BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
8
6
AB 1860 (V. Manuel Pérez) 0
As Amended March 20, 2014
Hearing date: June 10, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:mc
PEACE OFFICERS:
BASIC TRAINING REQUIREMENT
HISTORY
Source: Chief Probation Officers of California
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Los Angeles Probation Officers' Union, AFSCME, Local
685; Riverside Sheriffs Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 77 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD PROBATION BE PERMITTED TO EXCLUDE THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM
COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING (POST) CERTIFIED
TRAINING COURSES?
(More)
AB 1860 (V. Manuel Pérez)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to establish that a probation
department that is a certified provider of a specified peace
officer introductory training course on arrests and firearms
prescribed by POST is not required to offer the course to the
general public.
Existing law requires every peace officer, as specified, except
those whose employing agency prohibits the use of firearms, to
satisfactorily complete an introductory POST-prescribed
introductory training course and that satisfactory completion of
the course is to be demonstrated by passage of an appropriate
POST-developed or approved examination. (Penal Code § 832(a).)
Existing law requires every peace officer, as specified, to
satisfactorily complete the course described above prior to
exercising the powers of a peace officer, and states that peace
officers who have not satisfactorily completed the introductory
training course do not have peace officer powers until they
satisfactorily complete the course. (Penal Code §§ 832 (b) and
(c).)
Existing law requires any person completing the introductory
training course described above who does not become employed as
a peace officer within 3 years from the date of passing the
examination, or who has a 3 year or longer break in service as a
peace officer, to pass the examination prior to exercising peace
officer powers, except for any person who meets any of the
following requirements:
Is returning to a management position that is at the
second level of supervision or higher;
Has successfully requalified for a basic course through
the POST;
Has maintained proficiency through teaching the
introductory training course described above;
During the break in California service, was continuously
employed as a peace officer in another state or at the
(More)
AB 1860 (V. Manuel Pérez)
Page 3
federal level; or,
Has previously satisfactorily completed the introductory
training course and passed the appropriate examination; has
been appointed as a peace officer, as specified; and has
been continuously employed as a custodial officer, as
defined, by the agency making the peace officer appointment
since completing the introductory training course. (Penal
Code § 832(e).)
Existing law authorizes POST, notwithstanding any other law, to
charge appropriate fees, not exceeding actual costs, for the
examination required to demonstrate satisfactory completion of
the introductory training course to each applicant who is not
sponsored by a local or other law enforcement agency; is not a
peace officer employed by, or under consideration for employment
by, a state or local agency, department, or district; or is not
a custodial officer, as defined. (Penal Code § 832(g).)
Existing law provides that no course can be certified that
restricts attendance to a single agency, unless the purpose of
the course is to improve that agency and attendance by
non-agency personnel would jeopardize the success of the course.
(11 CCR 1052.)
This bill provides that a probation department that is a
certified provider of a specified peace officer introductory
training course on arrests and firearms prescribed by POST is
not required to offer the course to the general public.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
(More)
AB 1860 (V. Manuel Pérez)
Page 4
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
(More)
AB 1860 (V. Manuel Pérez)
Page 5
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
(More)
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Peace Officer "Arrest and Firearm" Training Course
The introductory training course prescribed in Penal Code
section 832, subdivision (a) is commonly referred to as the "PC
832 Arrest and Firearms" course and is the minimum training
standard required of California peace officers in order to
exercise peace officer powers. According to POST, this course
(More)
AB 1860 (V. Manuel Pérez)
Page 7
is the "entry-level training requirement for many California
peace officers."
(http://post.ca.gov/regular-basic-course.aspx.) The course can
be completed through a 664-hour-minimum Standard Format training
or a 730-hour-minimum Modular Format, which can be taken over an
extended period of time. (Id.) The curriculum for the course
is divided among 41 topics called "Learning Domains," which
"contain the minimum required foundational information for given
subjects." (Id.) The Learning Domains include the following
topics: leadership, professionalism, and ethics; criminal
justice system; policing in the community; laws of arrests;
search and seizure; presentation of evidence; investigative
report writing; use of force; crime scene, evidence, and
forensics; arrest and control; firearms/chemical agents; and,
cultural diversity/discrimination.
(http://post.ca.gov/pc-832-arrest-and-firearms-training-specifica
tions.aspx.)
2. Effect of Legislation
This legislation would allow probation departments to offer
POST-certified courses, without having to offer them to the
general public. Specifically, according to the Chief Probation
Officers,
AB 1860 would specify that county probation
departments who are certified presenters of the PC 832
training by POST are not required to offer the courses
to the general public. These courses can be expensive
and have many requirements (certified instructors,
testing and training specifications, student/teacher
ratios, qualified facilities and ranges) so putting
them on can be cost prohibitive. This measure assists
probation departments who wish to become certified
providers of PC 832 by only requiring that they offer
courses to law enforcement entities so that courses
can be held, as needed, to fulfill training demands.
AB 1860 (V. Manuel Pérez)
Page 8
***************