BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
3
1
AB 2314 (Hall) 4
As Amended May 7, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:sl
PEACE OFFICERS:
FIREARMS
HISTORY
Source: State Coalition of Probation Organizations
Prior Legislation: AB 1698 (Wieckowski)-2012, Vetoed
AB 2157 (Logue) - 2010, failed passage in Senate
Public Safety
Support: AFSCME, AFL-CIO; Association for Los Angeles Deputy
Sheriffs; Association of Probation Supervisors (SEIU
721-BU 702); California Coalition of Law Enforcement
Associations; California Police Chiefs; Fraternal Order
of Police (N. California Probation Lodge # 19);
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council; Inyo
County Probation Peace Officer Association; Long Beach
Police Officers Association; Los Angeles Protective
League; L.A. County Probation Officers Union; Los
Angeles County Professional Peace officers Association;
Madera County Probation Peace Officers Association;
Peace Officers Research Association of California;
Riverside Sheriff's Association; Sacramento County
Deputy Sheriffs Association; Sacramento County
Probation Association; San Diego County Probation
Officers Association; San Joaquin County Probation
(More)
AB 2314 (Hall)
Page 2
Officers Association; San Luis Obispo County Probation
Officers' Association; Santa Ana Police Officers
Association; Shasta County Professional Peace Officers
Association; Stanislaus County Deputy Probation
Officers Association; State Coalition of Probation
Organizations; Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety;
Tuolumne County Deputy Probation Officers; Ventura
County Professional Peace Officers' Association; Yolo
County Probation Association, Inc.
Opposition:California State Association of Counties; Chief
Probation Officers; County of San Bernardino; Los
Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD EACH CHIEF PROBATION OFFICER BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP A POLICY
FOR ARMING PROBATION OFFICERS AND DEPUTY PROBATION OFFICERS WHO
COMPRISE HIGH-RISK CASELOADS NO LATER THAN JUNE 30, 2015?
SHOULD IT BE REQUIRED THAT THIS POLICY BE IMPLEMENTED NO LATER THAN
DECEMBER 31, 2015?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide that: (1) probation
officers or deputy probation officers are 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 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, 2015. This
policy shall be implemented no later than December 31, 2015.
Current 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
(More)
AB 2314 (Hall)
Page 3
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. 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; and,
To the rendering of mutual aid to any other law
enforcement agency.
(Penal Code Section 830.5(a).)
Current law does not include probation officers or deputy
probation officers among peace officers authorized to carry
firearms off duty. (Penal Code � 830.5(c).)
Current 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 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).)
(More)
AB 2314 (Hall)
Page 4
This bill would provide that 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.
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,
2015. This policy shall be implemented no later than December
31, 2015.
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.
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
(More)
AB 2314 (Hall)
Page 5
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
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
(More)
AB 2314 (Hall)
Page 6
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
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. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Following the implementation of AB 109 (Public Safety
Realignment), so-called "Non/Non/Non" inmates released
from State Prison that were previously supervised by
(More)
AB 2314 (Hall)
Page 7
armed Parole Agents (employed by CDCR), are now
supervised by county Probation Officers. Although
Probation Officers may be armed under current law, the
ultimate decision regarding arming rests with each
County's Chief Probation Officer.
In many counties, only a few Probation Officers are
armed, and in a few, Probation Officers are not armed
at all. Given the fact that most Probation Officers'
caseloads is made up entirely of "Non/Non/Non"
released inmates with serious crime histories, being
an unarmed Probation Officer places their lives in
jeopardy when performing their supervisory functions.
This bill will require every Chief Probation Officer
to adopt a policy for arming all Probation Officers
who supervise a "high-risk" caseload in their county.
This will ensure that Probation officers around the
state have access to the tools necessary to properly
supervise recently released inmates, and to protect
themselves and the public.
2. Arming Probation Officers: Effect of Legislation
Probation officers in California are responsible for supervising
adults and juveniles who are placed on probation by the courts.
(Penal Code �1202.8.) In addition, under the Public Safety
Realignment of 2011, probation departments also are responsible
for supervising some felons released from prison, and other
felons who have received "split sentences" pursuant to Penal
Code section 1170 (h)(5). (Penal Code � 11709(h).) They also
conduct background investigations on persons convicted of
felonies and provide the court with presentence reports to
assist the court in sentencing. (Penal Code �1203.)
Supervising a probationer involves both monitoring his or her
compliance with the terms and conditions of the probation
agreement as
well as assisting the probationer in successfully completing
their probationary term by complying with those terms and
conditions, finding stable housing, employment and completing
(More)
AB 2314 (Hall)
Page 8
any necessary treatment programs. The role of the probation
officer is, therefore, part law enforcement officer and part
social worker.
Current law states that probation officers and deputy probation
officers have limited peace officer status and may carry
firearms while on duty "only if authorized and under those terms
and conditions specified by their employing agency." (Penal
Code Section 830.5(a).) This bill would require that chief
probation officers make the arming determination on a
case-by-case or
unit-by-unit basis. In other words, there could be no arming
policy that applies department-wide.
This bill would also require each chief probation officer in
California, who has "not armed or has not adopted a policy
regarding arming probation officers and deputy probation
officers," to develop a policy "as to whether probation officers
and deputy probation officers who supervise high-risk caseloads
should be armed." Chief probation officers already have the
ability to develop policies regarding the arming of officers,
and the committee has not been presented with evidence that a
mandate is necessary. In fact, the Chief Probation Officers of
California, who are opposed to the legislation, state, "55 of 59
county probation departments currently have armed officers.
This is an increase from 44 in 2001."
3. Governor's Veto of AB 1968
(More)
This bill is a reintroduction of AB 1968 (Wieckowski), of the
2011-12 Legislative Session, which was vetoed. AB
1968 was substantially amended in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee to require the chief probation officer to develop a
policy for arming probation officers whose caseload
is comprised of high-risk individuals, and authorized probation
officers to carry firearms as determined by the chief probation
officer on a case-by-case basis. 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, 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. Statement in Support
The California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations,
state, in part:
This bill would simply require the Chief Probation
officer in each county to create a written policy
regarding the arming of probation officers who have
"high-risk" caseloads. This bill does not require
that any probation officer be armed.
An element of AB 109 includes rank and file probation
officers being charged with implementation of the
Governor's ambitious Public Safety Realignment plan.
As a result, caseloads for probation officers have
increased significantly, resulting in the job becoming
more and more dangerous every day. County probation
officers now monitor many individuals leaving state
(More)
AB 2314 (Hall)
Page 10
correctional facilities. Prior to Realignment, armed
State Parole Agents monitored these same individuals.
Given the ambitious goals of Realignment, and the
dangerous individuals counties are requiring Probation
Officers to monitor each day, it is imperative that
Chief promulgate policies that reflect this new
reality.
4. Statement in Opposition
The Chief Probation Officers of California, states in part:
Current law categorizes a probation officer as a peace
officer who may carry firearms if authorized by his or
her employing agency, and under the terms and
conditions specified by his or her employing agency.
This is a critically important role of the Chief in
which they must put into place a policy to address a
variety of complex factors. CPOC respectfully submits
that current law has all the necessary provisions in
place to secure our communities as well as our
officers' safety.
***************