BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1406
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 10, 2014
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 1406 (Wolk) - As Amended: April 22, 2014
SUMMARY : Permits officers employed by the Napa County
Department of Corrections (DOC) to perform additional duties.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Authorizes, upon a resolution by the Napa County Board of
Supervisors, custodial officers employed by the Napa County
DOC to perform the same duties as Santa Clara custodial
officers.
2)Makes the existing Santa Clara County intent language
applicable to Napa County.
3)Provides that custodial officers employed by Napa County DOC
are authorized to perform the following additional duties in
the facility:
a) Arrest a person without a warrant whenever the custodial
officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a misdemeanor or felony in the
presence of the officer that is a violation of a statute or
ordinance that the officer has the duty to enforce;
b) Search property, cells, prisoners, or visitors;
c) Conduct strip or body cavity searches of prisoners
pursuant to Section 4030;
d) Conduct searches and seizures pursuant to a duly issued
warrant;
e) Segregate prisoners; and,
f) Classify prisoners for the purpose of housing or
participation in supervised activities.
SB 1406
Page 2
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that all cities and counties are authorized to employ
custodial officers (public officers who are not peace
officers) for the purpose of maintaining order in local
detention facilities. (Pen. Code, � 831.)
2)Provides in counties with a population of 425,000 or less -
and San Diego, Fresno, Kern, Riverside, and Stanislaus
counties - "enhanced powers" custodial officers may be
employed. Santa Clara County is also included in this section
with specified authority for custodial officers who are
employed by the Santa Clara County DOC. These custodial
officers are public officers, not peace officers. (Pen. Code,
� 831.5 subds. (a) & (g).)
3)Provides enhanced powers custodial officers may carry firearms
under the direction of the sheriff while fulfilling specified
job-related duties. (Penal Code � 831.5(b).) This section
does not authorize a custodial officer to carry or possess a
firearm when the officer is not on duty. (Pen. Code, � 831.5
subd. (i).)
4)Provides enhanced powers custodial officers are empowered to
serve warrants, writs, or subpoenas within the custodial
facility, and, as with regular custodial officers, they may
use reasonable force to establish and maintain custody, and
may release from custody misdemeanants on citation to appear
or individuals arrested for intoxication who are not subject
to further criminal proceedings. And, these custodial
officers are allowed to make warrantless arrests within the
facility pursuant to Section 836.5 (misdemeanor in the
presence of the officer). (Pen. Code, � 831.5 subds. (a) &
(f).)
5)Requires that every enhanced powers custodial officer complete
the training course described in Pen. Code, � 832
(introductory course of training prescribed by the Commission
on Peace Officer Standards and Training). (Pen. Code, � 831.5
subd. (c).)
6)Requires a peace officer to be present in a supervisorial
capacity whenever 20 or more custodial officers are on duty.
SB 1406
Page 3
(Pen. Code, � 831.5 subd. (d).)
7)Provides that custodial officers employed by the Santa Clara
County DOC are authorized to perform the following additional
duties in the facility: (Pen. Code, � 831.5 subd. (g).)
a) Arrest a person without a warrant whenever the custodial
officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to
be arrested has committed a misdemeanor or felony in the
presence of the officer that is a violation of a statute or
ordinance that the officer has the duty to enforce;
b) Search property, cells, prisoners, or visitors;
c) Conduct strip or body cavity searches of prisoners
pursuant to Section 4030;
d) Conduct searches and seizures pursuant to a duly issued
warrant;
e) Segregate prisoners; and,
f) Classify prisoners for the purpose of housing or
participation in supervised activities.
8)States that it is the intent of the Legislature, as it relates
to Santa Clara County, to enumerate specific duties of
custodial officers and to clarify the relationship of
correctional officers and deputy sheriffs in Santa Clara
County. And, that it is the intent of the Legislature that
all issues regarding compensation for custodial officers
remain subject to the collective bargaining process. The
language is, additionally, clear that it should not be
construed to assert that the duties of custodial officers are
equivalent to the duties of deputy sheriffs or to affect the
ability of the county to negotiate pay that reflects the
different duties of custodial officers and deputy sheriffs.
(Pen. Code, � 831.5 subd. (i).)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "SB 1406 seeks
SB 1406
Page 4
to address safety concerns raised by the correctional officers
employed at Napa County Jail.
"Under existing law, the correctional officers employed at
Napa County jail are not classified as peace officers. As a
result, correctional officers are prohibited from performing
many of the procedures that enable peace officers to better
protect themselves and the inmate population. Unlike other
county jails, Napa County Jail is under the jurisdiction of
the Napa County Board of Supervisors, not the Sheriff. While
this arrangement has many benefits, and is working
particularly well in the context of realignment, it means that
the officers employed in the jail are not employed by the
Sheriff, and as such, are not peace officers (deputy
sheriffs)."
