BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 388|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 388
Author: Lieu (D)
Amended: 1/17/14
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 1/14/14
AYES: Hancock, De Le�n, Knight, Liu, Mitchell, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-1, 1/23/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Gaines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters
SUBJECT : Public safety officers and firefighters:
investigations and
interrogations
SOURCE : California Professional Firefighters
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officer Research Association of California
DIGEST : This bill allows a firefighter or peace officer
witness to have a representative present when questioned by
their employer regarding the investigation of another peace
officer or firefighter, if that interview may lead to
disciplinary action against the witness.
ANALYSIS :
CONTINUED
SB 388
Page
2
Existing law:
1. Establishes the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act
(FPOR) that governs the procedures for the investigation and
interrogation of a firefighter for alleged misconduct. FPOR
specifically provides that the interrogation of a
firefighter, who is the subject of an investigation that
could lead to punitive action, by his/her commanding officer,
or any other member designated by the employing department or
licensing or certifying agency, must be conducted in
accordance, as specified. One of the protections afforded is
the ability to have a representative present at the
interrogation. (Government Code 3253(i).)
2. Establishes Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights
Act (POBOR) that controls how the investigation and
interrogation of a public safety officer for alleged
misconduct occurs. POBOR provides that the interrogation of
a peace officer, who is the subject of an investigation that
could lead to punitive action, by his/her employer, must be
conducted in accordance, as specified. One of the
protections afforded is the ability to have a representative
present at the interrogation. (Government code 3303 (i).)
This bill:
1. Amends both FPOR and POBOR to specify that a firefighter or
peace officer may have a representative of his/her choice
present when questioned by his/her employer regarding the
investigation of another firefighter or peace officer, as
follows:
A. For a firefighter, if that interrogation focuses on
matters that may result in punitive action against the
firefighter.
B. For a peace officer, if that interrogation focuses on
matters that are likely to result in punitive action
against the officer.
2. States that the firefighter or peace officer may choose a
representative who is reasonably available to represent the
firefighter or peace officer at an interrogation that has
been reasonably scheduled. The representative cannot be a
CONTINUED
SB 388
Page
3
person subject to the same interrogation. Additionally, the
representative will be able to be present at all times during
the interrogation and could not be required to disclose
information received from the peace officer or firefighter
being interrogated, as specified.
Prior Legislation
SB 313 (De Le�n, Chapter 779, Statutes of 2013), prohibits a
public agency from taking punitive action, or denying promotion
on grounds other than merit, against a public safety officer,
because the officer's name was placed on a Brady list, as
specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, potentially
significant state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) for
increased expenditures incurred under the existing FPOR and
POBOR statutes to the extent a higher number of formal
interrogations and associated activities are provided to
firefighter and peace officer witnesses as a result of this
measure. While the proportion of mandated costs specific to
interrogation activities is unknown, the magnitude of historical
POBOR mandate reimbursement claims have been in the range of
$6.3 million to $15.7 million. In 2000, the Commission State
Mandates authorized reimbursement for specified interrogation
activities specified in POBOR of peace officers under direct
investigation, as well as of officers who become a witness to an
incident under investigation, as specified.
SUPPORT : (Verified 1/23/14)
California Professional Firefighters (co-source)
Los Angeles Police Protective League (co-source)
Peace Officer Research Association of California (co-source)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California Fraternal Order of Police
Fontana Police Officers Association
CONTINUED
SB 388
Page
4
Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Southern California Alliance of Law Enforcement
State Coalition of Probation Organizations
OPPOSITION : (Verified 1/23/14)
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Association of Counties
California State Sheriffs' Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
Emergency Medical Directors Association of California
Emergency Medical Services Administrators Association
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California Professional
Firefighters writes in part, "Firefighters are being denied
access to their due process rights under FBOR.
"Consequently, until an employer-determined witness or subject
classification is made, FBOR is being ignored by the employer
and as part of such interrogation or investigation the
firefighter is being denied the following protections, among
other things:
Representation;
Proper notification by the employer of an interview,
including the nature of the requested interview;
The scheduling of an interview that is within a
reasonable amount of time once notification has been made,
which is also mutually suitable for both the firefighter
and his/her designated representative;
Ability to have interview tape recorded (even if the
recording devise is supplied by the firefighter at the time
of the interview); and
CONTINUED
SB 388
Page
5
Access to any and all files, whether hard copy or
electronic, pertaining to a firefighter's qualifications
for employment, promotion, additional compensation, or
termination or other disciplinary action, regardless of
whether such files include complaints made against the
firefighter where none of the allegations were sustained.
"Clarifying the law in the manner proposed by SB 388 will ensure
consistent and fair application of the procedural protections
provided under FBOR and curb a practice not intended by the
Legislature when it adopted FBOR over five years ago."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California State Sheriffs'
Association, writes, "The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill
of Rights balances the public interest in maintaining the
efficiency and integrity of a law enforcement agency with a
peace officer's interest in receiving fair treatment. As such,
it requires certain protections when an officer faces a formal
investigation into matters that are likely to result in punitive
action by an employer. Even if not criminal in nature, acts of
a police officer that tend to impair the public's trust in its
police department can be harmful to the department's efficiency
and morale. Thus, when allegations of officer misconduct are
raised, it is essential that the department conduct a prompt,
thorough, and fair investigation. (Pasadena Police Officers
Assn. v. City of Pasadena (1990) 51 Cal.3d 564, 568.)
"SB 388, however, goes beyond providing fair treatment to an
officer under investigation and would require formal
representation for every officer that is questioned about the
investigation of another officer. By creating formal processes
for witness officers, this measure would unduly interfere with
an agency's duty to supervise the actions of its employees and
unnecessarily delay investigations anytime an officer is asked
about non-criminal misconduct, which could include acts of
dishonesty, sexual harassment, violations of use-of-force
policies, or employment discrimination."
JG:d 1/24/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SB 388
Page
6
CONTINUED