BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2314
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 14, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 2314 (Hall) - As Amended: May 7, 2013
Policy Committee: Public Safety
Vote: 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires county probation departments to adopt an
arming policy. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides if a chief probation officer has not armed or adopted
a policy regarding arming probation officers prior to January
1, 2015, the chief probation officer for each county shall
develop a policy no later than June 30, 2015, as to whether
probation officers who supervise high-risk caseloads should be
armed. This policy shall be implemented no later than
December 31, 2015.
2)Provides that any probation officer is authorized to carry a
gun, but only as determined by the chief probation officer on
a case-by-case or unit-by-unit basis and only under terms and
conditions specified by the chief probation officer.
3)Defines a high-risk caseload to mean 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 or violent felony, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
As this bill does not require arming, the cost is limited to
adoption of an arming policy by probation departments that do
not currently have such a policy. As most counties do have a
policy - most arm some probation officers at the discretion of
the chief - and as adoption of an arming policy is not a
complicated process, the cost of formalizing a policy should be
absorbable.
AB 2314
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, "Under realignment, probation
officers became part of a significant public safety policy
shift. In addition to the enhanced public and personal safety
risks, probation officers are now responsible for a much
broader range of duties, including facilitating evidence-based
programs, conducting criminal investigations, preparing and
submitting court reports, collecting fines and insuring victim
restitution."
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)This bill is a reintroduction of AB 1968 (Wieckowski), 2012
which was vetoed . AB 1968, which initially proposed arming
all probation officers whose caseload incudes a high risk
probationer, as specified, was significantly amended in this
committee to require the chief probation officer to develop a
policy for arming probation officers whose caseload is
comprised of high-risk individuals. AB 2314 is similar to the
AB 1968 as amended by the committee. The Governor's veto
message stated:
"This bill requires a chief probation officer to develop and
implement an official policy covering the arming of deputy
probation officers.
"I am sympathetic to what the proponents are trying to
accomplish by this bill. But since local circumstances differ,
AB 2314
Page 3
I am reluctant to force this matter from the state level. The
chief probation officers are closer and better situated to
make the decision. The principles of subsidiarity apply."
4)Support includes a list of rank-and-file law enforcement
related organizations.
5)Opposition includes the Chief Probation officers of
California, the CA Association of Counties (CSAC), the L.A.
County Board of Supervisors, the Urban Counties Caucus, and
the Rural County Caucus. In a joint letter, the county
organizations state, "In our view your measure is unnecessary
given that the number of departments (55 of the 59) arming
their probation officers suggest that the local decision
making process is working. The current process allows for
counties to consider and make appropriate adjustments in light
of the changed environment resulting from the implementation
of 2011 public safety realignment. The requirement to put an
arming policy in writing may cause unnecessary liability
concerns."
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081