BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 1968 (Wieckowski) - Peace officers: arming probation
officers.
Amended: August 6, 2012 Policy Vote: Public Safety 4-3
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 6, 2012
Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 1968 would authorize a probation officer or
deputy probation officer to carry firearms, but only as
determined by the chief probation officer on a case-by-case or
unit-by-unit basis and only under the terms and conditions
specified by the chief probation officer. This bill would
require each chief probation officer to develop a policy for
arming probation officers and deputy probation officers who
comprise high risk caseloads no later than June 30, 2013.This
bill would require the policy to be implemented no later than
December 31, 2013,
Fiscal Impact:
One-time state reimbursable costs to local probation
departments potentially in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars (General Fund) to develop policies for arming
probation officers, as specified.
Potential future one-time and ongoing local costs,
potentially state-reimbursable, in the range tens of
thousands to low millions of dollars, depending on the
timing and extent of local arming policies mandated to be
implemented by December 31, 2013.
Background: Under existing law, probation officers and deputy
probation officers are peace officers whose authority extends to
any place in the state while engaged in the performance of the
duties of their respective employment and for the purpose of
carrying out the primary function of their employment. Except as
specified, these peace officers may carry firearms only if
authorized and under those terms and conditions specified by
their employing agency. Existing law does not include probation
officers or deputy probation officers among peace officers
authorized to carry firearms off duty. Any probation officers
AB 1968 (Wieckowski)
Page 1
who are permitted to carry firearms are required under existing
law to meet specified training requirements and must qualify
with the firearm at least quarterly.
Proposed Law: This bill would do the following:
Provides that a probation officer or deputy probation
officer is authorized to carry firearms, but only as
determined by the chief probation officer on a case-by-case
or unit-by-unit basis and only under the terms and
conditions specified by the chief probation officer.
Requires each chief probation officer to develop a
policy for arming probation officers and deputy probation
officers who comprise high risk caseloads no later than
June 30, 2013.
Requires the arming policy to be implemented no later
than December 31, 2013.
Related Legislation: AB 2157 (Logue) 2010 would have amended the
requirement that probation officers authorized to carry firearms
must qualify with that firearm on a quarterly basis and instead
required firearms qualification only on a bi-annual basis. This
bill failed in the Senate Committee on Public Safety.
Staff Comments: Existing law permits probation officers to be
armed only if so authorized by their employing agency.
Currently, not all probation departments in California arm their
officers. According to the Chief Probation Officers of
California, approximately 80 percent of county probation
departments currently have armed officers.
This bill mandates each chief probation officer to develop a
policy for arming probation officers and deputy probation
officers who comprise high risk caseloads no later than June 30,
2013. The additional staff time and workload necessary to
research and develop arming policies for officers supervising
high risk caseloads within the six-month time period will result
in state-reimbursable costs to local probation departments,
likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (General Fund)
statewide.
This bill additionally mandates the arming policies to be
implemented by December 31, 2013. Although the specific details
of the policies are left to the discretion of the chief
probation officer, the bill requires implementation of the
AB 1968 (Wieckowski)
Page 2
arming policy that has been developed within six months, the
associated costs of which could be determined to be
state-reimbursable, given the presumptive language contained in
the bill stating "Each chief probation shall develop a policy
for arming probation officers?" and further mandating "This
policy shall be implemented?" The one-time and ongoing costs
would vary by local probation department and would be dependent
on the number of officers to be armed pursuant to the policy.
Staff notes that even in those counties that currently arm
probation officers who supervise high risk caseloads, by
mandating that each chief probation officer develop a policy for
arming its officers and subsequently implement that policy, any
existing costs incurred by the counties could be determined to
be reimbursable by the state. Ongoing costs could range from
tens of thousands of dollars to upwards of several million
dollars statewide, based on annual costs for arming, storage,
compensation, and training of approximately $6,500 per officer.