, as specified, must
satisfactorily complete a course of training approved by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training in the
carrying and use of the club or baton and that the training
institution would be authorized to charge a fee covering the
cost of the training.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
(More)
SB 1190 (Cedillo)
PageE
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.)
. . .
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
(More)
SB 1190 (Cedillo)
PageF
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.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
---------------------------
<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)
SB 1190 (Cedillo)
PageG
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
The existing procedures that the DCA has for obtaining
a DCA Baton Permit are intended for security officers.
Requiring animal control officers to complete a baton
training course certified by the DCA is inefficient,
inconvenient and costly to animal control officers and
in some cases to the cities or counties where animal
control officers are employed who appropriate the
funds for training.
In order to avoid the confusion and carry a valid
baton permit, some animal control officers have
resorted to calling their baton a "bite stick" and
instead taking a POST certified baton training course
to avoid the entire confusion of going to a DCA
certified training facility, not being able to carry a
valid baton permit, and being sent to obtain a guard
card.
Because animal control officers are many times
employed by the cities or counties, and because they
are empowered under Penal Code 830.9, and are already
required to complete an 832 POST certified training
course, it seems to make more sense to require animal
control officers to get POST certified Baton Training
if they are given the authority to carry a baton.
SB [1190] seeks to make animal control officer
training more consistent with state statute. This
bill would remove the requirement that animal control
officers complete training certified by the Department
of Consumer Affairs in order to be permitted to carry
a club or baton and would instead require the officers
to complete training approved by the Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training in the carrying
and use of the club or baton in order to carry a club
(More)
SB 1190 (Cedillo)
PageH
or baton.
Requiring an animal control officer to complete a
baton training course certified by the Commission on
POST will eliminate the confusion that exists between
the DCA and animal control officers by creating a more
concrete and efficient system for security officer to
carry batons.
Since some animal control officers already revert to
completing a POST certified baton training course
instead of going to the DCA and being confronted with
the confusion that exists in between animal control
officers and the Department of Consumer Affairs, this
bill would seek to put in code something that is
already in practice.
(More)
2. Animal Control Officers and the Department of Consumer Affairs
To be authorized to carry a baton, animal control officers are
required to complete a baton training course that has been
certified by the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The
Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and
Investigative Services (BSIS), regulates private security
guards. Private security guards must register with BSIS,
complete specified training, and pay certain fees. To obtain a
baton permit, BSIS requires that an applicant be a registered
security guard. DCA has informed the Committee that, while
trainers may not issue a "baton permit" independently from a
security guard card, trainers have been told they may issue
animal control officers who complete baton training a
certificate that verifies their successful completion of the
course.
According to background materials provided by the author's
office, BSIS policy has created a problem for animal control
officers in that they are unable to obtain a permit to carry a
baton unless they register with BSIS as a security guard and pay
the fees for a "guard card." In response, this bill would amend
the requirement that animal control officers who wish to carry a
baton take a training course certified by the Department of
Consumer Affairs and instead allow them to take a course
approved by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training (POST).
Existing law does not require animal control officers to obtain
a baton permit in order to carry a baton, only that they
complete a course of training in the use of the baton that has
been certified by DCA. However, background material provided by
the author states that some animal control officers, when
informed by the baton training institution (often a community
college) that they may not obtain a baton permit without being a
registered security guard, proceed to register as a security
guard, incurring unnecessary training and fees. Others,
according to the bill's sponsor, decide to take a POST-certified
baton training course instead of the required DCA-certified
(More)
SB 1190 (Cedillo)
PageJ
course and thereafter refer to their baton as a "bite stick."
The sponsors also argue that, since the animal control officers
are already taking the arrest training course pursuant to
section 832 of the Penal Code from POST-certified instructors,
it would be easier and less confusing to have them take their
baton training from the same instructors.
The author has taken amendments to specify that POST need not
create a new baton training course specifically for animal
control officers and to specify that the institution providing
the POST-certified baton training is authorized to charge a fee
covering the cost of the training. With these two amendments
POST has withdrawn their opposition to the bill.
One potential unintended consequence of this bill is that animal
control officers will be competing with police and sheriff's
cadets for space in POST-certified baton training courses which
may result in a delay in their completing this required training
if such spaces are in short supply.
COULD THIS CAUSE CONGESTION IN POST-CERTIFIED BATON TRAINING
COURSES?
WILL ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS BE ABLE TO RECEIVE THE REQUIRED
BATON TRAINING IN A TIMELY FASHION?
***************