BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2623
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2623 (Allen) - As Introduced: February 24, 2012
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 4-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill authorizes police officers of state hospitals
administered by the Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the
Department of Developmental Services (DDS) to carry guns without
the departments' authorization.
FISCAL EFFECT
Significant one-time and ongoing GF costs, potentially in excess
of $1 million, for training, weaponry, weapon storage, and
potentially increased compensation. In addition, arming is
generally accompanied by increased state liability concerns.
1)Assuming a cost of about $1,000 per weapon, including
ammunition and various accessories, weaponry for about
one-third of 800 HPOs, assuming the weapons are stored on site
and used by multiple officers, initial costs would be about
$250,000, with periodic maintenance and replacement.
2)Unknown one-time weapon storage costs - stationary lockers and
vehicle lockers - with periodic maintenance and replacement,
in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars.
3)Training costs are difficult to estimate as it is not clear
how many of the current 800-plus hospital police officers
(HPOs) at DMH and DDS are fully firearm-qualified under
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)
standards. The bill's sponsor, the California Statewide Law
Enforcement Association (CSLEA) contends all officers are
POST-certified. DMH and DDS officials could not confirm. At a
minimum, however, even if all HPOs are currently
AB 2623
Page 2
POST-qualified, which is not at all clear, annual quarterly
range training would be required at a cost in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars for overtime and training.
4)Unknown, but potentially significant ongoing costs to the
extent arming a new class of peace officers by statute results
in increased compensation demands as a result of a change in
working conditions and responsibility.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author and sponsor, CSLEA, contend state
hospital police officers (HPOs) should have the right to carry
guns, whether or not the department so authorizes, because
these officers deal with dangerous patients.
According to the author, "Over the past two decades the state
has seen a dramatic increase in the forensic population. Just
thirteen years ago, half of the patient population were
forensic commitments, now over 92% of the patients have
committed some form of serious or violent felony.?
"Currently, the state mental hospitals rely on the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide perimeter
security and transports at two of the five state hospitals
�Coalinga and Atascadero]. The correctional officers that
provide perimeter security and transportation services at the
state hospitals do so armed. Hospital police officers at the
remaining three state hospitals provide the same
transportation and perimeter security unarmed. Furthermore,
hospital police also do patrol and traffic stops in marked
police vehicles and provide mutual aid to local law
enforcement unarmed."
2)Current law (Penal Code 830.38) specifies HPOs are peace
officers whose authority extends to any place in California
for the purpose of performing their primary duty or when
making arrests when there is immediate danger to person or
property or of the escape of the perpetrator of that offense.
These peace officers may carry guns only if authorized and
under terms and conditions specified by their employing
agency.
3)Hospitals and officers affected. California has five state
hospitals administered by DMH - Atascadero State Hospital,
AB 2623
Page 3
Coalinga State Hospital, Metropolitan State Hospital, Napa
State Hospital, and Patton State Hospital with about 660 HPOs,
and about 6,100 patients, including about 860 sexually violent
predators (SVPs), 1,300 not guilty by reason (NGIs), 1,200
incompetent to stand trial (ISTs), and 1,200 mentally
disordered offenders (MDOs). While virtually all SVPs are
housed at Coalinga, there are a considerable number of MDOs,
ISTs and NGIs at the other facilities
In addition DDS operates four developmental centers - one of
which, Porterville, is a secure facility - with about 150 HPOs
and 1,800 clients.
Department officials note that apart from a limited number of
specialized investigators, state hospitals and developmental
centers have never had guns on hospital or center grounds.
4)Employing agencies have discretion to arm their peace
officers; is there any documentation this discretion being
abused ? Under Penal Code Section 830.38, officers under the
jurisdiction of DMH or DDS may be armed if authorized by their
employing agency. This section provides the director
discretion to determine if HPOs face sufficient risks to
justify arming. DMH contracts with the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation for armed correctional
officers to provide perimeter security at Patton and Coalinga
State Hospitals, which generally house the most dangerous
patients referred from the court system.
Presumably, the Legislature created these categories of peace
officers to allow an employing agency to make this
determination depending on the conditions under which its
peace officers work. Has that discretion been abused? Have the
department directors been derelict in their public safety
responsibilities?
5)CSLEA lost a related grievance in arbitration last year. In
July 2011, CSLEA and DMH agreed to arbitrate a grievance on
behalf of the HPOs. As summarized in the Assembly Public
Safety Committee analysis, the parties agreed to allow the
arbitrator to frame the issue of the grievance. The
arbitrator determined the issue as follows: Is the DMH in
violation of the Bargaining Unit 7 Memorandum of Understanding
when HPOs are assigned duties off hospital grounds and not
permitted to carry a firearm during the assignment?
AB 2623
Page 4
The arbitrator ruled that HPOs, though sworn law enforcement
officers, are not general jurisdiction peace officers; they
are employees of DMH and are expected to act in accordance
with DMH policies and directives.
The record lacks any examples of HPOs being attacked while on
an off-grounds assignment or of being injured while on such
assignments. Nothing in the record showed hazards and risks
exist that are not reasonably associated with the performance
of HPO duties.
The grievance was denied.
6)Support . According to the sponsor, CSLEA, "All of the
officers are currently trained on the proper use of force and
firearms in their respective academies. They are one of the
very few law enforcement entities in the state that provides
unarmed transports of forensically committed individuals.
This bill simply provides our officers with the customary
tools of the trade and the ability to adequately protect the
community, patients, staff, and themselves."
7)Opposition . According to the California Association of
Psychiatric Technicians (CAPT),
"CAPT feels the need to carry firearms or to have firearms on
the grounds of a state hospital is unwise and unnecessary.
Existing Welfare and Institutions Code allows peace officers
to carry firearms if authorized and under terms and conditions
specified by the employing agency. The Department of Mental
Health has elected not to authorize HPOs to carry firearms
since there can be unintended consequences and patients, staff
and the broader community. Firearms are contrary to creating
a supportive and therapeutic environment."
8)Prior Legislation . Similar efforts to arm HPOs absent
departmental authorization have failed.
a) AB 1289 (Horton), 2005-06, would have allowed peace
officers at state hospitals to carry guns without
authorization of the employing agency. AB 1289 was held on
this committee's Suspense File.
b) AB 1567 (Correa), 2003-04 Legislative Session, would
have allowed DMH peace officers to carry guns without
AB 2623
Page 5
authorization of the employing agency. AB 1567 was held on
the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
c) AB 1987 (Harman), 2001-02 Legislative Session, would
have allowed DMH peace officers to carry guns without
authorization of the employing agency. AB 1987 failed
passage in Assembly Public Safety Committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081