BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1968|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1968
Author: Wieckowski (D)
Amended: 8/22/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-3, 7/3/12
AYES: Anderson, Calderon, Harman, Price
NOES: Hancock, Liu, Steinberg
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 8/16/12
AYES: Kehoe, Walters, Alquist, Dutton, Lieu, Price,
Steinberg
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 5/31/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Arming Probation Officers
SOURCE : State Coalition of Probation Organizations
DIGEST : This bill provides that (1) any 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 those terms and conditions specified by the chief
probation officer and, (2) each county chief probation
officer shall develop a policy for arming probation
officers and deputy probation officers who comprise
high-risk caseloads no later than June 30, 2013. This
policy shall be implemented no later than December 31,
2013.
CONTINUED
AB 1968
Page
2
ANALYSIS : Existing law specifies that 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 in this
section, these peace officers may carry firearms only if
authorized and under those terms and conditions specified
by their employing agency: (Penal Code Section 830.5(a).)
Additionally, the authority of these parole or probation
officers shall extend only as follows:
To conditions of parole, probation, or post-release
community supervision by any person in this state on
parole, probation, or post-release community supervision.
To the escape of any inmate or ward from a state or local
institution.
To the transportation of persons on parole, probation, or
post-release community supervision.
To violations of any penal provisions of the law which
are discovered while performing the usual or authorized
duties of his or her employment.
To the rendering of mutual aid to any other law
enforcement agency.
Existing law does not include probation officers or deputy
probation officers among peace officers authorized to carry
firearms off duty. (Penal Code � 830.5(c).)
Existing law provides that persons permitted to carry
firearms pursuant to this section, either on or off duty,
shall meet specified training requirements and shall
qualify with the firearm at least quarterly. It is the
responsibility of the individual officer or designee to
maintain his or her eligibility to carry concealable
firearms off duty. Failure to maintain quarterly
qualifications by an officer or designee with any
CONTINUED
AB 1968
Page
3
concealable firearms carried off duty shall constitute good
cause to suspend or revoke that person's right to carry
firearms off duty. (Penal Code Section 830.5(d).)
This bill provides that any probation officer or deputy
probation officer is authorized to carry firearms, but only
as determined by the chief probation officer for each
county on a case-by-case or unit-by-unit basis and only
under those terms and conditions specified by the chief
probation officer. If a chief probation officer has not
armed or has not adopted a policy regarding arming
probation officers and deputy probation officers prior to
January 1, 2013, the chief probation officer shall develop
a policy no later than June 30, 2013 as to whether
probation officers and deputy probation officers who
supervise high-risk caseloads should be armed. This policy
shall be implemented no later than December 31, 2013.
For purposes of this bill, "high-risk caseload" means a
caseload that includes individuals who have been released
from state prison subject to post-release community
supervision and have a prior conviction for a serious
felony, or violent felony, as specified.
Prior Legislation
AB 2157 (Logue), 2010, which failed passage in Senate
Public Safety Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
One-time potentially significant state reimbursable costs
(General Fund) to local probation departments to develop
policies on arming probation officers who supervise
high-risk caseloads.
Potentially significant future one-time and ongoing local
costs, depending on the timing and extent of local arming
policies developed and implemented by December 31, 2013.
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/22/12)
CONTINUED
AB 1968
Page
4
State Coalition of Probation Organizations (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Police Chiefs Association
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/22/12)
California State Association of Counties
Chief Probation Officers of California
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Regional Council of Rural Counties
Urban Counties Caucus
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) states:
After passage of AB 109 (Committee on Budget, Chapter
15, Statutes of 2011), also known as the Public Safety
Realignment Bill, county probation officers were
assigned responsibility for state parolees - a
function previously undertaken by state parole
officers. Under present law, state parole officers
are currently armed because of the high-risk
population they were required to supervise - the very
same population now supervised by probation. To
protect these officers from the risk of harm posed, AB
1968 provides for arming only those probation officers
who will supervise the "high-risk" state offenders
transferred from the state. In all other respects,
current law applies. AB 1968 will not be implemented
without the same firearms training now required of
deputy sheriffs and police officers.
The success of the Public Safety Realignment hinges in
part on the services provided by probation officers.
Their safety in personal meetings with offenders who
were traditionally supervised by parole agents should
be a high priority. AB 1968 will strengthen the
protection and personal safety of these officers.
CONTINUED
AB 1968
Page
5
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California State
Association of Counties, County of Los Angeles, Regional
Council of Rural Counties, and Urban Counties Caucus state:
Under current law, probation officers may be
authorized by their employing agency to carry a
firearm. It is our understanding that in a vast
majority of the counties - approximately 80 percent -
the probation department arms at least some of their
officers. 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 case-by-case basis.
Questions of officer safety; 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 the local level.
While counties strongly support a robust and selective
decision-making process regarding the important
question of arming probation officers, we are opposed
to the legislative mandate as contemplated in AB 1968.
Inevitably, the state will bear the cost of this
requirement, given that it is a clear mandate and,
respectfully, we do not see the need for the bill as
currently drafted.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 5/31/12
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos,
Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson,
Donnelly, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth
Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Grove,
Hagman, Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Roger
Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Jeffries, Jones,
Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Miller,
CONTINUED
AB 1968
Page
6
Mitchell, Monning, Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Olsen,
Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner,
Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wagner, Wieckowski,
Williams, John A. P�rez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fletcher, Mansoor, Mendoza, Norby,
Valadao, Yamada
RJG:n 8/22/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED