HomeMy WebLinkAbout042721-03.1
LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM 3.1
TO: Mayor and Town Council April 27, 2021
SUBJECT: April Legislative Report
BACKGROUND
Both individually and as part of the Tri-Valley Cities coalition, Danville officials are
adapting to the social and economic changes and 2021 state legislative priorities.
Advocacy work has been focused on supporting legislative efforts that help the Town
recover from the COVID-19 pandemic while limiting new legislation that impacts the
Town’s scope of review over planning and land use matters.
Housing production remains a top priority of the legislature, which is focused on
attempting to create affordability by imposing new requirements on local governments.
To meet an estimated housing need of 1.8 million new homes by 2025, the state will need
to significantly outperform current production, estimated at 80,000 new homes annually,
according to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Many
of these bills will impact Danville’s ability to plan for housing development as we have
in the past. Designed to supersede local zoning, these bills create housing density,
streamline the approval process, and densify infill by eliminating single family zoning.
The legislature is responding to the nationwide call for police reforms by introducing a
variety of new bills. These include proposals to re-evaluate and change police practices,
policies, regulation and funding, and mental health crisis intervention programs.
DISCUSSION
Local Control over Land Use and Preservation Legislation
SB 6: (Caballero) The Neighborhood Homes Act
Senate Bill 6, the Neighborhood Homes Act, authorizes residential development on
existing lots currently zoned for commercial office and retail space, such as strip malls or
large “big box” retail spaces, that are not adjacent to industrial use zones. The bill would
require the density for a housing development under these provisions to meet or exceed
densities deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households,
including a minimum density of at least 20 du/ac for a suburban jurisdiction and 30
du/ac for an urban jurisdiction. This bill is set for Committee hearing on April 29.
April Legislative Committee Report 2 April 27, 2021
Senate Bill 8: (Skinner) Density Bonus Law
Senate Bill 8 extends SB 330 the Housing Crisis Act from expiration in 2025 to 2030.
Aimed at streamlining the production of housing, the bill freezes development related
fees upon builder’s submission of a preliminary application, sets a cap on the number of
public hearings for a development and prohibits local agencies from any actions that
would reduce housing capacity. This bill is set for Committee hearing on April 29.
Senate Bill 9: (Atkins) California Housing Opportunity & More Efficiency (HOME) Act
SB 9 would allow for ministerial approval of a proposed housing development containing
2 residential units within a single-family residential zone if the proposed development
meets certain requirements are met. SB 9 was heard in the Senate Governance and
Finance Committee meeting on April 22. Townsend Public Affairs participated in the
public comment to voice the Tri-Valley Cities opposition to the bill. The bill passed out
of committee on a 5 – 0 vote.
Senate Bill 10: (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Housing Development: Density
SB 10 authorizes a city to pass an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of
residential density if parcel is in a transit rich area, jobs rich area or urban infill site. This
bill was heard in the Committee on Governance and Finance on April 22. The bill passed
out of committee on a 4-1 vote.
SB 15: (Portantino) Housing Development: incentives: rezoning retail sites
SB 15, Current law establishes, among other housing programs, the Workforce Housing
Reward Program, which requires the Department of Housing and Community
Development to make local assistance grants to cities, counties, and cities and counties
that provide land use approval to housing developments that are affordable to very low
and low-income households. This bill was sent to the appropriations suspense file.
Public Safety and Mental Health Legislation
AB 26: (Holden) Peace officers: use of force
AB 26 would require those law enforcement policies to require those officers to immediately
report potential excessive force, and to intercede when present and observing an officer using
excessive force, as defined.
AB 60: (Salas) Law Enforcement
AB 60 would disqualify a person from being employed as a peace officer if that person has been
convicted of or has been adjudicated by a military tribunal as having committed an offense that
would have been a felony if committed in this state. The bill would also disqualify any person
who has been certified as a peace officer by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training and has had that certification revoked by the commission.
April Legislative Committee Report 3 April 27, 2021
AB 89: (Jones-Sawyer D) Peace officers: minimum qualifications
AB 89 would increase minimum qualifying age from 18 to 25 years of age. This bill
would permit an individual under 25 years of age to qualify for employment as a
peace officer if the individual has a bachelor’s or advanced degree from an accredited
college or university and would provide legislative findings in support of the measure.
AB 118: (Kamlager) Emergency Services: community response: grant program
AB 118 would, until January 1, 2026, enact the Community Response Initiative to Strengthen
Emergency Systems Act or the C.R.I.S.E.S. Act for the purpose of creating, implementing, and
evaluating the 3-year C.R.I.S.E.S. Grant Pilot Program, which the act would establish. The bill
would require the office to establish rules and regulations for the program with the goal of
making grants to community organizations, over 3 years, for the purpose of expanding the
participation of community organizations in emergency response for specified vulnerable
populations.
AB 718: (Cunningham) Peace Officers: investigations of misconduct
AB 718 would require a law enforcement agency or oversight agency to complete its investigation
into an allegation of the use of force resulting in death or great bodily injury, sexual assault,
discharge of a firearm, or dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a
crime or misconduct by another peace officer or custodial officer, despite the peace officer’s or
custodial officer’s voluntary separation from the employing agency. The bill would require the
investigation to result in a finding that the allegation is either sustained, not sustained,
unfounded, or exonerated, as defined.
SB 2: (Bradford) Peace Officers: Certification: Civil Rights
SB 2 would provide that a threat, intimidation, or coercion under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act
may be inherent in any interference with a civil right and would describe intentional acts for these
purposes as an act in which the person acted with general intent or a conscious objective to engage
in particular conduct. The bill would eliminate certain immunity provisions for peace officers
and custodial officers, or public entities employing peace officers or custodial officers sued under
the act.
SB 16: (Skinner) Peace Officers: release of records
SB 16 would, commencing July 1, 2022, make every incident involving use of force to make a
member of the public comply with an officer, force that is unreasonable, or excessive force subject
to disclosure. The bill would, commencing July 1, 2022, require records relating to sustained
findings of unlawful arrests and unlawful searches to be subject to disclosure. The bill would,
commencing July 1, 2022, also require the disclosure of records relating to an incident in which a
sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace
officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct involving prejudice or discrimination on the basis
of specified protected classes. The bill would require the retention of all complaints and related
reports or findings currently in the possession of a department or agency. The bill would require
that records relating to an incident in which an officer resigned before an investigation is
completed to also be subject to release.
April Legislative Committee Report 4 April 27, 2021
Sustainability Legislation
SB 619: (Laird) Organic Waste Reduction regulations
This bill would require the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery until
January 1, 2023 to only impose a penalty on a local jurisdiction, and would require a
penalty to only accrue, for violation of the regulations if the local jurisdiction did not
make a reasonable effort, as determined by the department, to comply with organic
landfill reduction goals under SB 1383.
AB 843: (Aguiar-Curry)
This bill would allow Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) to access BioMAT
program, an existing state program that supports the development of renewable
bioenergy electricity projects. Bioenergy is generated from organic waste and helps
divert waste from landfills.
Prepared by:
Diane Friedmann
Assistant to the Town Manager
Reviewed by:
Joseph Calabrigo
Town Manager
AB 26
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2021
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB 26 (Holden) – As Amended March 25, 2021
Policy Committee: Public Safety Vote: 6 - 2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires a peace officer to immediately report to a superior officer any potential
instance of excessive force, and to intercede when present and observing an officer using
excessive force. Specifically, this bill:
1) Disqualifies a person from being a peace officer if the person has been found by a law
enforcement agency to have either used excessive force that resulted in great bodily injury or
death, or failed to intercede in that incident as required by a law enforcement agency’s
policies.
2) Requires law enforcement agency policies to expressly prohibit retaliation against officers
that report violations of law or regulation, and requires an officer who fails to intercede be
disciplined in the same manner as the officer who used excessive force.
3) Defines the term “intercede” to include physically stopping the excessive use of force,
recording the excessive force and documenting efforts to intervene, efforts to deescalate the
offending officer’s excessive use of force, and confronting the offending officer about the
excessive force during the use of force and, if the officer continues, reporting to dispatch or
the watch commander on duty and stating the offending officer’s name, unit, location, time
and situation, in order to establish a duty for that officer to intervene.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1) Costs (General Fund (GF)) to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) of $26 million dollars in
one-time fees and $51 million dollars annually thereafter to the extent this bill would require
use of body cameras to record possible instances of excessive force and any alleged failure to
intercede. This bill does not require use of body cameras.
2) Costs (GF/Legal Services Revolving Fund) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the tens of
thousands of dollars annually in additional staff and infrastructure to the Employment and
Administrative Mandate Section for legal services and advice to state law enforcement
agencies consistent with the requirements of this bill.
3) Costs (GF) of approximately $18,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2021-22 and $21,000 in FY 2023-
24 and reoccurring every other FY to the California Department of Insurance for training and
AB 26
Page 2
policy and procedure implementation
4) One-time costs (GF/Local Costs), possibly in excess of $150,000 in the aggregate, for all
state and local law enforcement agencies to update their policies and training requirements in
accordance with this bill. Some agencies employ a contract service to ensure their policies
reflect recent changes in statutory and case law. Actual costs to each agency may vary
depending on the degree of revisions to policy and updating training. Local costs to comply
with this bill would be subject to reimbursement by the state, to the extent the Commission
on State Mandates determines this bill imposes a state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS:
1) SB 230 (Caballero), Chapter 285, Statutes of 2019. SB 230 requires law enforcement
agencies to train officers on the duty to intercede when witnessing other officers using
excessive force. This bill seeks to provide a specific definition of the “duty to intercede”
to include physically stopping the excessive use of force, recording the excessive force
and documenting efforts to intervene, efforts to deescalate the offending officer’s
excessive use of force, and confronting the offending officer about the excessive force
during the use of force and, if the officer continues, reporting to dispatch or the watch
commander on duty and stating the offending officer’s name, unit, location, time and
situation, in order to establish a duty for that officer to intervene.
2) Failure to Intercede. Existing law does not specifically penalize an officer for failing to
intercede when witnessing an excessive use of force, but failure to intercede may violate
an agency’s policy and result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination. This
bill states an officer will be disqualified from being a peace officer if that officer used
excessive force or failed to intercede when witnessing excessive force. It also prohibits an
officer from training other officers for a period of three years if that officer was found to
have used excessive force. Finally, it requires an officer be disciplined for failure to
intercede in the same manner as the person accused of excessive force. If an officer is
ultimately terminated for excessive force, the officer who failed to intercede would also
be subject to termination. Presumably, the employing agency will still have to prove at an
administrative appeal hearing that the officer who failed to intervene should be subject to
discipline.
3) Arguments in Support. According to the UDW/AFSCME Local 3930:
AB 26 would disqualify any peace officer who has used or failed
to intercede in the use of excessive force resulting in great bodily
injury or death of a member of the public from serving as a peace
officer in California. AB 26 would increase law enforcement
accountability amongst their communities and establish well-
defined guidelines that seeks to further protect our state’s citizens.
4) Arguments in Opposition. According to the California State Sheriffs’ Association:
Assembly Bill 26, which would undo portions of landmark law
enforcement use of force reforms that were carefully negotiated
AB 26
Page 3
while codifying provisions that will confuse statute and put officer
safety at risk.
5) Prior Legislation. AB 1022 (Holden), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was similar
to this bill. AB 1022 was held on the Senate Committee on Appropriations suspense file.
Analysis Prepared by: Kimberly Horiuchi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 16, 2021
california legislature—2021–22 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 60
Introduced by Assembly Member Members Salas and Cooper
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Cervantes, Daly, Flora, Grayson,
Irwin, Lackey, Low, O’Donnell, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rodriguez,
Blanca Rubio, and Villapudua)
December 7, 2020
An act to amend Section 1029 of the Government Code, and to amend
Sections 832.7, 832.18, 13503, 13506, 13510, 13510.1, and 13512 of,
to amend the heading of Article 2 (commencing with Section 13510)
of Chapter 1 of Title 4 of Part 4 of, and to add Sections 13509.6,
13509.5, 13510.8, and 13510.9 to, the Penal Code, relating to law
enforcement.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 60, as amended, Salas. Law enforcement.
(1) Existing laws defines persons who are peace officers and the
entities authorized to appoint them. Existing law requires certain
minimum training requirements for peace officers including the
completion of a basic training course, as specified. Existing law
prescribes certain minimum standards for a person to be appointed as
a peace officer, including moral character and physical and mental
condition, and certain disqualifying factors for a person to be employed
as a peace officer, including a felony conviction.
This bill would disqualify a person from being employed as a peace
officer if that person has been convicted of, or has been adjudicated by
a military tribunal as having committed an offense that would have
been a felony if committed in this state. The bill would also disqualify
98
any person who has been certified as a peace officer by the Commission
on Peace Officer Standards and Training and has had that certification
revoked by the commission.
(2) ExistingExisting law establishes the Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training to set minimum standards for the
recruitment and training of peace officers and to develop training courses
and curriculum. Existing law authorizes the commission to establish a
professional certificate program that awards basic, intermediate,
advanced, supervisory, management, and executive certificates on the
basis of a combination of training, education, experience, and other
prerequisites, for the purpose of fostering the professionalization,
education, and experience necessary to adequately accomplish the
general police service duties performed by peace officers. Existing law
authorizes the commission to cancel a certificate that was awarded in
error or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud, but otherwise
prohibits the commission from canceling a certificate that has properly
been issued.
This bill would require the commission to create a certification
program for specified peace officers. The bill would create the Peace
Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board with 10 members to
be appointed as specified. The bill would require the board to review
reports of serious misconduct by peace officers, as specified, and to
make a recommendation to the commission. The bill would require the
commission to adopt the recommendation of the board if supported by
clear and convincing evidence and, if action is to be taken against an
officer's certification, to commence formal proceedings consistent with
the Administrative Procedure Act.
The bill would make all records related to the revocation of a peace
officer’s certification public.
The bill would require an agency employing peace officers to report
to the commission the termination or separation from employment of
a peace officer with any complaint, charge, allegation, or investigation
into the serious misconduct of a peace officer, to complete the
investigation into any such misconduct, and to report the results of the
investigation and resulting administrative action to the commission.
This bill would require a peace officer’s certificate to be suspended,
revoked, or canceled when the person is ineligible to be a peace officer
or when the person has been subject to a sustained termination for
serious misconduct, as defined, on or after January 1, 2022. The bill
would make each law enforcement agency responsible for investigation,
98
— 2 — AB 60
findings, and actions by the agency on allegations of serious misconduct
and would give the commission access to the agency files. The bill would
require the commission to be notified of and to review a peace officer’s
file after 3 allegations of serious misconduct within 5 years.
The bill would establish the Peace Officer Standards Accountability
Advisory Board, as specified, to make recommendations on the
decertification of peace officers to the commission.
The bill would require every law enforcement agency to notify the
commission when a peace officer employed by that agency separates
from employment. When a peace officer resigns or retires with a pending
complaint, charge, or investigation of serious misconduct, the bill would
require the law enforcement agency to complete the investigation into
the serious misconduct within 90 days and report to the commission
whether the complaint of serious misconduct was sustained, not
sustained, unfounded, frivolous, or exonerated. The bill would require
the commission to refer the files of peace officers whose termination
for serious misconduct was sustained to the board to make a
recommendation regarding the status of the officer’s certificate and
would require the commission to accept that recommendation or set
forth the analysis and reasons for reaching a different result in writing.
(3) Existing law requires law enforcement agencies to consider
specified best practices when establishing policies and procedures for
downloading and storing data from body-worn cameras, including,
among other things, prohibiting the unauthorized use, duplication, or
distribution of the data, and establishing storage periods for evidentiary
and nonevidentiary data, as defined.
This bill would make those requirements applicable to data obtained
from unmanned aircraft systems.
By imposing new requirements on local agencies, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory
provisions noted above.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
98
AB 60 — 3 —
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 1029 of the Government Code is amended
line 2 to read:
line 3 1029. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), (c), (d), or
line 4 (e), each of the following persons is disqualified from holding
line 5 office as a peace officer or being employed as a peace officer of
line 6 the state, county, city, city and county county, or other political
line 7 subdivision, whether with or without compensation, and is
line 8 disqualified from any office or employment by the state, county,
line 9 city, city and county county, or other political subdivision, whether
line 10 with or without compensation, which confers upon the holder or
line 11 employee the powers and duties of a peace officer:
line 12 (1) Any person who has been convicted of a felony.
line 13 (2) Any person who has been convicted of any offense in any
line 14 other jurisdiction which would have been a felony if committed
line 15 in this state.
line 16 (3) Any person who has been discharged from the military for
line 17 committing an offense, as adjudicated by a military tribunal, which
line 18 would have been a felony if committed in this state.
line 19 (4) Any person who, after January 1, 2004, has been convicted
line 20 of a crime based upon a verdict or finding of guilt of a felony by
line 21 the trier of fact, or upon the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo
line 22 contendere to a felony. This paragraph applies regardless of
line 23 whether, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 17 of the Penal
line 24 Code, the court declares the offense to be a misdemeanor or the
line 25 offense becomes a misdemeanor by operation of law.
line 26 (5) Any person who has been charged with a felony and
line 27 adjudged by a superior court to be mentally incompetent under
line 28 Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1367) of Title 10 of Part 2
line 29 of the Penal Code.
line 30 (6) Any person who has been found not guilty by reason of
line 31 insanity of any felony.
line 32 (7) Any person who has been determined to be a mentally
line 33 disordered sex offender pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with
line 34 Section 6300) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 6 of the Welfare
line 35 and Institutions Code.
line 36 (8) Any person adjudged addicted or in danger of becoming
line 37 addicted to narcotics, convicted, and committed to a state institution
line 38 as provided in Section 3051 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
98
— 4 — AB 60
line 1 (9) Any person who has been issued the certification described
line 2 in Section 13510.1 of the Penal Code, and has had that certification
line 3 revoked by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
line 4 Training.
line 5 (b) (1) A plea of guilty to a felony pursuant to a deferred entry
line 6 of judgment program as set forth in Sections 1000 to 1000.4,
line 7 inclusive, of the Penal Code shall not alone disqualify a person
line 8 from being a peace officer unless a judgment of guilty is entered
line 9 pursuant to Section 1000.3 of the Penal Code.
line 10 (2) A person who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or who
line 11 is found guilty by a trier of fact of, an alternate felony-misdemeanor
line 12 drug possession offense and successfully completes a program of
line 13 probation pursuant to Section 1210.1 of the Penal Code shall not
line 14 be disqualified from being a peace officer solely on the basis of
line 15 the plea or finding if the court deems the offense to be a
line 16 misdemeanor or reduces the offense to a misdemeanor.
line 17 (c) Any person who has been convicted of a felony, other than
line 18 a felony punishable by death, in this state or any other state, or
line 19 who has been convicted of any offense in any other state which
line 20 would have been a felony, other than a felony punishable by death,
line 21 if committed in this state, and who demonstrates the ability to
line 22 assist persons in programs of rehabilitation may hold office and
line 23 be employed as a parole officer of the Department of Corrections
line 24 and Rehabilitation or as a probation officer in a county probation
line 25 department, if the person has been granted a full and unconditional
line 26 pardon for the felony or offense of which they were convicted.
line 27 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department of
line 28 Corrections and Rehabilitation or a county probation department,
line 29 may refuse to employ that person regardless of their qualifications.
line 30 (d) This section does not limit or curtail the power or authority
line 31 of any board of police commissioners, chief of police, sheriff,
line 32 mayor, or other appointing authority to appoint, employ, or
line 33 deputize any person as a peace officer in time of disaster caused
line 34 by flood, fire, pestilence pestilence, or similar public calamity, or
line 35 to exercise any power conferred by law to summon assistance in
line 36 making arrests or preventing the commission of any criminal
line 37 offense.
line 38 (e) This section does not prohibit any person from holding office
line 39 or being employed as a superintendent, supervisor, or employee
line 40 having custodial responsibilities in an institution operated by a
98
AB 60 — 5 —
line 1 probation department, if at the time of the person’s hire a prior
line 2 conviction of a felony was known to the person’s employer, and
line 3 the class of office for which the person was hired was not declared
line 4 by law to be a class prohibited to persons convicted of a felony,
line 5 but as a result of a change in classification, as provided by law,
line 6 the new classification would prohibit employment of a person
line 7 convicted of a felony.
line 8 SEC. 2. Section 832.7 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 9 832.7. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the personnel
line 10 records of peace officers and custodial officers and records
line 11 maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5,
line 12 or information obtained from these records, are confidential and
line 13 shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except
line 14 by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence
line 15 Code. This section shall not apply to investigations or proceedings
line 16 concerning the conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, or
line 17 an agency or department that employs those officers, conducted
line 18 by a grand jury, a district attorney’s office, the Attorney General’s
line 19 office, or the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training.
line 20 (b) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), subdivision (f) of
line 21 Section 6254 of the Government Code, or any other law, the
line 22 following peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and
line 23 records maintained by any state or local agency shall not be
line 24 confidential and shall be made available for public inspection
line 25 pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5
line 26 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
line 27 Government Code):
line 28 (A) A record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of
line 29 any of the following:
line 30 (i) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person
line 31 by a peace officer or custodial officer.
line 32 (ii) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or
line 33 custodial officer against a person resulted in death, or in great
line 34 bodily injury.
line 35 (B) (i) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained
line 36 finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight
line 37 agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual
line 38 assault involving a member of the public.
line 39 (ii) As used in this subparagraph, “sexual assault” means the
line 40 commission or attempted initiation of a sexual act with a member
98
— 6 — AB 60
line 1 of the public by means of force, threat, coercion, extortion, offer
line 2 of leniency or other official favor, or under the color of authority.
line 3 For purposes of this definition, the propositioning for or
line 4 commission of any sexual act while on duty is considered a sexual
line 5 assault.
line 6 (iii) As used in this subparagraph, “member of the public” means
line 7 any person not employed by the officer’s employing agency and
line 8 includes any participant in a cadet, explorer, or other youth program
line 9 affiliated with the agency.
line 10 (C) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained
line 11 finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight
line 12 agency of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly
line 13 relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime,
line 14 or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of
line 15 misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including,
line 16 but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false
line 17 statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing
line 18 of evidence.
line 19 (2) Records that shall be released pursuant to this subdivision
line 20 include all investigative reports; photographic, audio, and video
line 21 evidence; transcripts or recordings of interviews; autopsy reports;
line 22 all materials compiled and presented for review to the district
line 23 attorney or to any person or body charged with determining
line 24 whether to file criminal charges against an officer in connection
line 25 with an incident, or whether the officer’s action was consistent
line 26 with law and agency policy for purposes of discipline or
line 27 administrative action, or what discipline to impose or corrective
line 28 action to take; documents setting forth findings or recommended
line 29 findings; and copies of disciplinary records relating to the incident,
line 30 including any letters of intent to impose discipline, any documents
line 31 reflecting modifications of discipline due to the Skelly or grievance
line 32 process, and letters indicating final imposition of discipline or
line 33 other documentation reflecting implementation of corrective action.
line 34 (3) A record from a separate and prior investigation or
line 35 assessment of a separate incident shall not be released unless it is
line 36 independently subject to disclosure pursuant to this subdivision.
line 37 (4) If an investigation or incident involves multiple officers,
line 38 information about allegations of misconduct by, or the analysis or
line 39 disposition of an investigation of, an officer shall not be released
line 40 pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of paragraph (1), unless it
98
AB 60 — 7 —
line 1 relates to a sustained finding against that officer. However, factual
line 2 information about that action of an officer during an incident, or
line 3 the statements of an officer about an incident, shall be released if
line 4 they are relevant to a sustained finding against another officer that
line 5 is subject to release pursuant to subparagraph (B) or (C) of
line 6 paragraph (1).
line 7 (5) An agency shall redact a record disclosed pursuant to this
line 8 section only for any of the following purposes:
line 9 (A) To remove personal data or information, such as a home
line 10 address, telephone number, or identities of family members, other
line 11 than the names and work-related information of peace and custodial
line 12 officers.
line 13 (B) To preserve the anonymity of complainants and witnesses.
line 14 (C) To protect confidential medical, financial, or other
line 15 information of which disclosure is specifically prohibited by federal
line 16 law or would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
line 17 that clearly outweighs the strong public interest in records about
line 18 misconduct and serious use of force by peace officers and custodial
line 19 officers.
line 20 (D) Where there is a specific, articulable, and particularized
line 21 reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a
line 22 significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer,
line 23 custodial officer, or another person.
line 24 (6) Notwithstanding paragraph (5), an agency may redact a
line 25 record disclosed pursuant to this section, including personal
line 26 identifying information, where, on the facts of the particular case,
line 27 the public interest served by not disclosing the information clearly
line 28 outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the
line 29 information.
line 30 (7) An agency may withhold a record of an incident described
line 31 in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) that is the subject of an active
line 32 criminal or administrative investigation, in accordance with any
line 33 of the following:
line 34 (A) (i) During an active criminal investigation, disclosure may
line 35 be delayed for up to 60 days from the date the use of force occurred
line 36 or until the district attorney determines whether to file criminal
line 37 charges related to the use of force, whichever occurs sooner. If an
line 38 agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall
line 39 provide, in writing, the specific basis for the agency’s
line 40 determination that the interest in delaying disclosure clearly
98
— 8 — AB 60
line 1 outweighs the public interest in disclosure. This writing shall
line 2 include the estimated date for disclosure of the withheld
line 3 information.
line 4 (ii) After 60 days from the use of force, the agency may continue
line 5 to delay the disclosure of records or information if the disclosure
line 6 could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal
line 7 enforcement proceeding against an officer who used the force. If
line 8 an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency
line 9 shall, at 180-day intervals as necessary, provide, in writing, the
line 10 specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure could
line 11 reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement
line 12 proceeding. The writing shall include the estimated date for the
line 13 disclosure of the withheld information. Information withheld by
line 14 the agency shall be disclosed when the specific basis for
line 15 withholding is resolved, when the investigation or proceeding is
line 16 no longer active, or by no later than 18 months after the date of
line 17 the incident, whichever occurs sooner.
line 18 (iii) After 60 days from the use of force, the agency may
line 19 continue to delay the disclosure of records or information if the
line 20 disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal
line 21 enforcement proceeding against someone other than the officer
line 22 who used the force. If an agency delays disclosure under this
line 23 clause, the agency shall, at 180-day intervals, provide, in writing,
line 24 the specific basis why disclosure could reasonably be expected to
line 25 interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding, and shall provide
line 26 an estimated date for the disclosure of the withheld information.
line 27 Information withheld by the agency shall be disclosed when the
line 28 specific basis for withholding is resolved, when the investigation
line 29 or proceeding is no longer active, or by no later than 18 months
line 30 after the date of the incident, whichever occurs sooner, unless
line 31 extraordinary circumstances warrant continued delay due to the
line 32 ongoing criminal investigation or proceeding. In that case, the
line 33 agency must show by clear and convincing evidence that the
line 34 interest in preventing prejudice to the active and ongoing criminal
line 35 investigation or proceeding outweighs the public interest in prompt
line 36 disclosure of records about use of serious force by peace officers
line 37 and custodial officers. The agency shall release all information
line 38 subject to disclosure that does not cause substantial prejudice,
line 39 including any documents that have otherwise become available.
98
AB 60 — 9 —
line 1 (iv) In an action to compel disclosure brought pursuant to
line 2 Section 6258 of the Government Code, an agency may justify
line 3 delay by filing an application to seal the basis for withholding, in
line 4 accordance with Rule 2.550 of the California Rules of Court, or
line 5 any successor rule thereto, if disclosure of the written basis itself
line 6 would impact a privilege or compromise a pending investigation.
line 7 (B) If criminal charges are filed related to the incident in which
line 8 force was used, the agency may delay the disclosure of records or
line 9 information until a verdict on those charges is returned at trial or,
line 10 if a plea of guilty or no contest is entered, the time to withdraw
line 11 the plea pursuant to Section 1018.
line 12 (C) During an administrative investigation into an incident
line 13 described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), the agency may
line 14 delay the disclosure of records or information until the investigating
line 15 agency determines whether the use of force violated a law or
line 16 agency policy, but no longer than 180 days after the date of the
line 17 employing agency’s discovery of the use of force, or allegation of
line 18 use of force, by a person authorized to initiate an investigation, or
line 19 30 days after the close of any criminal investigation related to the
line 20 peace officer or custodial officer’s use of force, whichever is later.
line 21 (8) A record of a civilian complaint, or the investigations,
line 22 findings, or dispositions of that complaint, shall not be released
line 23 pursuant to this section if the complaint is frivolous, as defined in
line 24 Section 128.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or if the complaint
line 25 is unfounded.
line 26 (c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or
line 27 agency shall release to the complaining party a copy of the
line 28 complaining party’s own statements at the time the complaint is
line 29 filed.
line 30 (d) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or
line 31 agency that employs peace or custodial officers may disseminate
line 32 data regarding the number, type, or disposition of complaints
line 33 (sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded) made against
line 34 its officers if that information is in a form which does not identify
line 35 the individuals involved.
line 36 (e) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a department or
line 37 agency that employs peace or custodial officers may release factual
line 38 information concerning a disciplinary investigation if the officer
line 39 who is the subject of the disciplinary investigation, or the officer’s
line 40 agent or representative, publicly makes a statement that they know
98
— 10 — AB 60
line 1 to be false concerning the investigation or the imposition of
line 2 disciplinary action. Information may not be disclosed by the peace
line 3 or custodial officer’s employer unless the false statement was
line 4 published by an established medium of communication, such as
line 5 television, radio, or a newspaper. Disclosure of factual information
line 6 by the employing agency pursuant to this subdivision is limited
line 7 to facts contained in the officer’s personnel file concerning the
line 8 disciplinary investigation or imposition of disciplinary action that
line 9 specifically refute the false statements made public by the peace
line 10 or custodial officer or their agent or representative.
line 11 (f) (1) The department or agency shall provide written
line 12 notification to the complaining party of the disposition of the
line 13 complaint within 30 days of the disposition.
line 14 (2) The notification described in this subdivision shall not be
line 15 conclusive or binding or admissible as evidence in any separate
line 16 or subsequent action or proceeding brought before an arbitrator,
line 17 court, or judge of this state or the United States.
line 18 (g) This section does not affect the discovery or disclosure of
line 19 information contained in a peace or custodial officer’s personnel
line 20 file pursuant to Section 1043 of the Evidence Code.
line 21 (h) This section does not supersede or affect the criminal
line 22 discovery process outlined in Chapter 10 (commencing with
line 23 Section 1054) of Title 6 of Part 2, or the admissibility of personnel
line 24 records pursuant to subdivision (a), which codifies the court
line 25 decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.
line 26 (i) Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit the public’s right
line 27 of access as provided for in Long Beach Police Officers
line 28 Association v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59.
line 29 SEC. 3. Section 832.18 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 30 832.18. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature to establish
line 31 policies and procedures to address issues related to the
line 32 downloading and storage data recorded by a body-worn camera
line 33 worn by a peace officer. These policies and procedures shall be
line 34 based on best practices.
line 35 (b) When establishing policies and procedures for the
line 36 implementation and operation of a body-worn camera system, law
line 37 enforcement agencies, departments, or entities shall consider the
line 38 following best practices regarding the downloading and storage
line 39 of body-worn camera data:
98
AB 60 — 11 —
line 1 (1) Designate the person responsible for downloading the
line 2 recorded data from the body-worn camera. If the storage system
line 3 does not have automatic downloading capability, the officer’s
line 4 supervisor should take immediate physical custody of the camera
line 5 and should be responsible for downloading the data in the case of
line 6 an incident involving the use of force by an officer, an
line 7 officer-involved shooting, or other serious incident.
line 8 (2) Establish when data should be downloaded to ensure the
line 9 data is entered into the system in a timely manner, the cameras are
line 10 properly maintained and ready for the next use, and for purposes
line 11 of tagging and categorizing the data.
line 12 (3) Establish specific measures to prevent data tampering,
line 13 deleting, and copying, including prohibiting the unauthorized use,
line 14 duplication, or distribution of body-worn camera data.
line 15 (4) Categorize and tag body-worn camera video at the time the
line 16 data is downloaded and classified according to the type of event
line 17 or incident captured in the data.
line 18 (5) Specifically state the length of time that recorded data is to
line 19 be stored.
line 20 (A) Unless subparagraph (B) or (C) applies, nonevidentiary data
line 21 including video and audio recorded by a body-worn camera should
line 22 be retained for a minimum of 60 days, after which it may be erased,
line 23 destroyed, or recycled. An agency may keep data for more than
line 24 60 days to have it available in case of a civilian complaint and to
line 25 preserve transparency.
line 26 (B) Evidentiary data including video and audio recorded by a
line 27 body-worn camera under this section should be retained for a
line 28 minimum of two years under any of the following circumstances:
line 29 (i) The recording is of an incident involving the use of force by
line 30 a peace officer or an officer-involved shooting.
line 31 (ii) The recording is of an incident that leads to the detention
line 32 or arrest of an individual.
line 33 (iii) The recording is relevant to a formal or informal complaint
line 34 against a law enforcement officer or a law enforcement agency.
line 35 (C) If evidence that may be relevant to a criminal prosecution
line 36 is obtained from a recording made by a body-worn camera under
line 37 this section, the law enforcement agency should retain the recording
line 38 for any time in addition to that specified in subparagraphs (A) and
line 39 (B), and in the same manner as is required by law for other
line 40 evidence that may be relevant to a criminal prosecution.
98
— 12 — AB 60
line 1 (D) In determining a retention schedule, the agency should work
line 2 with its legal counsel to determine a retention schedule to ensure
line 3 that storage policies and practices are in compliance with all
line 4 relevant laws and adequately preserve evidentiary chains of
line 5 custody.
line 6 (E) Records or logs of access and deletion of data from
line 7 body-worn cameras should be retained permanently.
line 8 (6) State where the body-worn camera data will be stored,
line 9 including, for example, an in-house server which is managed
line 10 internally, or an online cloud database which is managed by a
line 11 third-party vendor.
line 12 (7) If using a third-party vendor to manage the data storage
line 13 system, the following factors should be considered to protect the
line 14 security and integrity of the data:
line 15 (A) Using an experienced and reputable third-party vendor.
line 16 (B) Entering into contracts that govern the vendor relationship
line 17 and protect the agency’s data.
line 18 (C) Using a system that has a built-in audit trail to prevent data
line 19 tampering and unauthorized access.
line 20 (D) Using a system that has a reliable method for automatically
line 21 backing up data for storage.
line 22 (E) Consulting with internal legal counsel to ensure the method
line 23 of data storage meets legal requirements for chain-of-custody
line 24 concerns.
line 25 (F) Using a system that includes technical assistance capabilities.
line 26 (8) Require that all recorded data from body-worn cameras are
line 27 property of their respective law enforcement agency and shall not
line 28 be accessed or released for any unauthorized purpose, explicitly
line 29 prohibit agency personnel from accessing recorded data for
line 30 personal use and from uploading recorded data onto public and
line 31 social media Internet Web sites, internet websites, and include
line 32 sanctions for violations of this prohibition.
line 33 (c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall also apply to a law
line 34 enforcement agency’s policies and procedures regarding the
line 35 retrieval and retention of data recorded by an unmanned aircraft
line 36 system or drone operated by that agency.
line 37 (d) (1) For purposes of this section, “evidentiary data” refers
line 38 to data of an incident or encounter that could prove useful for
line 39 investigative purposes, including, but not limited to, a crime, an
line 40 arrest or citation, a search, a use of force incident, or a
98
AB 60 — 13 —
line 1 confrontational encounter with a member of the public. The
line 2 retention period for evidentiary data are subject to state evidentiary
line 3 laws.
line 4 (2) For purposes of this section, “nonevidentiary data” refers
line 5 to data that does not necessarily have value to aid in an
line 6 investigation or prosecution, such as data of an incident or
line 7 encounter that does not lead to an arrest or citation, or data of
line 8 general activities the officer might perform while on duty.
line 9 (e) This section shall not be interpreted to limit the public’s
line 10 right to access recorded data under the California Public Records
line 11 Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7
line 12 of Title 1 of the Government Code).
line 13 SEC. 4. Section 13503 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 14 13503. In carrying out its duties and responsibilities, the
line 15 commission shall have all of the following powers:
line 16 (a) To meet at those times and places as it may deem proper.
line 17 (b) To employ an executive secretary and, pursuant to civil
line 18 service, those clerical and technical assistants as may be necessary.
line 19 (c) To contract with other agencies, public or private, or persons
line 20 as it deems necessary, for the rendition and affording of those
line 21 services, facilities, studies, and reports to the commission as will
line 22 best assist it to carry out its duties and responsibilities.
line 23 (d) To cooperate with and to secure the cooperation of county,
line 24 city, city and county, and other local law enforcement agencies in
line 25 investigating any matter within the scope of its duties and
line 26 responsibilities, and in performing its other functions.
line 27 (e) To develop and implement programs to increase the
line 28 effectiveness of law enforcement and when those programs involve
line 29 training and education courses to cooperate with and secure the
line 30 cooperation of state-level officers, agencies, and bodies having
line 31 jurisdiction over systems of public higher education in continuing
line 32 the development of college-level training and education programs.
line 33 (f) To cooperate with and secure the cooperation of every
line 34 department, agency, or instrumentality in the state government.
line 35 (g) To do any and all things necessary or convenient to enable
line 36 it fully and adequately to perform its duties and to exercise the
line 37 power granted to it.
line 38 (h) To suspend, cancel, or revoke any certificate or proof of
line 39 eligibility previously issued to a peace officer pursuant to this
line 40 chapter.
98
— 14 — AB 60
line 1 SEC. 5. Section 13506 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 2 13506. The commission may adopt those regulations as are
line 3 necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
line 4 SEC. 6. Section 13509.6 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
line 5 13509.6. (a) No later than January 1, 2022, the Governor shall
line 6 establish the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory
line 7 Board, hereafter referred to in this chapter as the board.
line 8 (b) The purpose of the board shall be to make recommendations
line 9 on the decertification of peace officers to the commission for final
line 10 determination.
line 11 (c) The protection of the public shall be the highest priority for
line 12 the board as it upholds the standards for peace officers in
line 13 California. Whenever the protection of the public is inconsistent
line 14 with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the
line 15 public shall be paramount.
line 16 (d) The board shall consist of 10 members, as follows:
line 17 (1) Three members shall be peace officers or former peace
line 18 officers with substantial experience as the head of an agency or at
line 19 an executive rank. These members shall be appointed by the
line 20 Governor.
line 21 (2) Two members shall be peace officers or former peace
line 22 officers with substantial experience at a management rank in
line 23 internal investigations or disciplinary proceedings of peace officers,
line 24 appointed by the Governor.
line 25 (3) Two members shall be members of the public, who shall
line 26 not be former peace officers, who have substantial experience
line 27 working at nonprofit or academic institutions on issues related to
line 28 criminal justice, or experience determining peace officer
line 29 disciplinary appeals as a hearing officer or member of a civil
line 30 service board or commission. One of these members shall be
line 31 appointed by the Governor and one by the Speaker of the
line 32 Assembly.
line 33 (4) Two members shall be members of the public, who shall
line 34 not be former peace officers, who have substantial experience
line 35 working at community-based organizations on issues related to
line 36 criminal justice. One of these members shall be appointed by the
line 37 Governor and one by the Senate Rules Committee.
line 38 (5) One member shall be an attorney, who shall not be a former
line 39 peace officer, with substantial professional experience involving
line 40 oversight of peace officers, appointed by the Governor.
98
AB 60 — 15 —
line 1 (e) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (f), each member
line 2 shall be appointed for a term of three years and shall hold office
line 3 until the appointment of the member’s successor or until one year
line 4 has elapsed since the expiration of the term for which the member
line 5 was appointed, whichever occurs first. Vacancies occurring shall
line 6 be filled by appointment for the unexpired term of a person with
line 7 the same qualification for appointment as the person being
line 8 replaced. No person shall serve more than two terms consecutively.
line 9 The Governor shall remove from the board any peace officer
line 10 member whose certification as a peace officer has been revoked.
line 11 The Governor may, after hearing, remove any member of the board
line 12 for neglect of duty or other just cause, including any demonstrated
line 13 bias or inability to maintain impartiality regarding allegations of
line 14 misconduct against a peace officer.
line 15 (f) Of the members initially appointed to the board, three shall
line 16 be appointed for a term of one year, three for a term of two years,
line 17 and three for a term of three years. Successor appointments shall
line 18 be made pursuant to subdivision (e).
line 19 (g) Each member of the board shall receive a per diem of three
line 20 hundred fifty dollars ($350) for each day actually spent in the
line 21 discharge of official duties, including reasonable time spent in
line 22 preparation for public hearings, and shall be reimbursed for travel
line 23 and other expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of
line 24 official duties. Upon request of a member based on financial
line 25 necessity, the commission shall arrange and make direct payment
line 26 for travel or other necessities rather than providing reimbursement.
line 27 SEC. 6. Section 13509.5 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
line 28 13509.5. (a) On or before January 1, 2023, the Governor shall
line 29 establish the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory
line 30 Board, hereafter referred to in this chapter as “the board.”
line 31 (b) The purpose of the board shall be to make recommendations
line 32 to the commission for determination of a peace officer’s certificate
line 33 status.
line 34 (c) The protection of the public shall be the highest priority for
line 35 the board as it upholds the standards for peace officers in
line 36 California. Whenever the protection of the public is inconsistent
line 37 with other interests sought to be promoted, the protection of the
line 38 public shall be paramount.
line 39 (d) The board shall consist of 11 members, as follows:
98
— 16 — AB 60
line 1 (1) Two members shall be peace officers or former peace officers
line 2 with substantial experience as the head of an agency or at the
line 3 executive level, appointed by the Governor.
line 4 (2) Two members shall be peace officers or former peace officers
line 5 with substantial experience at a management rank in internal
line 6 investigations or disciplinary proceedings of peace officers,
line 7 appointed by the Governor.
line 8 (3) One member who is a sworn peace officer identified in
line 9 Section 830.2, excluding subdivision (d), and a duly elected
line 10 executive member of a recognized employee organization under
line 11 Section 3512 of the Government Code, appointed by the Governor.
line 12 (4) One member who is a sworn peace officer identified in
line 13 Section 830.1 and a duly elected executive member of a recognized
line 14 employee organization under Section 3500 of the Government
line 15 Code, appointed by the Governor.
line 16 (5) Two members shall be members of the public who are not
line 17 former peace officers, and who have substantial experience
line 18 working at nonprofit or academic institutions on issues related to
line 19 criminal justice, or determining peace officer disciplinary appeals
line 20 as a hearing officer or member of a civil service board or
line 21 commission. One of these members shall be appointed by the
line 22 Governor and one by the Speaker of the Assembly.
line 23 (6) Two members shall be members of the public who are not
line 24 former peace officers, and who have substantial experience
line 25 working at community-based organizations on issues related to
line 26 criminal justice. One of these members shall be appointed by the
line 27 Governor and one by the Senate Rules Committee.
line 28 (7) One member shall be an attorney who is not a former peace
line 29 officer, and who has substantial professional experience involving
line 30 peace officer oversight or peace officer disciplinary proceedings,
line 31 appointed by the Governor.
line 32 (e) The Governor may remove any board member who has
line 33 clearly demonstrated any bias or inability to maintain impartiality
line 34 regarding allegations of misconduct against a peace officer.
line 35 (f) Except as provided in subdivision (g), each member shall be
line 36 appointed for a term of three years and shall hold office until the
line 37 appointment of the member’s successor or until one year has
line 38 elapsed since the expiration of the term for which the member was
line 39 appointed, whichever occurs first. Vacancies occurring shall be
line 40 filled by appointment for the unexpired term of a person with the
98
AB 60 — 17 —
line 1 same qualification for appointment as the person being replaced.
line 2 A person shall not serve more than two terms consecutively. The
line 3 Governor shall remove from the board any peace officer member
line 4 whose certification as a peace officer has been revoked. The
line 5 Governor may, after hearing, remove any member of the board
line 6 for neglect of duty or other just cause.
line 7 (g) Of the members initially appointed to the board, three shall
line 8 be appointed for a term of one year, three for a term of two years,
line 9 and three for a term of three years. Successor appointments shall
line 10 be made pursuant to subdivision (f).
line 11 (h) Each member of the board shall receive a per diem of three
line 12 hundred fifty dollars ($350) for each day actually spent in the
line 13 discharge of official duties, including reasonable time spent in
line 14 preparation for public hearings, and shall be reimbursed for travel
line 15 and other expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of
line 16 official duties. Upon request of a member based on financial
line 17 necessity, the commission shall arrange and make direct payment
line 18 for travel or other necessities rather than providing reimbursement.
line 19 (i) Members identified in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subdivision
line 20 (d) shall be designated as full-time release members per their
line 21 current memorandum of understanding for the agency by which
line 22 they are employed.
line 23 SEC. 7. The heading of Article 2 (commencing with Section
line 24 13510) of Chapter 1 of Title 4 of Part 4 of the Penal Code is
line 25 amended to read:
line 26
line 27 Article 2. Field Services, Standards, and Certification.
line 28 Certification
line 29
line 30 SEC. 8. Section 13510 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 31 13510. (a) (1) For the purpose of raising the level of
line 32 competence of local law enforcement officers, the commission
line 33 shall adopt, and may from time to time amend, rules establishing
line 34 and upholding minimum standards relating to physical, mental,
line 35 and moral fitness that shall govern the recruitment of any city
line 36 police officers, peace officer members of a county sheriff’s office,
line 37 marshals or deputy marshals, peace officer members of a county
line 38 coroner’s office notwithstanding Section 13526, reserve officers,
line 39 as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 830.6, police officers of a
line 40 district authorized by statute to maintain a police department, peace
98
— 18 — AB 60
line 1 officer members of a police department operated by a joint powers
line 2 agency established by Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500)
line 3 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code,
line 4 regularly employed and paid inspectors and investigators of a
line 5 district attorney’s office, as defined in Section 830.1, who conduct
line 6 criminal investigations, peace officer members of a district, safety
line 7 police officers and park rangers of the County of Los Angeles, as
line 8 defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 830.31, or housing
line 9 authority police departments.
line 10 (2) The commission also shall adopt, and may from time to time
line 11 amend, rules establishing minimum standards for training of city
line 12 police officers, peace officer members of county sheriff’s offices,
line 13 marshals or deputy marshals, peace officer members of a county
line 14 coroner’s office notwithstanding Section 13526, reserve officers,
line 15 as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 830.6, police officers of a
line 16 district authorized by statute to maintain a police department, peace
line 17 officer members of a police department operated by a joint powers
line 18 agency established by Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500)
line 19 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code,
line 20 regularly employed and paid inspectors and investigators of a
line 21 district attorney’s office, as defined in Section 830.1, who conduct
line 22 criminal investigations, peace officer members of a district, safety
line 23 police officers and park rangers of the County of Los Angeles, as
line 24 defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 830.31, and housing
line 25 authority police departments.
line 26 (3) These rules shall apply to those cities, counties, cities and
line 27 counties, and districts receiving state aid pursuant to this chapter
line 28 and shall be adopted and amended pursuant to Chapter 3.5
line 29 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title
line 30 2 of the Government Code.
line 31 (b) The commission shall conduct research concerning
line 32 job-related educational standards and job-related selection
line 33 standards to include vision, hearing, physical ability, and emotional
line 34 stability. Job-related standards that are supported by this research
line 35 shall be adopted by the commission prior to January 1, 1985, and
line 36 shall apply to those peace officer classes identified in subdivision
line 37 (a). The commission shall consult with local entities during the
line 38 conducting of related research into job-related selection standards.
line 39 (c) For the purpose of raising the level of competence of local
line 40 public safety dispatchers, the commission shall adopt, and may
98
AB 60 — 19 —
line 1 from time to time amend, rules establishing minimum standards
line 2 relating to the recruitment and training of local public safety
line 3 dispatchers having a primary responsibility for providing
line 4 dispatching services for local law enforcement agencies described
line 5 in subdivision (a), which standards shall apply to those cities,
line 6 counties, cities and counties, and districts receiving state aid
line 7 pursuant to this chapter. These standards also shall apply to
line 8 consolidated dispatch centers operated by an independent public
line 9 joint powers agency established pursuant to Article 1 (commencing
line 10 with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the
line 11 Government Code when providing dispatch services to the law
line 12 enforcement personnel listed in subdivision (a). Those rules shall
line 13 be adopted and amended pursuant to Chapter 3.5 (commencing
line 14 with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the
line 15 Government Code. As used in this section, “primary responsibility”
line 16 refers to the performance of law enforcement dispatching duties
line 17 for a minimum of 50 percent of the time worked within a pay
line 18 period.
line 19 (d) This section does not prohibit a local agency from
line 20 establishing selection and training standards that exceed the
line 21 minimum standards established by the commission.
line 22 SEC. 9. Section 13510.1 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 23 13510.1. (a) The commission shall establish a certification
line 24 program for peace officers described in Section 830.1, 830.2 with
line 25 the exception of those described in subdivision (d) of that section,
line 26 830.3, 830.32, or 830.33, or any other peace officer employed by
line 27 an agency that participates in the Peace Officer Standards and
line 28 Training (POST) program. A certificate or proof of eligibility
line 29 issued pursuant to this section shall be considered the property of
line 30 the commission.
line 31 (b) Basic, intermediate, advanced, supervisory, management,
line 32 and executive certificates shall be established for the purpose of
line 33 fostering professionalization, education, and experience necessary
line 34 to adequately accomplish the general police service duties
line 35 performed by peace officer members of city police departments,
line 36 county sheriffs’ departments, districts, university and state
line 37 university and college departments, or by the California Highway
line 38 Patrol.
98
— 20 — AB 60
line 1 (c) (1) Certificates shall be awarded on the basis of a
line 2 combination of training, education, experience, and other
line 3 prerequisites, as determined by the commission.
line 4 (2) In determining whether an applicant for certification has the
line 5 requisite education, the commission shall recognize as acceptable
line 6 college education only the following:
line 7 (A) Education provided by a community college, college, or
line 8 university which has been accredited by the department of
line 9 education of the state in which the community college, college, or
line 10 university is located or by a recognized national or regional
line 11 accrediting body.
line 12 (B) Until January 1, 1998, educational courses or degrees
line 13 provided by a nonaccredited but state-approved college that offers
line 14 programs exclusively in criminal justice.
line 15 (d) Persons who are determined by the commission to be eligible
line 16 peace officers may make application for the certificates, provided
line 17 they are employed by an agency which participates in the POST
line 18 program. Any person described in subdivision (a) who is not
line 19 eligible for a certificate shall make application for proof of
line 20 eligibility.
line 21 (e) The commission shall assign to each person who applies for
line 22 or receives certification a unique identifier that shall be used to
line 23 track certification status from application for certification through
line 24 that person’s career as a peace officer.
line 25 (f) The commission shall have the authority to suspend, revoke,
line 26 or cancel any certification pursuant to this chapter.
line 27 (g) As used in this chapter, “certification” means a valid and
line 28 unexpired basic certificate or proof of eligibility issued by the
line 29 commission pursuant to this section.
line 30 SEC. 10. Section 13510.8 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
line 31 13510.8. (a) A certified peace officer shall have their
line 32 certification suspended or revoked, and an applicant shall have
line 33 their application for certification denied, upon a determination that
line 34 the peace officer or applicant has done any of the following:
line 35 (1) The person is or has become ineligible to hold office as a
line 36 peace officer pursuant to Section 1029 of the Government Code.
line 37 (2) The person has been terminated for cause from employment
line 38 as a peace officer for serious misconduct.
line 39 (b) The commission shall adopt by regulation a definition of
line 40 “serious misconduct” that shall serve as the criteria to be considered
98
AB 60 — 21 —
line 1 for ineligibility for, or suspension or revocation of, certification.
line 2 This definition shall, without limitation, include all of the
line 3 following:
line 4 (1) Dishonesty, including, but not limited to, false statements,
line 5 filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or
line 6 concealing evidence, perjury, and tampering with data recorded
line 7 by a body-worn camera or other recording device for purposes of
line 8 concealing misconduct.
line 9 (2) Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating
line 10 witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly
line 11 making a false arrest.
line 12 (3) Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the use of
line 13 excessive force or failure to reasonably intervene when excessive
line 14 force is used.
line 15 (4) Sexual assault, as described in subdivision (b) of Section
line 16 832.7.
line 17 (5) Bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender
line 18 identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental
line 19 or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law
line 20 or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officer’s
line 21 obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.
line 22 (6) Participation in organized criminal operations.
line 23 (c) Each law enforcement agency is responsible for the
line 24 investigation of allegations of serious misconduct, regardless of
line 25 the subject peace officer’s employment status. The commission
line 26 shall have access, as necessary, to review the investigative file and
line 27 administrative appeal record of an agency, which may include
line 28 prior complaints in the peace officer’s record. The commission
line 29 will only have authority to review these files for purposes of
line 30 decertification.
line 31 (d) A law enforcement agency shall notify the commission,
line 32 within 10 days after a peace officer employed by the agency has
line 33 become the subject of three or more allegations of serious
line 34 misconduct within a five-year period, to review the peace officer’s
line 35 file and any investigation carried out by the agency.
line 36 (e) If the commission finds that a thorough investigation into
line 37 serious misconduct was not completed, the commission shall notify
line 38 the law enforcement agency of this finding and the agency shall
line 39 respond in writing within 30 days.
98
— 22 — AB 60
line 1 (f) The commission shall post both its findings and the written
line 2 response from law enforcement on its internet website. Prior to
line 3 posting this information, the commission shall remove all personal
line 4 identifying information of the agency, the individual officers
line 5 involved, or any other parties involved.
line 6 SEC. 11. Section 13510.9 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
line 7 13510.9. (a) Every law enforcement agency, including any
line 8 police department, sheriff’s department, or other entity that
line 9 employs any peace officer described in Section 830.1, 830.2 with
line 10 the exception of those described in subdivision (d) of that section,
line 11 Section 830.3, 830.32, or 830.33, or any other peace officer
line 12 employed by an agency that participates in the Peace Officer
line 13 Standards and Training (POST) program, shall notify the
line 14 commission within 10 days, in a form approved by the commission,
line 15 after a peace officer employed by that agency separates from
line 16 employment, including, without limitation, any termination,
line 17 resignation, or retirement in lieu of termination or when pending
line 18 allegations of serious misconduct.
line 19 (b) The notification described in subdivision (a) shall include,
line 20 as applicable, a summary of the allegations known to the law
line 21 enforcement agency at the time, and the status of any administrative
line 22 appeal pursuant to the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of
line 23 Rights Act. Supplemental notification shall be provided once the
line 24 appeal is exhausted. The supplemental notification shall indicate
line 25 whether the termination was sustained as defined in Section 832.8.
line 26 (c) If a peace officer resigns or retires with a pending complaint,
line 27 charge, or investigation of serious misconduct, the employing
line 28 agency shall do all of the following:
line 29 (1) Specify in the notification to the commission that the officer
line 30 has resigned or retired with a pending complaint, charge, or
line 31 investigation for serious misconduct.
line 32 (2) Specify in the notification the specific nature of the
line 33 complaint, charge, or investigation, including a brief summary of
line 34 the allegations of serious misconduct.
line 35 (3) Complete the investigation in a thorough and unbiased
line 36 manner.
line 37 (4) Complete the investigation within one year after the date
line 38 the conduct was discovered by the agency, unless a reasonable
line 39 extension is needed for any reason described in paragraph (2) of
line 40 subdivision (d) of Section 3304 of the Government Code.
98
AB 60 — 23 —
line 1 (5) Within 10 days after the completion of the investigation,
line 2 report to the commission on whether each charge of serious
line 3 misconduct was sustained, not sustained, unfounded, or exonerated.
line 4 (6) In the event of a sustained of serious misconduct, include a
line 5 summary of facts in the report to the commission.
line 6 (d) (1) An individual who resigns or retires in lieu of an
line 7 investigation for reasons of serious misconduct shall have their
line 8 eligibility placed into an inactive status by the commission until
line 9 final adjudication by the commission.
line 10 (2) An individual who has been placed into an inactive or
line 11 ineligible status by the commission shall not be appointed as a
line 12 peace officer.
line 13 (3) The Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board
line 14 shall convene to review reports received by the commission from
line 15 law enforcement agencies pursuant to this section and shall make
line 16 recommendations to the commission regarding what action, if any,
line 17 should be taken against the subject peace officer’s certification.
line 18 (e) The full commission shall review all findings and
line 19 recommendations made by the board and shall adopt the
line 20 recommendation of the board if is supported by clear and
line 21 convincing evidence. In any case in which the commission reaches
line 22 a different result than the board, it shall set forth its analysis and
line 23 reasons for reaching a different result in writing.
line 24 (f) Notwithstanding any other law, meetings and records of the
line 25 board and review by the commission under this section shall be
line 26 public.
line 27 (g) (1) The commission shall include the information reported
line 28 pursuant to this section in a peace officer’s profile, in a form
line 29 determined by the commission, and in a manner that may be
line 30 accessed by the subject of the profile, any employing law
line 31 enforcement agency of the subject of the profile, any law
line 32 enforcement agency that is performing a preemployment
line 33 background investigation of the subject of the profile, or to the
line 34 commission when necessary for the purposes of decertification.
line 35 (2) If an agency reports to the commission that an investigation
line 36 resulted in a finding that a charge is unfounded or not sustained,
line 37 the commission shall remove any reference to the charge,
line 38 complaint, or investigation from the peace officer’s profile.
line 39 (h) (1) A certificate holder or applicant shall be entitled to a
line 40 hearing before an administrative law judge after suspension or
98
— 24 — AB 60
line 1 revocation of the certificate. The hearing shall be conducted
line 2 pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5
line 3 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title
line 4 2 of the Government Code), and is subject to any appeal process
line 5 contained in the act or any other administrative procedures adopted
line 6 by the commission. The hearing shall be held in abeyance during
line 7 the pendency, if any, of the certificate holder’s administrative
line 8 appeal as provided in the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill
line 9 of Rights Act. Within 30 days after a termination for serious
line 10 misconduct is sustained, as defined in Section 832.8, the hearing
line 11 shall commence. The record of the administrative appeal that
line 12 resulted in a sustained finding shall be admissible in the hearing.
line 13 The hearing shall be confidential, except as provided in Section
line 14 832.7, and the identity of any individual whose license is suspended
line 15 or revoked shall be a public record.
line 16 (2) If a court determines that the sustained finding was
line 17 unfounded or not sustained, upon request of the law enforcement
line 18 officer, the commission shall remove any reference to the charge,
line 19 complaint, or investigation from the peace officer’s profile.
line 20 (i) The commission may adopt regulations to carry out this
line 21 section.
line 22 (j) For purposes of this section, the term “serious misconduct”
line 23 has the same meaning as in Section 13510.8.
line 24 SEC. 10. Section 13510.8 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
line 25 13510.8. (a) A certified peace officer shall have their
line 26 certificate suspended or revoked, and an applicant shall have their
line 27 application for a certificate denied, upon a determination that the
line 28 peace officer or applicant meets either of the following conditions:
line 29 (1) The person is or has become ineligible to hold office as a
line 30 peace officer pursuant to Section 1029 of the Government Code.
line 31 (2) The person has been subject to a sustained termination, as
line 32 defined in subdivision (b) of Section 832.8 for serious misconduct
line 33 on or after January 1, 2022.
line 34 (b) The commission shall adopt by regulation a definition of
line 35 “serious misconduct,” which is limited to conduct of such a nature
line 36 that the officer’s continued certification as a peace officer poses
line 37 a significant threat to the public. The definition shall serve as the
line 38 criteria to be considered for suspension or revocation of a
line 39 certificate. This definition shall include all of the following
line 40 examples of serious misconduct:
98
AB 60 — 25 —
line 1 (1) Dishonesty, including, but not limited to, intentionally false
line 2 statements material to the investigation of a crime, intentionally
line 3 filing false reports, tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or
line 4 concealing evidence, perjury, and tampering with data recorded
line 5 by a body-worn camera or other recording device for purposes of
line 6 concealing misconduct.
line 7 (2) Abuse of power by using or threatening to use force against
line 8 a victim or witness to a crime, intentionally obtaining a false
line 9 confession, and intentionally making a false arrest.
line 10 (3) Physical abuse or excessive force resulting in death or bodily
line 11 injury involving a substantial risk of death or permanent
line 12 impairment of a bodily organ.
line 13 (4) Sexual assault involving the commission or attempted
line 14 initiation of a sexual act with a member of the public by means of
line 15 force, threat, coercion, extortion, offer of leniency or other official
line 16 favor, or under color of authority.
line 17 (5) Bias in the performance of a peace officer or custodial
line 18 officer’s duties, including, but not limited to, verbal statements,
line 19 writings, online posts, recordings, and gestures involving prejudice
line 20 or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religious
line 21 creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental
line 22 disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status,
line 23 sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual
line 24 orientation, or military and veteran status.
line 25 (c) Each law enforcement agency shall be responsible for
line 26 investigation, findings, and actions by the agency, if any, relating
line 27 to allegations of serious misconduct, regardless of employment
line 28 status.
line 29 (d) The commission shall have access, if necessary, to review
line 30 an agency investigative file and administrative appeal record that
line 31 may include prior complaints of serious misconduct in the peace
line 32 officer’s record. The commission shall only have authority to
line 33 review the file for purposes of decertification.
line 34 (e) (1) After three allegations of serious misconduct within five
line 35 years, the commission shall review the peace officer’s file to review
line 36 the investigation as carried out by the employing department. The
line 37 law enforcement agency shall notify the commission within 10
line 38 days of an officer’s third allegation of serious misconduct.
98
— 26 — AB 60
line 1 (2) The three allegations shall originate from three separate
line 2 and distinct complaints against the officer and the five-year span
line 3 shall be consecutive time served on active duty.
line 4 (3) The commission shall have 180 days to conduct the review
line 5 to determine the thoroughness of the investigations of serious
line 6 misconduct.
line 7 (4) Should the commission discover that a thorough investigation
line 8 into serious misconduct was not completed, the commission shall
line 9 notify the law enforcement agency of this finding and the agency
line 10 shall respond in writing within 30 days.
line 11 (5) The commission shall post both its findings and the written
line 12 response from the law enforcement agency on the commission’s
line 13 internet website. Prior to posting this information, the commission
line 14 shall remove all personal identifying information of the agency,
line 15 the individual officers involved, and any other parties involved.
line 16 SEC. 11. Section 13510.9 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
line 17 13510.9. (a) Every law enforcement agency shall notify the
line 18 commission within 10 days, in a form approved by the commission,
line 19 after a peace officer employed by that agency separates from
line 20 employment, including a termination, resignation, or retirement.
line 21 (b) The notification described in subdivision (a) shall include
line 22 a summary of any allegations of serious misconduct known to the
line 23 law enforcement agency at the time and the status of any
line 24 administrative appeal pursuant to Sections 3304 and 3304.5 of
line 25 the Government Code. Supplemental notification shall be provided
line 26 once the appeal is exhausted. The supplemental notification shall
line 27 indicate whether the termination was sustained, as defined in
line 28 subdivision (b) of Section 832.8.
line 29 (c) If a peace officer resigns or retires with a pending complaint,
line 30 charge, or investigation of serious misconduct, the employing
line 31 agency shall do all of the following:
line 32 (1) Specify in the notification to the commission that the officer
line 33 has resigned or retired with a pending complaint, charge, or
line 34 investigation for serious misconduct.
line 35 (2) Specify in the notification the specific nature of the
line 36 complaint, charge, or investigation, including a brief summary of
line 37 the allegations of serious misconduct.
line 38 (3) Complete the investigation in a thorough and unbiased
line 39 manner within 90 days from the date of the resignation or
line 40 retirement. If the agency is unable to complete the investigation
98
AB 60 — 27 —
line 1 within 90 days, the agency shall provide, in writing, the specific
line 2 basis why the investigation could not be completed in that time
line 3 and the amount of additional time necessary to complete the
line 4 investigation. The investigation shall be completed within not more
line 5 than 180 days from the date of the resignation or retirement.
line 6 (4) Upon completion of the investigation, report to the
line 7 commission within 10 days on whether the complaint of serious
line 8 misconduct was sustained, not sustained, frivolous, unfounded, or
line 9 exonerated.
line 10 (5) If there is a sustained complaint for serious misconduct,
line 11 include a summary of facts to the commission.
line 12 (6) An individual who resigns or retires with a pending
line 13 complaint or investigation pursuant to this subdivision shall have
line 14 their certificate designated as provisional until final adjudication
line 15 by the commission.
line 16 (7) A resigned or retired peace officer shall be afforded an
line 17 evidentiary hearing to appeal any sustained charges of serious
line 18 misconduct that could result in revocation of their certificate. If
line 19 the former officer prevails in the administrative appeal hearing,
line 20 the officer’s certification shall be fully restored, but the officer
line 21 shall not be entitled to reinstatement to their former position unless
line 22 the officer possesses an independent right of return. If the charges
line 23 of serious misconduct are upheld after appeal, the officer’s
line 24 certificate shall be subject to the revocation proceeding applicable
line 25 to sustained terminations as set forth in subdivision (d).
line 26 (d) (1) If a peace officer’s termination for serious misconduct
line 27 is sustained, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 832.8, the
line 28 commission shall refer the file to the board for a recommendation
line 29 as to whether the officer’s certificate should be suspended or
line 30 revoked.
line 31 (2) The commission shall review all initial determinations made
line 32 by the board pursuant to this subdivision and shall adopt the
line 33 board’s initial determination if supported by clear and convincing
line 34 evidence. If the commission reaches a different result than the
line 35 board’s initial determination, it shall set forth its analysis and
line 36 reasons for reaching a different result in writing.
line 37 (e) (1) The commission shall include the information reported
line 38 pursuant to this section in a peace officer’s profile, in a form
line 39 determined by the commission, and in a manner that may be
line 40 accessed by the subject of the profile, an employing law
98
— 28 — AB 60
line 1 enforcement agency of the subject of the profile, a law enforcement
line 2 agency that is performing a preemployment background
line 3 investigation of the subject of the profile, or to the commission
line 4 when necessary for the purposes of assessing certification status.
line 5 (2) If an agency reports to the commission pursuant to
line 6 paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) that an investigation resulted in
line 7 a finding after all appeals that a charge is frivolous, unfounded,
line 8 exonerated, or not sustained, the commission shall remove any
line 9 reference to the charge, complaint, or investigation from the peace
line 10 officer’s profile and take no action regarding the officer’s
line 11 certificate.
line 12 (f) (1) A certificate holder or applicant shall be entitled to a
line 13 hearing before an administrative law judge after suspension or
line 14 revocation of the certificate. The hearing shall be conducted
line 15 pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5
line 16 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title
line 17 2 of the Government Code), and is subject to any appeal process
line 18 contained in that act or any other administrative procedures
line 19 adopted by the commission. The appeal hearing shall be held in
line 20 abeyance during the pendency, if any, of the certificate holder’s
line 21 administrative appeal, as provided in Sections 3304 and 3304.5
line 22 of the Government Code. Within 30 days after a termination for
line 23 serious misconduct is sustained pursuant to subdivision (b) of
line 24 Section 832.8, the decertification appeal hearing shall commence.
line 25 The record of the administrative appeal that resulted in a sustained
line 26 finding shall be admitted in the decertification appeal. The appeal
line 27 hearing shall be confidential, except as provided in Section 832.7
line 28 and except that the identity of an individual whose license is
line 29 suspended or revoked shall be a public record.
line 30 (2) The administrative law judge shall recommend upholding
line 31 the revocation of the officer’s certificate, upon a finding by clear
line 32 and convincing evidence that allowing the peace officer to maintain
line 33 a certificate represents a serious threat to the public. The
line 34 administrative law judge shall consider the decision and
line 35 administrative record underlying the sustained finding of serious
line 36 misconduct, the peace officer’s overall employment history, and
line 37 other relevant factors. Protection of the public and upholding the
line 38 standards for peace officers in California shall be afforded the
line 39 highest priority. The administrative law judge shall set forth the
line 40 analysis and reasons for the decision in writing.
98
AB 60 — 29 —
line 1 (3) The commission shall adopt the decision issued pursuant to
line 2 paragraphs (1) and (2). If the decision adopted by the commission
line 3 does not find good cause to revoke or cancel a certificate, the
line 4 commission shall remove any reference to the charge, complaint,
line 5 or investigation from the peace officer’s profile.
line 6 (g) The commission may adopt regulations to carry out this
line 7 section.
line 8 (h) Notwithstanding any other law, meetings and records of the
line 9 board and review by the commission under this section shall be
line 10 public.
line 11 (i) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
line 12 (1) “Law enforcement agency ” means a police department,
line 13 sheriff’s department, or other entity that employs a peace officer,
line 14 as specified in Section 830.1, 830.2, with the exception of
line 15 paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (d) of that section, 830.3,
line 16 830.32, or 830.33, or employed within agencies participating in
line 17 the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training program.
line 18 (2) “Serious misconduct” has the same meaning as defined by
line 19 the commission pursuant to Section 13510.8.
line 20 SEC. 12. Section 13512 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 21 13512. The commission shall make such inquiries as may be
line 22 necessary to determine whether every city, county, city and county,
line 23 and district receiving state aid pursuant to this chapter is adhering
line 24 to the standards for recruitment, training, certification, and
line 25 reporting established pursuant to this chapter.
line 26 SEC. 13. If the Commission on State Mandates determines
line 27 that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement
line 28 to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
line 29 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
line 30 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
98
— 30 — AB 60
AB 89
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2021
Counsel: Nikki Moore
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
AB 89 (Jones-Sawyer) – As Amended February 17, 2021
SUMMARY: Requires a peace officer to reach the age of 25, or obtain a college degree, prior to
being hired as a peace officer, unless that person was a peace officer prior to the enactment of
this bill. Specifically, this bill:
1) Provides that each class of public officers or employees declared by law to be peace officers
shall meet minimum standards including being at least 25 years of age.