2)Similarities Between Santa Clara County and Napa County : On
June 6, 1988, Santa Clara transferred control of its jails
from the sheriff to the county DOC. In 1999, Santa Clara was
given the ability to utilize enhanced power custodial
officers. Santa Clara sought legislative intervention due to
years of confusion and litigation regarding the status of the
county's custodial officers,
The California Supreme Court decided a dispute which
arose in Santa Clara County regarding the power of the
Santa Clara County Director of Corrections to confer
limited peace officer status on some deputies when
staffing fell below limits required by law. The
Supreme Court held that "[t]he Legislature has made
clear its intention to retain the exclusive power to
bestow peace officer status on state, county and city
employees. Since that chapter [Chapter 4.5 of the
Penal Code, sections 830 et seq.] does not authorize
the director of a county jail facility to designate
custodial officers as peace officers, the director's
action cannot be sustained." County of Santa Clara v.
Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Santa Clara County,
(1992) 3 Cal. 4th 873, 886. Santa Clara County found
itself in this situation after the voters changed the
county charter in 1988 to transfer control of the
jails out of the jurisdiction of the sheriff and
instead to the County Department of Corrections. Id.
at p. 876. The lawful way for Santa Clara County
SB 1406
Page 5
custodial officers to gain peace officer powers not
currently granted them by state law requires enacting
another state law. (Assembly Committee on Public
Safety Analysis, SB 1019 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 635,
Statutes of 1999)
Like Santa Clara, the Napa County DOC was separated from the
Sheriff's Department by the Board of Supervisors in 1975.
They were the first in the state of California to become a
civilian-run facility, and are currently one of two in the
state not operated by the Sheriff's Department. While Napa
County has a population less than 425,000, the county is not
able to utilize enhanced powers custodial officers because the
penal code requires that the custodial officers be employed by
a law enforcement agency. (See generally Pen. Code, � 831.5.)
This legislation would not turn Napa County custodial
officers into peace officers, but would instead give the
custodial officers the enhanced powers described above.
3)Argument in Support : According to the Napa County Board of
Supervisors , "On behalf of the Napa County Board of
Supervisors, I am pleased to inform you of the Board's
sponsorship and support for SB 1406 (Wolk) which seeks to
address safety concerns raised by the correctional officers
employed at Napa County Jail.
"Under existing law, the correctional officers employed at
Napa County jail are not classified as peace officers. As a
result, correctional officers are prohibited from performing
many of the procedures that enable peace officers to better
protect themselves and the inmate population. Unlike other
county jails, Napa County Jail is under the jurisdiction of
the Napa County Board of Supervisors, not the Sheriff. While
this arrangement has many benefits, and is working
particularly well in the context of realignment, it means that
the officers employed in the jail are not employed by the
Sheriff, and as such, are not peace officers (deputy
sheriffs).
"The Napa County Department of Corrections was separated from
the Sheriff's Department by the Board of Supervisors in 1975.
Napa was the first in the state of California to become a
civilian-run facility, and is currently one of two in the
SB 1406
Page 6
state not operated by the Sheriff's Department. While Napa
County has a population less than 425,000, the county is not
able to utilize enhanced powers custodial officers because the
penal code requires that the custodial officers be employed by
a law enforcement agency. SB 1404 would not turn Napa County
custodial officers into peace officers, but would instead give
the custodial officers some enhanced powers. This arrangement
is similar to that already in law for Santa Clara County.
"This constraint on Napa's classification status impedes the
ability of the County to retain officers, who are frequently
lured away by competing agencies who offer limited peace
officer status to correctional officers- which inhibit public
safety within the County.
"This legislative remedy is already successful in counties
with a population of 425,000 or less and San Diego, Fresno,
Kern, Riverside, Stanislaus and Santa Clara Counties. For the
reasons stated, Napa County seeks to be added to this list of
Counties through SB 1406 (Wolk) and respectfully requests your
"aye" vote when it comes before your committee."
4)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 1019 (Vasconcellos), Chapter 635, Statutes of 1999,
added Santa Clara County to those counties with a
population of 425,000 or less which, by virtue of
population, are eligible to utilize "enhanced power"
custodial officers, as specified.
b) SB 1695 (Beall), Chapter 575, Statutes of 2010, extended
the authority of custodial officers in Santa Clara County
to perform specified duties not only at the Santa Clara
Valley Medical Center, but at other health care facilities
in the County of Santa Clara, as needed and only as they
directly relate to guarding in-custody inmates.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
SB 1406
Page 7
Napa County Board of Supervisors
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744