BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1968
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1968 (Wieckowski) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires a probation officer responsible for a person
on probation or post-release community supervision (PRCS) who is
deemed high risk pursuant to a risk-based assessment system, to
be authorized to carry a gun while on duty, and specifies this
authorization may only be revoked by the chief probation officer
for good cause, as provided. (Currently officers are armed at
the discretion of the employing agency.)
FISCAL EFFECT
Significant one-time and ongoing reimbursable state GF costs,
potentially well in excess of $10 million to arm most county
probation officers (there are about 1,000 probation officers in
L.A. County and about 3,000 statewide.) According to several
counties and the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC), virtually all officers would have to be trained and
armed, as the bill requires arming authorization for any officer
with a high-risk person on caseload.
Preliminary cost estimates vary a great deal from county to
county, particularly regarding the estimate of additional
training that may be required, the various equipment and gear
that accompanies arming (vests, cuffs, uniform, storage, etc.),
and how many officers are currently armed. For example, L.A.
County estimates a cost of about $15,000 per officer to arm an
officer. This includes one-time costs such as the gun,
ammunition, various accessories, and a psychological evaluation,
in addition to ongoing costs, including vest, training,
ammunition, and firearm training and range qualification.
Ventura County estimates a per officer costs of about $8,000.
AB 1968
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author and proponents (primarily rank-and-file
probation officers) contend the fact probation departments
have assumed a significant caseload of more hardened
probationers, who prior to realignment would have either been
in prison or on state parole, merits arming more officers.
According to the author, "Rank and file probation officers are
on the receiving end of this significant public safety policy
shift. They are responsible for probationer and community
supervision, facilitating evidence-based programs, criminal
investigation (limited) court report submission, collection
and restitution of fines and referral to rehabilitation
programs. This enhanced public safety role has resulted in
increased caseloads for probation officers. They are a key
cornerstone of this important public policy realignment shift.
AB 1968 would ensure that probation officers are authorized
to be armed if they are responsible for AB 109 realigned
offenders and 'high-risk' offenders. Their safety in personal
meetings with offenders who were traditionally supervised by
parole agents should be a high priority. "
2)Current law :
a) Places probation officers in the class of peace officers
who may carry guns at the discretion of their employing
agencies. This class includes correctional officers and
parole agents.
b) Requires peace officers authorized to carry guns
pursuant to the section amended by this bill to meet
specified training requirements.
3)Deletes discretion of County Chief Probation Officers to
determine whether and when to arm . Has there been a
demonstrated failure of Chief Probation Officers to use their
discretion appropriately? Requiring probation officers who
supervise even one high risk probationer on their caseload to
be authorized to carry a gun at all times significantly
reduces the management authority of Chief Probation Officers.
4)Who is responsible for deeming a person high risk? What is
AB 1968
Page 3
high risk? And what risk-based assessment system would be
used? The bill requires more development in this area as risk
assessments and systems vary from county to county.
5)Support . According to the State Coalition of Probation
Organizations (SCOPO), "Members of SCOPO have been at the
receiving end of public safety realignment, which has resulted
in the transition of inmates formerly under the supervision of
state parole agents, to local probation officers. This has
created enhanced danger for probation officers every day.
Furthermore, realignment has resulted in an increased
caseload, as well as more sophisticated and high-risk
offenders for probation. Therefore, it is imperative that
probation officers have adequate tools to ensure our success
and, ultimately, the success of public safety realignment."
6)Opposition.
a) According to the Chief Probation Officers of California
(CPOC), "Approximately 80% of county probation departments
currently have armed officers. Others continue to review
the decision on a case by case basis and when circumstances
change. CPOC is not against arming officers but it is
crucial that such an important decision be addressed at the
local level and within the entire context of issues that
should be reviewed by each Chief."
Furthermore, the mandate in this proposal is ambiguous as
Chief Probation Officers across the state will be put in a
position of having to ensure their armed Probation Officers
are trained in approved facilities, under instructors with
approved course materials. This vagueness will hinder the
ability of a Chief Probation Officer to handle each employee
and his or her workload and risk exposure on a case by case
basis."
b) According to the California State Association of
Counties (CSAC), "Arming decisions are - appropriately, in
our view - arrived at locally, based on the needs,
preferences and requirements of that particular community
as determined by the county. This model works well and
allows county boards of supervisors and chief probation
officers to evaluate and assess the circumstances,
caseload, and risk exposure that might necessitate officer
arming on a casebycase basis. Questions of officer safety;
AB 1968
Page 4
designating the specific personnel or caseload types that
may warrant arming; and consideration of the rather
significant issues of among others liability, cost, and
training are all decisions best left at tc)he local level.
"Your measure would effectively eviscerate that important
local decisionmaking process. Under AB 1968, probation
officers would be required to be armed even if just one
individual on their caseload was deemed to be highrisk
based on a risk assessment. The only exception to the
arming requirement would be if the authorization was
revoked by the probation chief for good cause. Considering
this construct, we view the provisions of AB 1968 as a
blanket requirement that - taking into account but one
factor - will require the arming of virtually every
probation officer in the state."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081