2) States that if a person is 18 to 24 years of age, a minimum standard to be a peace officer is
that the individual shall have a bachelor’s degree or an advanced degree from an accredited
college or university. Any accreditation or approval required by this subdivision shall be
from a state or local government educational agency using local or state government-
approved accreditation, licensing, registration, or other approval standards, a regional
accrediting association, an accrediting association recognized by the Secretary of the United
States Department of Education, or an organization holding full membership in AdvancED.
3) Establishes that this bill shall not apply to an individual 18 to 24 years of age who is already
employed as a peace officer as of the effective date of the legislation.
4) Makes legislative findings and declarations.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires each class of public officers or employees declared by law to be peace officers to
meet all of the following minimum standards:
a) Be a citizen of the United States or a permanent resident alien who is eligible for and has
applied for citizenship, except as provided in Section 2267 of the Vehicle Code.
b) Be at least 18 years of age.
c) Be fingerprinted for purposes of search of local, state, and national fingerprint files to
disclose a criminal record.
d) Be of good moral character, as determined by a thorough background investigation.
e) Be a high school graduate, pass the General Education Development Test or other high
school equivalency test approved by the State Department of Education that indicates
high school graduation level, pass the California High School Proficiency Examination,
or have attained a two-year, four-year, or advanced degree from an accredited college or
AB 89
Page 2
university. The high school shall be either a United States public school, an accredited
United States Department of Defense high school, or an accredited or approved public or
nonpublic high school. Any accreditation or approval required by this subdivision shall
be from a state or local government educational agency using local or state government
approved accreditation, licensing, registration, or other approval standards, a regional
accrediting association, an accrediting association recognized by the Secretary of the
United States Department of Education, an accrediting association holding full
membership in the National Council for Private School Accreditation (NCPSA), an
organization holding full membership in AdvancED, an organization holding full
membership in the Council for American Private Education (CAPE), or an accrediting
association recognized by the National Federation of Nonpublic School State Accrediting
Associations (NFNSSAA).
2) Requires that a peace officer be found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental
condition, including bias against race or ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, disability, or
sexual orientation, that might adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer.
3) Requires the following evaluations:
i) An evaluation of physical condition, by a licensed physician and surgeon.
ii) An evaluation of emotional and mental condition, by either of the following:
(1) A physician and surgeon who holds a valid California license to practice
medicine, has successfully completed a postgraduate medical residency education
program in psychiatry accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate
Medical Education, and has at least the equivalent of five full-time years of
experience in the diagnosis and treatment of emotional and mental disorders,
including the equivalent of three full-time years accrued after completion of the
psychiatric residency program; or,
(2) A psychologist licensed by the California Board of Psychology who has at least
the equivalent of five full-time years of experience in the diagnosis and treatment
of emotional and mental disorders, including the equivalent of three full-time
years accrued postdoctorate. The physician and surgeon or psychologist shall also
have met any applicable education and training procedures set forth by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training designed for the conduct of
preemployment psychological screening of peace officers.
4) Provides that the law shall not be construed to preclude the adoption of additional or higher
standards, including age.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1) Author's Statement: According to the author, “Excessive force at the hands of law
enforcement that leads to grave injury or death not only tears apart families and communities
AB 89
Page 3
but erodes trust in law enforcement. This data-driven bill relies on years of study and new
understandings of brain development to ensure that only those officers capable of high level
decision-making and judgment in tense situations are entrusted with working in our
communities and correctional facilities. By requiring new peace officer candidates to be
more mature and highly educated, the PEACE Act not only professionalizes policing, but
also creates a culture that is significantly less reliant on excessive force. The PEACE Act will
transform departments across the state and mark a transition in addressing the root causes
behind excessive use of force.”
2) Background: The bill includes legislative findings to support changing the minimum age
and/or education requirements of a peace officer:
“There is an interest in minimizing peace officer use of deadly force.
“A study of 1,935 Philadelphia police officers examined the relationship between officer-
involved shootings and self-control. The findings point to the conclusion that peace
officers with greater self-control are less likely to use deadly force. Inversely, officers
with lower self-control are ‘significantly more likely’ to be involved in a police
shooting.”
“The Legislature has repeatedly relied on neurological research with respect to criminal
sentencing law reflecting a growing understanding that cognitive brain development
continues well beyond age 18 and into early adulthood. Scientific evidence on young
adult development and neuroscience shows that certain areas of the brain, particularly
those affecting judgment and decision making, do not develop until the early to mid-20s.”
“Law enforcement officers are required to make split-second decisions to protect the
health and safety of the public and address dangerous situations. A young adult with a
still developing brain may struggle during events that require quick decision making and
judgments.”
“The Legislature finds and declares that because there is a negative correlation between
officer age and use of deadly force, increasing the minimum age of a police officer will
likely result in a police force composed of more mature officers who are able to exhibit
greater self-control, and who are less likely to utilize deadly force.”
“A small minority of officers is involved in the majority of use of force incidents; so
called ‘high-rate officers.’ In a 2010 study, 6 percent of the officers studied accounted for
approximately 40 percent of the use of force incidents in that year. In a 2012 study, 5.4
percent of officers were found to account for 32 percent of use of force situations. High-
rate officers tend to be younger compared to low-rate officers.”
“A 2007 study found that officers with a bachelor’s degree were less likely to use
physical force than officers with only a high school graduation. The same study also
found no difference between officers with some college and those with only high school
education.”
“A study has also shown that better educated officers perform better in the academy,
receive higher supervisor evaluations, have fewer disciplinary problems and accidents,
AB 89
Page 4
are assaulted less often, and miss fewer days of work than their counterparts.”
“A 2008 study of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department found that age and
education of officers was the main determinant in likelihood to resort to the use of force.”
“Studies show that officers with a previous history of using deadly force are more than 51
percent as likely to engage in deadly force again, compared to officers without a history
of shootings. For this reason, it is important to minimize potential for an officer to engage
in an initial shooting as it likely will reduce the officer’s likelihood of using deadly force
throughout their service.”
“During the years 2014–2018, only 8.7 percent of the police force was 25 years of age or
younger and nearly 30 percent of those officers had a bachelor’s degree, suggesting that
limitations on the age and education of officers would not significantly affect the
available workforce.”
3) Population of Peace Officers Under Age 25: Changing the minimum age of officer
eligibility does not appear to substantially reduce the workforce, based on data provided to
the committee. For example, at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, only
1.77% of officers are under 25 years old (540 of 30,589). Data from the California State
Library regarding the age of California police officers and first-line supervisors of police and
detectives show that of 103,776 officers, 9,001 are aged 25 and under, or 11.52%. At the
University of California, of the 351 officers employed, 251 are over 25 and have a bachelor’s
degree; only 2 officers are under 25 and do not have a bachelor’s degree, 0.33%. The
California State University employs 443 officers; only eight are under the age of 25, and four
of those officers have a bachelor’s degree.
4) Death of Daniel Hernandez: On April 22, 2020, Daniel Hernandez was involved in a car
accident, where a person involved in the crash called 911 and reported that someone had a
knife and was trying to stab them. Within 75 seconds a 23-year-old officer arrived on scene
and stepping out of her car, she asked Hernandez to drop a knife (he was holding a box
cutter) before firing all of the bullets in her gun at Hernandez. (James Rainey, Andrew
Campa, She was known as a ‘top shot.’ Now an L.A. cop is at the center of a deadly shooting,
July 17, 2020, Los Angeles Times, available at:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-17/social-media-star-lapd-cop-deadly-
shooting.)
Hernandez was struck at least six times by gunshot; the coroner’s report showed he was shot
“in the top of the head, and in the shoulder, abdomen, thigh, and upper back. The deputy
medical examiner listed the cause of death as multiple gunshot wounds.” (Eric Leonard,
Coroner Report Details Death of Man Killed by LAPD Officer in South LA, Aug. 19, 2020,
NBC Los Angeles, available at https://www.nbclosangeles.com/investigations/coroner-
report-details-death-of-man-killed-by-lapd-officer-in-south-la/2415270/.)
The Los Angeles Police Commission ruled in December 2020 that the officer was in
violation of LAPD policy when firing two shots at Hernandez after he was on the ground.
The four initial rounds were determined to be justified. (Brittany Martin, The LAPD Officer
Who Shot Daniel Hernandez Found to Have Broken Policy, Dec. 16, 2020, LA Mag,
available at: https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/toni-mcbride-lapd-policy-violation/.)
AB 89
Page 5
The officer was 23 years old at the time of the shooting. Prior to the incident, media profiles
and social media posts fueled an image that glorified and glamourized the young officer,
connecting her with Hollywood stars and featuring her in magazines. (James Rainey, Andrew
Campa, She was known as a ‘top shot.’ Now an L.A. cop is at the center of a deadly shooting,
July 17, 2020, Los Angeles Times, available at:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-07-17/social-media-star-lapd-cop-deadly-
shooting.)
Under the provisions of this bill, the officer would not have been eligible to become a peace
officer until her 25th birthday or until she completed a degree in higher education. Additional
experience and education may better prepare young officers to make the kinds of split-
second, life-changing decisions that are part and parcel of the job.
5) Argument in Support: According to the California State Council of Service Employees
International Union, “Current science indicates developing areas of the brain, which affect
judgment and decision-making, do not reach full maturation or development until the age of
25. Additionally, studies show a 4-year college education reduces the likelihood of using
excessive force significantly, while also cultivating officers with high performance
evaluations in comparison to those with a high school education and even some college. The
PEACE Act relies on decades of data addressing brain development and educational
attainment to diminish officers’ use of force.
“SEIU supports AB 89, as it is an important step toward change and continues to grow upon
past efforts to address police use of force.
“The PEACE Act changes the culture of law enforcement. By requiring new peace officer
candidates to be more mature and highly educated, the PEACE Act will not only
professionalize policing, but will also create a culture that is significantly less reliant on
excessive force.”
6) Argument in Opposition: According to the Peace Officers’ Research Association of
California, “Current law requires peace officers in this state to meet specified minimum
standards, including age and education requirements. This bill would increase the minimum
qualifying age from 18 to 25 years of age. This bill would permit an individual under 25
years of age to qualify for employment as a peace officer if the individual has a bachelor’s or
advanced degree from an accredited college or university. AB 89 would specify that these
requirements do not apply to individuals 18 to 24 years of age who are already employed as a
peace officer as of the effective date of this act.
“Due to the low percentage of college graduates among the minority population, PORAC
believes that mandating a college degree for peace officers will only further exacerbate the
lack of diversity in law enforcement. Furthermore, requiring someone to wait to start their
career until age 25 is not realistic. This is especially true among minorities who oftentimes
have to help support their family as early as high school. PORAC fully supports raising the
education and training requirements of all peace officers. However, we believe it should be a
gradual phase-in program that is mindful of disadvantaged individuals who desire a career in
law enforcement.”
AB 89
Page 6
7) Related Legislation: AB 655 (Kalra), would require background checks to determine
whether a person seeking to be employed as a peace officer exhibits unlawful bias by
engaging in a hate group. AB 655 is pending before this committee.
8) Prior Legislation: AB 846 (Burke), Chapter 322, Statutes of 2020, provided that evaluations
of peace officers shall include an evaluation of bias against race or ethnicity, gender,
nationality, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Faculty Association (Co-Sponsor)
California Nurses Association
California Public Defenders Association (CPDA)
California State Council of Service Employees International Union
Exonerated Nation
Exonerated Nation INC
National Center for Youth Law
San Francisco Public Defender
Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee
Sigma Beta Xi, INC. (sbx Youth and Family Services)
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
The W. Haywood Burns Institute
Youth Leadership Institute
Opposition
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Peace Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
San Francisco Police Officers Association
Analysis Prepared by: Nikki Moore / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
AB 118
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2021
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB 118 (Kamlager) – As Introduced December 18, 2020
Policy Committee: Emergency Management Vote: 6 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: >
SUMMARY:
This bill establishes the CRISES Act (or, the Community Response Initiative to Strengthen
Emergency Systems Act) a three-year program to establish, implement and evaluate the CRISES
Grant Pilot Program. The grant program is to provide funding to community organizations to
create and strengthen community-based alternatives to law enforcement in response to crisis
situations not related to a fire department or emergency medical service response.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Establishes the CRISES Act Grant Program of awards of at least $250,000 to community
organizations.
2) Establishes the CRISES Program Fund in the State Treasury to support the program and to be
administered by the Director of the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES),
monies which may be expended by Cal OES for the purposes of the program.
3) States the bill’s provisions are to be implemented only if “appropriate funding” is available to
OES.
4) Asserts the grant program is to create and strengthen community-based alternatives to law
enforcement in response to crisis situations not related to a fire department or emergency
medical service response in communities where there is a history and pattern of racial
profiling, law enforcement violence, gaps in law enforcement service, or where vulnerable
populations live, including people of color, elderly people, people with disabilities, people
who are gender nonconforming, people who are likely to face disproportionate police
contact, people who are formerly incarcerated, people with immigration status issues, people
who are unhoused, people facing mental health crises, people involved in intimate partner
violence, vulnerable youth, people likely to be engaged in community violence, people
challenged by substance abuse, and people living in areas that are environmentally insecure
with vulnerable populations and subject to natural or climate disasters or public health
emergencies.
5) Establishes an 11-member CRISES Committee, to be appointed as follows and with
consideration given to racial, gender and ethnic diversity, and representation of communities,
as described in the bill:
AB 118
Page 2
a) Five members by the Governor: an emergency medical system professional; a survivor
of an emergency or crisis; a representative from a community organization providing
direct services to vulnerable populations; a public health professional; and a
representative of an advocacy or community organizing group serving vulnerable
communities.
b) Three members by the Senate Committee on Rules: a survivor of an emergency or crisis;
a representative from a community organization; and a representative of an advocacy or
community organizing group serving vulnerable communities.
c) Three members by the Speaker of the Assembly: a survivor of an emergency or crisis; a
representative from a community organization providing direct services to vulnerable
populations; and a public health professional.
The bill directs the CRISES Committee to establish grant application criteria, review and
decide upon grant proposals, ensure grants are adhering to standards, and monitor progress,
conclusions, and challenges, as well as make recommendations to Cal OES on program
development, implementation and oversight.
6) Directs Cal OES to establish rules and regulations for the program with the goal of making
grants to community organizations, with grants to be issued no later than January 1, 2023,
and to provide support to the CRISES Committee and technical assistance to applicants;
develop and implement the grant program; solicit and review grant proposals; consult with
local emergency-services personnel and community-based or grassroots organizations;
maintain a program website; and report
7) Require Cal OES publish a public report, to be posted on Cal OES’s website within six
months of the program’s end, on the programmatic and fiscal savings associated with the
program, key conclusions, populations served and the benefits conferred or realized, and
resulting policy recommendations to provide guidance to the Legislature and Governor in
fully implementing and scaling a permanent program.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1) Cost pressure of an unknown, though significant, amount (General Fund and special funds)
to provide funding for the CRISES Grant Program. The bill establishes minimum grant
amounts of $250,000. If OES makes 12 grants of $250,000 each during the three years of
program operation, grant totals would equal $3,000,000.
2) Costs over the life of the program equivalent to approximately five percent to 10 percent of
total grant amounts. If Cal OES makes 12 grants of $250,000 each during the three years of
program operation, Cal OES administrative costs would total between approximately
$150,000 and $300,000. Cal OES’s costs should be sufficient to cover establishment of the
program, its implementation and analysis and reporting of the program after its close.
COMMENTS:
Background and Purpose. This bill follows a nearly identical bill by the same author from last
year, AB 2054, which was vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message, the Governor asserted
the “underlying goal of this legislation is important and implementing an effective solution will
AB 118
Page 3
help our communities.” Yet the veto message also expressed the Governor’s objection that “OES
is not the appropriate location for the pilot program proposed in this legislation.”
The Governor’s objection notwithstanding, the California State Auditor released a report in
December 2019 that reviewed the effectiveness of state and local emergency planning in
addressing the needs of people with access and functional needs. The report concluded Cal OES
was uniquely positioned to collect and provide information about lessons learned during natural
disasters and recommended Cal OES review counties’ emergency plans and more actively
involve organizations that represent vulnerable individuals in developing emergency plans.
Whether Cal OES is the appropriate agency to set up and administer the CRISES Act Grant
Program is an open question. Supporters of the bill indicate they and the author are in discussion
with the Governor’s office about identifying an administrative home for the grant program that
satisfies the Governor’s objections. In any case, Cal OES administers several existing grant
programs, so it seems Cal OES would possess the administrative wherewithal to establish and
carry out the CRISES Act Grant Program, too.
In describing the need for the bill, the author contends:
The proposed pilot seeks to fill the void that exists in emergency response
services for vulnerable populations so that young people of color, people
with disabilities, people who are gender nonconforming, people who are
likely to face disproportionate police contact, people who are formerly
incarcerated, people with immigration status issues and people who are
unhoused or homeless can have ready access to quality emergency
services from trained professionals that ensure safety, are culturally
appropriate and relationship-centered.
Analysis Prepared by: Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 718
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2021
Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
AB 718 (Cunningham) – As Introduced February 16, 2021
SUMMARY: Requires a law enforcement agency conducting an administrative investigation
into an allegation of misconduct by a peace officer to complete its investigation and make a
finding, as specified, regardless of whether the officer voluntarily separates from the agency
before the investigation is completed. Specifically, this bill:
1) Provides, commencing January 1, 2022, if a law enforcement agency or oversight agency
initiates an administrative investigation into an allegation of an incident involving the
discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, or an incident in
which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in
death or great bodily injury, the agency shall complete its investigation and reach a finding,
either sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded, regardless of whether the officer
voluntarily separates from the agency before the investigation is completed.
2) States, commencing January 1, 2022, if a law enforcement agency or oversight agency
initiates an administrative investigation into an allegation of sexual assault as defined in this
chapter, the agency shall complete its investigation and reach a finding, either sustained, not
sustained, exonerated, or unfounded, regardless of whether the officer voluntarily separates
from the agency before the investigation is completed.
3) Provides if a law enforcement agency or oversight agency initiates an administrative
investigation into an allegation of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly
relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the
reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer,
including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false
reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence, the agency shall complete its
investigation and reach a finding, either sustained, not sustained, exonerated, or unfounded,
regardless of whether the officer voluntarily separates from the agency before the
investigation is completed.
4) States if any agency other than an officer’s employing agency conducts an investigation into
any of the above misconduct, that agency shall disclose its findings with the employing
agency no later than the conclusion of the investigation.
5) Defines “exonerated” to mean that the investigation clearly established that the actions of the
peace officer or custodial officer that formed the basis of the complaint are not violations of
law or department policy.
6) Defines “Not sustained” to mean an investigation failed to produce sufficient evidence to
prove or disprove the allegations the allegations made in the complaint.
AB 718
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires peace officers to meet all of the following minimum standards (Gov. Code, § 1031):
a) Be a citizen of the United States or a permanent resident alien who is eligible for and has
applied for citizenship, except as specified;
b) Be at least 18 years of age;
c) Be fingerprinted for purposes of search of local, state, and national fingerprint files to
disclose a criminal record;
d) Be of good moral character, as determined by a thorough background investigation;
e) Be a high school graduate, pass the General Education Development Test or other high
school equivalency test approved by the State Department of Education that indicates
high school graduation level, pass the California High School Proficiency Examination,
or have attained a two-year, four-year, or advanced degree from an accredited college or
university;
f) Be found to be free from any physical, emotional, or mental condition that might
adversely affect the exercise of the powers of a peace officer:
i) Physical condition shall be evaluated by a licensed physician and surgeon;
ii) Emotional and mental condition shall be evaluated by either of the following:
(1) A physician and surgeon who holds a valid California license to practice
medicine, has successfully completed a postgraduate medical residency education
program in psychiatry, and has a specified amount of experience; or,
(2) A psychologist licensed by the California Board of Psychology with a specified
amount of experience.
2) Specifies that the peace officer requirements do not preclude the adoption of additional or
higher standards, including age. (Gov. Code, § 1031, subd. (g).)
3) Specifies that the following persons are disqualified from being peace officer, except as
specified:
a) Any person who has been convicted of a felony;
b) Any person who has been convicted of any offense in any other jurisdiction which would
have been a felony if committed in this state;
c) Any person who has been convicted of a crime based upon a verdict or finding of guilt of
a felony by the trier of fact, or upon the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a
AB 718
Page 3
felony. This paragraph shall apply regardless of whether, the court declares the offense to
be a misdemeanor or the offense becomes a misdemeanor by operation of law;
d) Any person who has been charged with a felony and adjudged by a superior court to be
mentally incompetent;
e) Any person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of any felony;
f) Any person who has been determined to be a mentally disordered sex offender; or,
g) Any person adjudged addicted or in danger of becoming addicted to narcotics, convicted,
and committed to a state institution as specified. (Govt. Code, § 1029, Subd. (a)(1)-(7).)
4) States that each law enforcement agency shall make a record of any investigations of
misconduct involving a peace officer in his or her general personnel file or a separate file
designated by the department or agency. (Pen. Code, § 832.12, subd. (a).)
5) Requires a peace officer seeking employment with a law enforcement agency to give written
permission for the hiring department or agency to view his or her general personnel file and
any separate file designated by a law enforcement agency. (Pen. Code, § 832.12, subd. (a).)
6) States that for purposes of performing a thorough background investigation for applicants not
currently employed as a peace officer, an employer shall disclose employment information
relating to a current or former employee, upon request of a law enforcement agency, if all of
the following conditions are met (Gov. Code, § 1031.1.):
a) The request is made in writing;
b) The request is accompanied by a notarized authorization by the applicant releasing the
employer of liability; and,
c) The request and the authorization are presented to the employer by a sworn officer or
other authorized representative of the employing law enforcement agency.
7) Requires every peace officer candidate be the subject of employment history checks through
contacts with all past and current employers over a period of at least ten years, as listed on
the candidate's personal history statement. (Code of Regulations, Title 11, § 1953, subd.
(e)(6).)
8) Requires proof of the employment history check be documented by a written account of the
information provided and source of that information for each place of employment contacted.
All information requests shall be documented. (Code of Regulations, Title 11, § 1953, subd.
(e)(6).)
9) States that if a peace officer candidate was initially investigated in accordance with all
current requirements and the results are available for review, a background investigation
update, as opposed to a complete new background investigation, may be conducted for either
of the following circumstances: (Code of Regulations, Title 11, § 1953, subd. (f)(a).)
AB 718
Page 4
a) The peace officer candidate is being reappointed to the same POST-participating
department. Per regulations, a background investigation update on a peace officer who is
reappointed within 180 days of voluntary separation is at the discretion of the hiring
authority; or,
b) The peace officer candidate is transferring, without a separation, to a different
department; however, the new department is within the same city, county, state, or
district that maintains a centralized personnel and background investigation support
division.
10) Requires each department or agency in this state that employs peace officers to establish a
procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against the personnel of these
departments or agencies, and shall make a written description of the procedure available to
the public. (Pen. Code, § 832.5, subd. (a)(1).)
11) Requires complaints and any reports or findings relating to these complaints be retained for a
period of at least five years. (Pen. Code, § 832.5, subd. (b).)
12) Specifies prior to any official determination regarding promotion, transfer, or disciplinary
action by an officer's employing department or agency, the complaints, as specified, shall be
removed from the officer's general personnel file and placed in separate file designated by the
department or agency, in accordance with all applicable requirements of law. (Pen. Code, §
832.5, subd. (b).)
13) States that each law enforcement agency shall annually furnish to DOJ, a report of all
instances when a peace officer employed by that agency is involved in any of the following:
(Government Code, § 12525.2, subd. (a).)
a) An incident involving the shooting of a civilian by a peace officer;
b) An incident involving the shooting of a peace officer by a civilian;
c) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer against a civilian results in
serious bodily injury or death; and,
d) An incident in which use of force by a civilian against a peace officer results in serious
bodily injury or death.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.
COMMENTS:
1) Author's Statement: According to the author, “Government officials, including police
officers, should not be able to resign in order to avert responsibility and keep potential
misconduct hidden from the public’s view,” said Cunningham. “Bad actors must be held
accountable if we are to restore the public’s trust in our institutions. Completing
investigations into claims of officer misconduct is an important component to rooting out
those who wish to abuse their positions of power.”
AB 718
Page 5
2) Argument in Support: According to the California Public Defenders Association, “Under
current law, a police agency will generally conduct an investigation when one of its
employee-officers is accused of engaging in professional misconduct. Under California’s
police transparency laws, if the investigation results in a sustained finding of serious
misconduct, the misconduct becomes a matter of public record, discoverable by the
community in which that officer works. (Pen. Code § 832.7.)
“The problem is that the transparency law only applies when a complaint has been sustained,
meaning that if, for any reason, the investigation is not completed, the misconduct will
remain hidden from the public and other police agencies. (Ibid.) Guilty officers who are
being investigated will therefore quit before a sustained finding is made, know this will cause
their current employer to immediately end the investigation. These officers will then apply to
a different police agency, who will hire the officer without knowing about the officer’s
history of misconduct.
“AB 718 addresses this problem by requiring police agency employers to complete
misconduct investigations, even if the accused officer quits prior to its conclusion. By
requiring police agencies to actually determine whether the officer has engaged in
misconduct even when the officer tries to hide that finding by resigning early, AB 718
promotes transparency and deters officers who might otherwise engage in misconduct with
relative impunity.”
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California News Publishers Association
California Public Defenders Association
California State Sheriffs’ Association
League of Women Voters
Santa Barbara County District Attorney
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Steven Bradford, Chair
2021 - 2022 Regular
Bill No: SB 2 Hearing Date: April 13, 2021
Author: Bradford
Version: March 11, 2021
Urgency: No Fiscal: Yes
Consultant: GC
Subject: Peace officers: certification: civil rights
HISTORY
Source: Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
ACLU of California
Anti-Police Terror Project
Black Lives Matter Los Angeles
California Families United 4 Justice
Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice
PolicyLink
STOP Coalition
UDW/AFSCME Local 3930
Youth Justice Coalition
Prior Legislation: SB 731 (Bradford), not heard on Assembly Floor
Support: Alliance for Boys and Men of Color; American Civil Liberties Union/Northern
California/Southern California/S an Diego and Imperial Counties; Anti-Police
Terror Project; Asian Prisoner Support Committee; Asian Solidarity Collective;
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; Black Lives Matter-California; Black Lives Matter
Los Angeles; Brotherhood Crusade; California Alliance for Youth and
Community Justice; California Coalition of School Safety Professionals;
California Department of Insurance; California Immigrant Policy Center;
California Families United 4 Justice; California Public Defenders Association
(CPDA); Californians for Safety and Justice; Change for Justice; Children's
Defense Fund – CA; Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice; Communities
United for Restorative Youth Justice (CURYJ); Community Advocates for Just
and Moral Governance; Consumer Attorneys of California; Drug Policy Alliance;
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
(EPIC); Equal Rights Advocates; Families United 4 Justice; Fresno Barrios
Unidos; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Giffords; Indivisible
East Bay; Indivisible South Bay LA; Indivisible Yolo; Initiate Justice; Justice
Reinvestment Coaltion of Alameda County; Kern County Participatory Defense;
Law Enforcement Accountability Network; League of Women Voters of
California; Legal Services for Prisoners With Children; Los Angeles LGBT
Center; Los Angeles School Police Association; Martin Luther King Jr Freedom
Center; Mexican American Bar Association of Los Angeles County; Mid-city
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 2 of 12
Community Advocacy Network; National Association of Social Workers,
California Chapter; National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform; Nextgen
California; Northridge Indivisible; Orange County Emergency Response
Coalition; Organizers in Solidarity; Pacifica Social Justice; People's Budget
Orange County; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Pillars of The
Community San Diego; PolicyLink; Prosecutors Alliance of California; Riverside
Sheriffs’ Association; Roots of Change; Salesforce; San Francisco Board of
Supervisors; San Francisco Public Defender; San Jose State University Human
Rights Institute; Santa Ana Police Officers Association; Santa Monica Coalition
for Police Reform; Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Long Beach; Showing
Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) San Diego; Showing Up for Racial Justice North
County; Smart Justice California; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; STOP
Coalition; Team Justice; The Resistance Northridge Indivisible; Think Dignity;
Together We Will/indivisible - Los Gatos; UDW/AFSCME Local 3930; We the
People - San Diego; White People 4 Black Lives; Yalla Indivisible; Youth Justice
Coalition
Opposition: Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Association of Orange County
Deputy Sheriff's; California Association of Highway Patrolmen; California
Coalition of School Safety Professionals; California Fraternal Order of Police;
California Police Chiefs Association; California State Sheriffs’ Association;
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association; Long Beach Police Officers
Association; Los Angeles School Police Association; Palos Verdes Police
Officers Association; Peace Officers Research Association of California
(PORAC); Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs
Association; San Bernardino County Safety Employees' Benefit Association;
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to do the following: (1) grant new powers to the Commission
on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to investigate and determine peace officer
fitness and to decertify officers who engage in “serious misconduct” and (2) make changes to
the Bane Civil Rights Act to limit immunity as specified.
Existing law requires minimum training and moral character requirements for peace officers, as
defined, while at the same time identifying certain disqualifying factors, including a felony
conviction. (Penal Code Sections 830 et seq. and Government Code Sections 1029 and 1031.)
Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to set
minimum standards for the recruitment and training of peace officers, develop training courses
and curriculum, and establish a professional certificate program that awards different levels of
certification based on training, education, experience, and other relevant prerequisites.
Authorizes POST to cancel a certificate that was awarded in error or fraudulently obtained;
however, POST is prohibited from canceling a properly-issued certificate. (Penal Code Sections
830-832.10 and 13500 et seq.)
This bill would disqualify a person from being employed as a peace officer if that person has
been:
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 3 of 12
Convicted of, or been adjudicated to have committed crimes against public justice,
including falsifying records, bribery, or perjury;
Certified as a peace officer by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST) and has surrendered that certification or had that certification revoked by POST,
or has been denied certification;
Previously employed in law enforcement in any state, US territory, or the federal
government whose name is listed in the national decertification index; or
Engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in their certification being
revoked by the state.
This bill requires POST to adopt by regulation a definition of “serious misconduct” that shall
serve as the criteria to be considered for ineligibility for, or revocation of, certification. The
definition shall include the following:
Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating
to the reporting or investigation of misconduct by a peace officer.
Abuses of power, including intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false
confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.
Physical abuse, including unauthorized use of force.
Sexual assault.
Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or
expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other
protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace
officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.
Violation of the law or other acts that are inconsistent with an officer’s obligation to
uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public.
Participation in a law enforcement gang or other organization that engages in a pattern of
rogue on-duty behavior that violates the law or fundamental principles of professional
policing, including, but not limited to, unlawful detention, use of excessive force,
falsifying police reports, fabricating evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based
solely on protected characteristics of those persons, theft, use of alcohol or drugs while
on duty, protection of other members from disciplinary actions, and retaliation against
other officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group.
Failing to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct, including an
investigation conducted pursuant to the provisions of this bill.
This bill grants POST the power to investigate and determine the fitness of any person to serve as
a peace officer in the state of California and to audit any law enforcement agency that employs
peace officers without cause at any time by creating and empowering a new division.
Creates the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division (Division) within POST to
investigate and prosecute proceedings to take action against a peace officer’s
certification.
Requires the Division to review and investigate grounds for decertification and make
findings as to whether the grounds for action against an officer’s certification exist.
Requires the Division to notify the officer subject to decertification of their findings and
allow the officer to request review.
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 4 of 12
This bill creates the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board (Advisory Board).
Membership shall consist of 9-members to be appointed as follows:
o 1 peace officer or former peace officer with substantial experience at a command
rank – appointed by the Governor.
o 1 peace officer or former peace officer with substantial experience at a
management rank in internal investigations or disciplinary proceeding of peace
officers – appointed by the Governor.
o 2 members of the public, who are not former peace officers, who have substantial
experience working at nonprofit or academic institutions on issues related to
police misconduct – one appointed by the Governor and the other appointed by
the Speaker of the Assembly.
o 2 members of the public, who are not former peace officers, who have substantial
experience working at community-based organizations on issues related to police
misconduct – one appointed by the Governor and one by the Senate Rules
Committee.
o 2 members of the public, who are not former peace officers, who have been
subject to wrongful use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury by a
peace officer, or who are surviving family members of a person killed by the
wrongful use of deadly force by a peace officer – appointed by the Governor.
Members shall be appointed for 3-year terms as specified.
This bill requires that the Advisory Board hold public meetings to review the findings after an
investigation made by the division and to make a recommendation to POST.
This bill requires that POST adopt the recommendation of the Advisory Board if supported by
clear and convincing evidence and if action is to be taken against an officer’s certification, return
the determination to the Division to commence formal proceedings before an administrative law
judge consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. And provides that the determination of
the administrative law judge shall be subject to judicial review. This bill also requires that POST
notify the employing agency of the officer as well as the district attorney of the county in which
the officer is employed of their decision.
This bill requires law enforcement agencies to report to POST:
The employment, appointment, or separation from employment of a peace officer;
Any complaint, charge, allegation, or investigation into the conduct of a peace officer that
could render the officer subject to revocation;
Findings of civil oversight entities; and
Civil judgements that could affect the officer’s certification.
This bill requires, in cases of separation from employment or appointment, each agency is
required to execute an affidavit-of-separation form adopted by POST describing the reason for
the separation. This affidavit is signed under penalty of perjury.
This bill declares that certificates or proof of eligibility awarded by POST to be the property of
POST and would authorize POST to revoke a proof of eligibility or certificate on grounds
including the use of excessive force, sexual assault, making a false arrest, or participating in a
law enforcement gang.
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 5 of 12
This bill requires law enforcement agencies only employ peace officers with current, valid
certification or pending certification.
This bill directs POST to issue or deny certification, including a basic certificate or proof of
eligibility to a peace officer.
This bill requires POST to issue a proof of eligibility or basic certificate to persons employed as
a peace officers on January 1, 2022, who not otherwise possess a certificate.
This bill requires renewal of proof of eligibility or basic certification at least every two years and
requires that POST assess a fee for the application, renewal, and the annual certification fee.
This bill creates a Peace Officer Certification Fund for the fees to be deposited into and
continuously appropriate those funds to POST for the administration and certification program.
Existing law states that except as specified, peace officer or custodial officer personnel records
and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to citizens' complaints against
personnel are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except
by discovery. This section shall not apply to investigations or proceedings concerning the
conduct of peace officers or custodial officers, or any agency or department that employ these
officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district attorney's office, or the Attorney General's office.
(Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (a).)
This bill makes all records related to the revocation of a peace officer’s certification public and
would require that records of an investigation be retained for 30 years.
Existing law provides, under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, that if a person or persons, whether
or not acting under color of law, interfere or attempt to interfere, by threats, intimidation, or
coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment of any rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, or by the Constitution or laws of the state of California, the Attorney General, or
any district attorney or city attorney, is authorized to bring a civil action for equitable relief and a
civil penalty. (Civil Code Section 52.1 (b).)
Existing law permits a person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights were interfered with in
violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act to institute a civil action in their own name and on
their own behalf for damages, as specified. (Civil Code Section 52.1 (c).)
Existing law provides, under the Government Claims Act, that unless a statute provides
otherwise, a public entity is not liable for injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or
omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person. However, a public entity
is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity
within the scope of their employment if the act or omission would otherwise have given rise to a
cause of action against that employee. (Government Code Section 814 et seq.)
Existing law provides that public employees are not liable for injury caused by their instituting or
prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of their employment, even
if they act maliciously and without probable cause. (Government Code Section 821.6.)
Existing law provides, subject to certain exemptions, that a public entity or public employee is
not liable for an injury to a prisoner, or an injury caused by the failure of an employee, other than
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 6 of 12
a healing arts employee, to furnish or obtain medical care for a prisoner in their custody.
However, nothing exonerates a public employee from injury proximately caused by their
negligent or wrongful act or omission. Specifies that in such case the public entity may, but is
not required to, pay any judgment, compromise, or settlement, but may be required to indemnify
any public employee, in any case where the entity is immune from liability. (Government Codes
Sections 844.6 and 845.6.)
This bill specifies that the threats, intimidation, or coercion as defined in the Tom Bane Civil
Rights Act need not be separate or independent from, and may be inherent in, any interference or
attempted interference with a right.
A person bringing suit under this section need not prove that a person being sued under
this section had specific intent to interfere or attempt to interfere with a right secured by
the Constitution or law.
For any person, public entity, or private entity sued under this section, intentional conduct
to interfere or attempt to interfere with a constitutional right or right granted by law or
deliberate indifference or reckless disregard for a constitutional right or right granted by
law that interferes or attempts to interfere with that right, is sufficient to prove a violation
of this section by threat, intimidation, or coercion.
For purposes of this section, a person acts “intentionally” when the person acts with
general intent or a conscious objective to engage in particular conduct.
This bill eliminates specified immunity provisions for peace and custodial officers, or public
entities employing peace or custodial officers sued under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. This
provisions are the following:
A public employee for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or
administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if they act
maliciously and without probable cause.
Liability of peace or correctional officers for injuries caused to persons in custody.
Failure to obtain medical care for a person in custody.
Specified indemnification procedures by agencies on behalf of employees.
This bill authorizes persons who can otherwise bring actions for wrongful death to bring an
action under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act for the death of a person.
This bill makes a number of uncodified findings and declarations.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
For years, there have been numerous stories of bad-acting officers committing
misconduct and not facing any serious consequences. These officers remain on
the force after pleading down to a lesser crime, if prosecuted and convicted at all.
Other times, these problematic officers resign or are fired from their employer
only to get rehired at another law enforcement agency and continue to commit
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 7 of 12
serious acts of misconduct. California does not have a uniform, statewide
mechanism to hold law enforcement officers accountable. Allowing the police to
police themselves has proven to be dangerous and leads to added distrust between
communities of color and law enforcement.
Furthermore, the Bane Act has been under assault and its original intent
undermined. Federal courts have made the doctrine of qualified immunity a more
potent obstacle to achieving justice for violations of rights under the federal civil
rights law. Revisions are needed to address and clarify a number of recent
negative court decisions that brought the Bane Act further out of alignment with
its counterpart in federal law. Given the federal issue of qualified immunity, the
Bane Act must be a strong resource to defend California civil rights.
SB 2 creates a fair and impartial statewide process with due process safeguards to
revoke a law enforcement officer’s certification for a criminal conviction and
certain acts of serious misconduct without regard to conviction. Additionally, the
bill will correct misinterpretations and incongruences to full civil rights
enforcement using the Bane Act and bringing it into alignment with federal law.
Law enforcement officers are entrusted with great powers to carry a firearm, stop
and search, use force, and arrest; to balance this, they must be held to a higher
standard of accountability.
2. Decertification of Peace Officers
California is one of only 4 states in the United States that does not have a process for the
decertification of peace officers when they engage in acts of misconduct that could disqualify
them from being employed as a peace officer. Other professions that involve a large degree of
public trust have robust organizations that may decertify persons from practicing in a field (e.g.
the State Bar of California for attorneys, or the Medical Board of California for doctors). In
California we already have the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST),
but in 2003 POST lost the ability to deny or revoke an officers’ certification by statute.
The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, or POST, was established by
legislative action in 1959. POST is responsible for setting minimum training standards for law
enforcement in California. Currently, POST has a staff of over 130 and functions under an
executive director that is appointed by the commission themselves. POST is funded through the
general fund, and through the state penalty fund, which receives money from penalty
assessments on criminal and traffic fines. This bill would create new duties for POST in
requiring them to create a certification program, monitor those certifications, recertify, and create
procedures for decertification of peace officers. Additionally, this bill will create a funding
mechanism for this oversight in a similar way to the other oversight agencies (such as the State
Bar of California) operate. POST will fund the certification and decertification process by
passing a fee on to officers seeking certification and recertification.
This bill provides for certification of all peace officers in the state. Commencing January 1,
2022 peace officers who do not possess a basic certificate shall apply to POST for proof of
eligibility. Agencies that employ peace officers shall only employ peace officers who have
current valid certification unless they meet specified qualifications for provisional employment
pending certification by POST. These certifications must be renewed every 24 months.
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 8 of 12
The bill creates a process for decertification by creating the Peace Officer Standards
Accountability Division (Division) within POST. This Division has the responsibility of
reviewing grounds for decertification, conducting investigations into serious misconduct,
presenting findings in decertification procedures, and seeking revocation of certification of peace
officers. The bill also creates a Peace Officer Standards Accountability Advisory Board
(Advisory Board). The Advisory Board is tasked with hearing evidence of misconduct and
making determinations as to the certification or decertification of peace officers. The Advisory
Board conducts hearings publically and the bill makes the necessary amendments to California
code to permit the discussion of peace officer personnel records introduced in these proceedings
subject to public disclosure.
This bill requires revocation of peace officer certification if an investigation determines that the
peace officer has (1) become ineligible to hold office as a police officer under the existing
disqualification provisions or (2) been terminated for cause from employment as a peace officer
or has otherwise engaged in any enumerated acts of “serious misconduct.” Acts of “serious
misconduct” will be defined by regulation by post POST and shall include the following:
Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating
to the reporting or investigation of misconduct by a peace officer.
Abuses of power, including intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false
confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.
Physical abuse, including unauthorized use of force.
Sexual assault.
Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or
expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other
protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace
officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.
Violation of the law or other acts that are inconsistent with an officer’s obligation to
uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public.
Participation in a law enforcement gang or other organization that engages in a pattern of
rogue on-duty behavior that violates the law or fundamental principles of professional
policing, including, but not limited to, unlawful detention, use of excessive force,
falsifying police reports, fabricating evidence, targeting persons for enforcement based
solely on protected characteristics of those persons, theft, use of alcohol or drugs while
on duty, protection of other members from disciplinary actions, and retaliation against
other officers who threaten or interfere with the activities of the group.
Failing to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct, including an
investigation conducted pursuant to the provisions of this bill.
Additionally this bill requires that agencies cooperate and communicate specified information
with POST. Beginning January 1, 2023 law enforcement agencies must report information
related to the employment of officers, appointment, termination or separation including
involuntary termination resignation or retirement. They must also report to POST all complaints,
charges, or allegations of misconduct that could render a peace officer subject to revocation. All
findings by oversight agencies and final dispositions of investigations into misconduct must also
be shared with POST.
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 9 of 12
3. Revisions to the Bane Act
California’s Bane Act protects persons from threats, intimidation, or coercion and for attempts to
interfere with someone’s state or federal statutory constitutional rights. The Bane Act authorizes
a cause of action against a person who, whether or not acting under “color of law,” uses threats,
intimidation, or coercion to interfere with the ability of another person in the exercise and
enjoyment of any rights guaranteed under the U.S. or California constitutions, or any right
guaranteed under federal or state statute. Some courts have more restrictively interpreted the
Bane Act to require that threats, intimidation, or coercion must be committed with the specific
intent to interfere with the person’s rights. Other courts have found that only general intent is
required. This bill would resolve these conflicting views in favor of not requiring the intent
element.
The California Government Claims Act (Tort Claims Act) provides a general immunity from
liability for harms that public employees may cause, unless another statute provides for liability.
Government Code Section 825(a) provides that public entities must indemnify public employees
for judgments of compensatory damages, and provides that they may indemnify public
employees for punitive damages if they were acting in the course and scope of employment,
acting in good faith, and payment would be in the best interests of the public entity.
Government Code Section 821.6 grants absolute immunity to public employees for any injury
caused by their instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the
scope of their employment, even if they act maliciously and without probable cause. Some
courts have interpreted this immunity broadly to apply to conduct during an investigation leading
up to institution of a proceeding. Government Code Sections 844.6, and 845.6 generally grant
absolute immunity to public employees for injuries caused to a prisoner, or for failure to provide
or obtain medical care for a person in custody.
This bill would expressly state that these immunities do not apply to any cause of action brought
under the Bane Civil Rights Act brought against a peace officer or the peace officer’s employing
agency. In addition, the bill expressly states that it would not affect existing judicial and
prosecutorial immunity for individual attorneys acting on behalf of a prosecutor’s office in a
prosecutorial capacity.
4. Argument in Support
According to the ACLU:
The American Civil Liberties Union of California is pleased to co-sponsor Senate
Bill 2 to increase accountability for peace officers who commit serious
misconduct and violations of civil rights. Specifically, the bill would create a
statewide process to revoke the professional certificates issued to peace officers
for serious acts of misconduct. Additionally, the bill strengthens the Tom Bane
Civil Rights Act (Bane Act) to correct misinterpretations and impediments to full
civil rights enforcement under state law.
Nationwide, 46 states have the authority to revoke a peace officer’s certificate for
misconduct, commonly known as decertification. California is one of only four
that do not. In 2003, under pressure from the law enforcement lobby, the
legislature removed the authority of the California Commission on Peace Officer
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 10 of 12
Standards and Training (POST) to deny or cancel a peace officer’s certification,
leaving the continued employment of officers accused of misconduct or abuse of
authority to local law enforcement agencies, and allowing many disreputable
officers to jump from one local police department to another.
Following the enactment of SB 1421 (Skinner, Chapter 988, Statutes of 2018),
which disclosed the hidden records of peace officer misconduct, there have been
numerous revelations of officers committing misconduct without facing any real
consequences. Many problem officers remain on the force after pleading down to
a lesser crime, if they are prosecuted at all. Others resign or are fired by one
department, only to get rehired at another and go one to commit further serious
acts of misconduct. This bill would bring an end to the state’s shameful
dereliction of duty, returning California to the nearly universal recognition across
the country that local law enforcement cannot be relied upon to protect our
residents from people that should not be peace officers.
SB 2 would create a two-track process for decertification. If an officer is fired for
serious misconduct, including excessive force, sexual misconduct or abuse, or
concealing or fabricating evidence, decertification would be warranted as a matter
of course. If an officer engages in misconduct without being terminated,
decertification would be discretionary based on a further investigation and review.
The states that have the most effective decertification schemes, Georgia and
Florida, provide a discretionary process where the administering entity can look at
other less serious misconduct not tied to a crimina l conviction or an officer’s
firing.
Furthermore, the decertification process increases accountability of peace officers
at the statewide level in various ways. The bill requires law enforcement agencies
to report to POST all fired officers or officers that resign in lieu of a termination,
requires hiring agencies to contact POST and inquire as to the facts and reasons
for an officer being separated from their former employer before hiring the
officer, and adds the names of decertified officers to a national database.
We appreciate that SB 2 has been improved from the final version of SB 731.
Specifically, the composition of the Advisory Board has been changed from 6-3
to 7-2 to increase the numbers of civilians and reduce the law enforcement
representation. Massachusetts, which just passed their own version of
decertification, has a 6-3 civilian to law enforcement board. Our co-sponsor
coalition wanted to ensure that California’s law has the strongest public
representation.
Furthermore, our coalition has made it clear that impacted families have a strong
desire to hold previous bad actors accountable. SB 2 therefore allows the
Commission to look back at specific instances of officer misconduct when the
officer renews their certification in the future. Failure to do so would treat some
officers differently for the same wrongdoing. The specific acts of misconduct
align with those crimes highlighted in Penal Code section 832.7 under SB 1421.
Those crimes are uses of force against a person that results in death or great
bodily injury, sexual assault, and acts of dishonesty.
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 11 of 12
Relatedly, this bill seeks to correct a few problematic court decisions that have
prevented people injured by police misconduct and their families from seeking
meaningful redress for violations of their civil rights. The Bane Act is California’s
most broadly applicable and important civil rights law, protecting constitutional
and other rights by public or private actors, most commonly by use of excessive
force or false arrest.
State civil rights protections have become far more important because
conservative federal judges have invented the concept of “qualified immunity” to
block recovery for violations of rights under federal law. Without robust state
civil rights protections, those who are injured, and their families have no way to
hold officers accountable. But state protections have likewise been degraded by
court interpretations that have watered-down the Bane Act’s original objectives
by requiring specific intent, allowing absolute state immunities, and denying any
responsibility when victims are killed instead of merely injured.
SB 2 takes a targeted approach to correcting the most egregious of these
immunities. The bill removes the following three immunities: police officer
immunity for malicious prosecution, failure to provide medical care to prisoners,
and injuries to a prisoner violating their rights often related to excessive use of
force. The narrowed language clarifies that the immunities are barred for peace
officers or the peace officer’s employer.
Finally, the language makes clear that existing state law requiring indemnification
of an employee or former employee of a public agency apply under these causes
of action. This was a critical clarification because law enforcement falsely
claimed that officers will not be able to do their jobs under the threat of being held
personally liable for their actions.
The voices from the community are clear: the status quo must change, and the
state must hold law enforcement officers accountable for the harm and terror
inflicted on communities of color. SB 2 creates a statewide mechanism to hold
peace officers accountable and protect the civil rights of Californians.
5. Argument in Opposition
According to PORAC:
I write you today on behalf of the Peace Officers’ Research Association of
California (PORAC), representing 77,000 public safety members and 930 public
safety associations. We regret to inform you of our opposition to SB 2 relating to
peace officers: certification: civil rights.
PORAC fully supports the license revocation of officers who demonstrate gross
misconduct in law enforcement. We cannot allow this in our profession. In fact,
PORAC has been at the table, proposing legislative solutions to create a fair and
equitable process for revoking an officer’s license to practice law enforcement.
However, as written, SB 2 would over-ride due process, establishing a 9-person
panel to oversee the license revocation process that includes 7 members of the
public with no requirements for expertise power or prior experience in the
practice of public safety or law enforcement, with one of the seven actually biased
against the peace officer, and only 2 members with expertise or prior experience.
SB 2 (Bradford ) Page 12 of 12
If a doctor’s actions were being reviewed for potential discipline, would we want
someone with no medical experience deciding whether that doctor’s actions were
reasonable?
In addition, this body will have complete investigatory authority to overturn local
agency and District Attorney recommendations and discipline. Ultimately, it will
have to end a peace officer’s career with little or no due process for the officer.
No one wants to see bad officers removed from law enforcement more than good
officers do. When an officer acts in a way that is grossly inconsistent with the
missions and goals of our profession, it gives all law enforcement a bad name, and
only harms our ability to build back the community trust we need to carry out our
duties safely and effectively. However, SB 2 reaches far beyond the police
licensing process. Ultimately, this bill creates an inherently amateurish and
potentially biased panel to oversee the process of revoking an officer’s license to
practice law enforcement, ignoring our country’s tradition of due process and
subjecting officers to a biased review of their actions where guilt is assumed, and
the deck is stacked against them.
Peace officers cannot possibly do their job if there’s always a lingering fear that
even if they do the job by the book and up to policy standard, they could still
potentially face a civil action. No employee should have to work under those
conditions. Again, PORAC is strongly opposed to SB 2.
-- END –
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair
2021-2022 Regular Session
SB 16 (Skinner)
Version: December 7, 2020
Hearing Date: April 13, 2021
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
AWM
SUBJECT
Peace officers: release of records
DIGEST
This bill expands the categories of police personnel records that are subject to disclosure
under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) and imposes certain requirements
regarding the time frame and costs associated with such CPRA requests.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 1421 (Skinner, Ch. 988, Stats. 2018), which created a
limited right of access for records of a law enforcement officer relating to certain
incidents involving violence and certain sustained misconduct findings. According to
the author, when SB 1421 went into effect, many law enforcement agencies took steps to
delay or deny access to records that were properly subject to disclosure.
This bill expands on and strengthens SB 1421 in two main ways. First, it expands the
types of records subject to disclosure to include records relating to officer intimidation
through use of force, unlawful arrests and searches, and findings that an officer
engaged in acts of bias or discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics.
Second, it specifies the timing for producing records and what fees may be charged, and
imposes penalties for disclosures that were unreasonably delayed or refused. The
author has agreed to amendments to clarify the provisions relating to the release of
information relating to additional officers involved in an incident and protections for
whistleblowers.
This bill is sponsored by the author and supported by numerous entities, including the
Prosecutors Alliance of California, the American Civil Liberties Union of California, the
Conference of California Bar Associations, and the California News Publishers
Association. The bill is opposed by numerous entities, including statewide and local
law enforcement groups. This bill passed out of the Senate Committee on Public Safety
with a 4-0 vote.
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 2 of 21
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW
Existing law:
1) Establishes the CPRA, which provides that all records maintained by local and state
governmental agencies are open to public inspection unless specifically exempt.
(Gov. Code, §§ 6250 et seq.) The CPRA defines “public records” to include any
writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business
prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of
physical form or characteristics. (Gov. Code, § 6252(e)
2) Requires an agency seeking to withhold a record to justify the withholding by
demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of the
CPRA or that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not
disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of
the record. (Gov. Code, § 6255(a).)
3) Authorizes any person to institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or
writ of mandate under the CPRA in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce
their right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public
records under this chapter; and if the person seeking records prevails in the action,
the judge must award them reasonable attorney fees and costs. (Gov. Code, §§ 6258-
6259.)
4) Requires each department or agency in the state that employs law enforcement
officers to establish a procedure to investigate complaints of the public against their
personnel. (Gov. Code, § 832.5.(a).)
5) Requires the public’s complaints and any reports or findings relating to those
complaints to be retained for at least five years. (Pen. Code, § 832.5(b).)
6) Provides that complaints by members of the public, or portions of complaints, that
the law enforcement officer’s employing agency determines to be frivolous or
unfounded, or for which the employing agency exonerates the officer, shall not be
maintained in that officer’s general personnel file. Instead, such complaints must be
retained in separate files that are deemed personnel records for purposes of the
CPRA. (Pen. Code, § 832.5(c).)
a) For purposes of this section, “frivolous” is defined as “totally and completely
without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party.” (Pen.
Code, § 832.5(c); Civ. Code, § 128.5(b)(2).)
b) For purposes of this section, “unfounded” is defined as “mean[ing] that the
investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true.” (Pen. Code,
§ 832.5(d)(2).)
c) For purposes of this section “exonerated” is defined as “mean[ing] the
investigation clearly established that the actions of the peace or custodial
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 3 of 21
officer that formed the basis for the complaint are not violations of law or
department policy.” (Pen. Code, § 832.5(d)(3).)
7) States that, except as specified, law enforcement officer personnel records and
records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to citizens' complaints
against personnel are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil
proceeding except by discovery. This section shall not apply to investigations or
proceedings concerning the conduct of law enforcement officers, or any agency or
department that employ these officers, conducted by a grand jury, a district
attorney's office, or the Attorney General's office. (Pen. Code, § 832.7 (a).)
8) Provides that these specified law enforcement officer records maintained by their
agencies or departments shall not be confidential and shall be made available for
public inspection pursuant to the CPRA:
a) A record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of any of the
following:
i. An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a law
enforcement officer; or
ii. An incident in which the use of force by a law enforcement officer
against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury.
b) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by
any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a law enforcement
officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; and
c) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by
any law enforcement agency of dishonesty by a law enforcement officer
directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or
directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by,
another law enforcement officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained
finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying,
or concealing of evidence. (Pen. Code, § 832.7(b)(1).)
9) Provides that, notwithstanding the above, an agency or department may withhold
records involving an incident in which a law enforcement officer is alleged to have
discharged a firearm or used force that resulted in death or great bodily injury when
the incident is the subject of an active criminal or administrative investigation, for at
least 60 days, and for longer if an agency determines that disclosure could
reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement action against the
officer who used force or a third party. If criminal charges relating to the incident in
which force was used are filed, the records may be withheld until a verdict is
returned or the time to withdraw a plea expires. If records are sought during an
administrative investigation involving an incident in which a law enforcement
officer is alleged to have discharged a firearm or used force that resulted in death or
great bodily injury, the agency may delay disclosure until the agency reaches a
determination, up to 180 days after the agency discovered the incident, or 30 days
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 4 of 21
after the close of any criminal investigation into the incident, whichever is shorter.
(Pen. Code, § 832.7(b)(7).)
10) Requires an agency or department disclosing a record to redact the records as
needed to avoid disclosure of information relating to the law enforcement officer’s
personal life, to protect the anonymity of complainants and witnesses, to protect
certain confidential medical or financial information, to prevent disclosure of
material that would pose a specific danger to the physical safety of the law
enforcement officer or others, and where the public interest in not disclosing the
information clearly outweighs the public interest in disclos ing the information. (Pen.
Code, § 832.7(5)-(6).)
11) Provides that, in any case in which discovery or disclosure of a law enforcement
officer’s personnel or related records are sought, the party seeking the records must
apply for the information by motion and must be released where the court, in an in
camera inspection, determines information contained in the records is relevant to the
subject matter of the case. The court, in determining whether the records contain
relevant information, must exclude from disclosure:
a) Information consisting of complaints concerning conduct occurring more
than five years before the event or transaction that is the subject of the
litigation in aid of which discovery or disclosure is sought;
b) In a criminal proceeding, the conclusions of any officer investigating a
complaint filed by a member of the public; and
c) Facts that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.
(Evid. Code, §§ 1043, 1045.)
This bill:
1) Eliminates the five-year retention period for public complaints and related records,
instead requiring that such records be “retained,” including all complaints and
reports currently in the possession of an agency or department.
2) Expands the categories of law enforcement officer records that are subject to
disclosure under the CPRA, to include:
a) Any record relating to the report, investigations, or findings of an incident
involving the use of force to make a member of the public comply with an
officer, force that is unreasonable, or excessive force against a person by a law
enforcement officer (to take effect July 1, 2022);
b) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by
any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a law enforcement
officer engaged in conduct including, but not limited to, verbal statements,
writings, online posts, recordings, and gestures, involving prejudice or
discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religious creed, color,
national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical
condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity,
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 5 of 21
gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status (to
take effect July 1, 2022); and
c) Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by
any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that the law enforcement
officer made an unlawful arrest or conducted an unlawful search (to take
effect July 1, 2022).
3) Provides that records subject to release include records where the law enforcement
officer resigned before the law enforcement or oversight agency concluded its
investigation into the alleged incident.
4) Permits disclosed records to be redacted to preserve the anonymity of victims.
5) Clarifies that agencies and departments may withhold records pending a criminal or
administrative investigation or proceeding to include all records subject to approval,
not merely those relating to the discharge of a firearm or use of force resulting in
death or great bodily harm. In cases where an agency or department may withhold
records pending an administrative investigation, this bill eliminates the option to
withhold records until 30 days after the close of a criminal investigation relating to
that incident.
6) Provides that the cost of copies of records subject to disclosure that may be charged
to the requesting party under the CPRA does not include the cost of editing or
redacting the records.
7) Provides that, except where records are permitted to be withheld for a longer period
due to specified conditions involving ongoing investigations, records subject to
disclosure must be provided as quickly as possible and no later than 45 days from
the date of the request. If the agency or department does not disclose the records
within a 30-day grace period following the 45-day deadline (for a total of 75 days to
disclose without a penalty), the agency or department is subject to a civil penalty of
$1,000 per day for every day the records are not disclosed.
8) Provides that, where a member of the public has to file a suit under the CPRA to
enforce the disclosure requirements, and the court finds that the records were
improperly withheld or improperly redacted, the requester is entitled to twice the
party’s reasonable costs and attorney fees.
9) Provides that, for purposes of releasing records pursuant to this subdivision, the
attorney-client privilege shall not be asserted to limit the disclosure of factual
information provided by the public entity to its attorney, factual information
discovered by any investigation done by the public entity’s attorney, or billing
records related to the work done by the attorney.
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 6 of 21
10) Requires any state department or agency to make a request for the records subject to
disclosure, and the hiring agency or department to review those records, before
hiring any peace officer.
11) Requires that every person employed as a peace officer to immediately report all
uses of force by the officer to the officer’s agency or department.
12) Modifies the evidentiary privilege relating to law enforcement records in court so
that courts cannot automatically exclude from disclosure information consisting of
complaints concerning conduct that took place more than five years before the event
at issue in the case.
13) Makes certain nonsubstantive conforming changes to Penal Code section 832.7.
COMMENTS
1. Author’s comment
According to the author:
After forty years of prohibiting public access to any and all police records, SB
1421 [(Skinner, 2018)], passed in 2018, finally gave Californians the right to obtain
a very limited set of records on police misconduct. While SB 1421 was a hard-
fought breakthrough, California remains an outlier when it comes to the public’s
right to know about those who patrol our streets and enforce our laws. At least
twenty other states have far more open access, with states like New York, Ohio,
and others having essentially no limitations on what records are publicly
available. This bill, SB 16, opens California’s door further and would make public
law enforcement records on all uses of force, wrongful arrests or wrongful
searches, and for the first time, records related to an officer’s biased or
discriminatory actions. Additionally, SB 16 ensures that officers with a history of
misconduct can’t just quit their jobs, keep their records secret, and mo ve on to
continue bad behavior in another jurisdiction. SB 16 also establishes civil
penalties for agencies that fail to release records in a timely manner and
mandates that agencies can only charge for the cost of duplication.
2. Background: California’s slow recognition of the public right to access police
misconduct records
In 1974, the California Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement records relating to
allegations of officer misconduct could be discoverable in court.1 In response, some
police departments “began engaging in wholesale shredding of personnel files” to
1 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 539.
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 7 of 21
evade their discovery obligations.2 In response, the Legislature enacted a five-year
retention period for law enforcement complaints and related reports and findings.3 Four
years later, however, the Legislature put in place Penal Code section 832.7, which
rendered virtually all law enforcement records unavailable to the public and imposed
heightened procedures for obtaining such records in civil actions.4
The confidentiality regime put in place in 1978 was further tightened in 2006, when the
California Supreme Court held that Penal Code section 832.7 superseded the public’s
right to obtain records relating to officer misconduct under the CPRA.5 With no public
right of access to records, and a high bar for obtaining such records in court, California
became one of the most secretive states in the country in terms of allowing the public to
learn about officer misconduct.6 Notably, this unprecedented level of secrecy granted to
officers was unique; the personnel records of other public employees, and individuals
in many other professions, remained public subject to disclosure.7
In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 1421, which required local and state police agencies
to disclose records relating to when law enforcement officers’ use forces or sustained
findings of misconduct related to sexual assault and dishonesty.8 The measure included
provisions allowing the redaction of officers’ personal information, along with the
identities of confidential informants and other information that would constitute an
unwarranted invasion into an affected person’s privacy. Although the measure
provided a modest degree of public access as compared to other states, SB 1421
represented a paradigm shift by providing Californians, for the first time, a right to
know when law enforcement officers engaged in the most severe forms of force or
misconduct.
2 See, e.g., San Francisco Police Officers’ Assn v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 183, 189. A judge found
that the Los Angeles Police department shredded four tons of public complaints “ ‘with the specific
intent…of depriving criminal defense attorneys potential evidence to which they were entitled.’ ” (Laird,
California relaxes one of the nation’s most restrictive laws on police personnel records, ABA Journal (March 2019)
available at https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/california-police-personnel-records/ [last
visited Apr. 7, 2021].)
3 AB 1305 (Crown, Ch. 29, 1974).
4 See SB 1436 (Cunningham, Ch. 630, Stats. 1978); County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1990) 219
Cal.App.3d 1605, 1609-1610 (quoting legislative history of SB 1436 discussing scope of records rendered
completely confidential).
5 Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1284-1286.
6 See Abel, Brady’s Blind Spot: Impeachment Evidence in Police Personnel Files and the Battle Splitting the
Prosecution Team, 67 Stan. L. Rev. 743, 761 (2015) (calling California the “poster child” for states with “ ‘no
access’ ” regimes for police personnel records).
7 See Gov. Code, § 6254(c) (personnel files cannot be disclosed only when “the disclosure of which would
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”). The strength of California’s protection against
disclosure of records of officer misconduct was made clear in Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City
of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59. In that case, the California Supreme Court held that the Long Beach
Police Department was required to disclose the names of two officers who were involved in an officer-
involved shooting that killed a 35-year-old man, but cautioned that even the mere names of officers
alleged to have used deadly force against a member of the public were not required to be disclosed in
every case. (Id. at pp. 74-75.)
8 SB 1421 (Skinner, Ch. 988, Stats. 2018).
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 8 of 21
SB 1421 went into effect on January 1, 2019, but agencies across the state took actions to
deny or delay the public access to records made disclosable under the bill. Cities such as
Downey, Inglewood, Fremont, and Morgan Hill destroyed records before January 1,
2019, to avoid producing responsive documents once the law went into effect.9 Six
months after the law took effect, the California Highway Patrol had not produced a
single record, the San Francisco Police Department had released no disciplinary records,
and the Los Angeles Police Department had released only a dozen files.10 Some agencies
charged exorbitant records fees: the City of Bakersfield sought $6,621.60 for audio and
body-camera footage relating to a single incident, and West Sacramento estimated it
would cost $25,000 to redact material from video of five shootings.11 The general
resistance to producing records, even at the state level, resulted in a slew of litigation.12
According to the author, this bill has two primary goals in the wake of the
implementation of SB 1421: to expand the limited categories of police records made
publicly accessible by SB 1421, so as to allow the public to access records of other officer
conduct relevant to maintaining the public trust; and to implement procedural
safeguards and concomitant penalties for failures to comply, in order to better ensure
that the public right of access is not stymied by unwarranted delays or refusals.
3. This bill makes three additional categories of law enforcement records accessible by
the public
Article I, section 3, of the California Constitution provides that “[t]he people have the
right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and,
therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies
shall be open to public scrutiny.”13 While this provision is not absolute, California’s
“ ‘strong public policy of the people’s right to information concerning the people’s
business’ ” demands that limitations on the CPRA’s right of access be narrow, and
narrowly construed.14
As discussed above, police personnel records had previously been a wholesale
exception to the constitutional public right of access to information concerning the
9 Lewis, et al., California police are destroying files and charging high fees to release misconduct records, Los
Angeles Times (Jun. 30, 2019), https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-police-records-california-
20190630-story.html [last visited Apr. 7, 2021] (hereafter California police are destroying files and charging
high fees to release misconduct records). Several superior courts and Courts of Appeal, across multiple
districts, have held that SB 1421’s disclosure requirement applies to events taking place before SB 1421
took effect.
10 California police are destroying files and charging high fees to release misconduct records, supra, fn. 9.
11 Ibid.
12 E.g., Becerra v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 897, 910-912, 919-920; California police are destroying
files and charging high fees to release misconduct records, supra, fn. 10 (in March 2019, “more than 170 agencies
were either in active litigation or refusing to produce records as they waited for direction from the
courts”).
13 Cal. Const., art. I, § 3.
14 Sierra Club v. Superior Court (2013) 57 Cal.4th 157, 160.
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 9 of 21
people’s business; then, in 2018, SB 1421 established a limited right of access to certain
police records. Under current law as established by SB 1421, there are four categories of
law enforcement records that must be provided to the public on request:
Any record relating to the report, investigation, or findings arising from an
incident in which an officer discharged a firearm at a person;
Any record relating to the report, investigation, or findings arising from an
officer’s use of force that resulted in death or great bodily injury;
Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made that an
officer sexually assaulted a member of the public; and
Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made that an
officer committed an act of dishonesty related to the report, investigation, or
prosecution of a crime or another officer’s misconduct, including sustained
findings of perjury, making false statements, and destroying evidence.15
Notably, the first two categories do not require a sustained finding of misconduct—for
example, the public is entitled to any records relating to an officer’s discharge of a
firearm at a person (subject to certain privacy limitations),16 unless the complaint is
frivolous or unfounded, or if the officer is exonerated.17 For the latter two categories,
records are disclosable only if the agency determined that the complained-of sexual
assault or act of dishonesty did occur.18
This bill would add three new categories of disclosable records, set to take effect July 1,
2022:
Any record relating to the report, investigation, or findings arising from an
officer’s use of force to make a member of the public comply with the officer, an
officer’s use of unreasonable force, or an officer’s use of excessive force. As with
the existing use-of-force categories, these records would be disclosable regardless
of whether there was a sustained finding of misconduct, unless the complaint is
frivolous or unfounded or the officer is exonerated.19
Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made that an
officer engaged in acts of discrimination against a person on the basis of a
protected characteristic, such as race, gender, or religion.
Any record relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made that an
officer made an unlawful arrest or conducted an unlawful search.
The bill also adds a provision specifying that, for the records that are disclosable with or
without a sustained finding—the “use of force” categories—those records remain
disclosable even if the officer in question resigns from the agency before the
investigation is concluded. This appears consistent with the intent of the original SB
1421, given that no findings were necessary to render these records disclosable in the
15 Pen. Code, § 832.7(b)(1).
16 Id., § 832.7(b)(1)(A).
17 Id., § 832.5(c).
18 Id., § 832.7(b)(1)(B).
19 Id., § 832.5(c).
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 10 of 21
first place.20 Additionally, the bill would require any agency or department hiring a law
enforcement officer to request and review that officer’s records prior to employing the
officer, which appears to be a reasonable due diligence measure on the part of hiring
departments.
“Police officer integrity is vital to effective law enforcement. Public trust and confidence
in [police departments] as an institution and in individual officers do not exist
otherwise.”21 The current categories of police records disclosable to the public represent
only a limited category of police conduct that can diminish the public trust—for
example, by excluding incidents where officers have been found by their agencies to
have engaged in racial discrimination against the public.
The public interest in these records is not academic. Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis
police officer who killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for eight minutes in 2020
has at least eight incidents in which he used force against a member of the public—
including alleged prior uses of the knee-hold that killed Floyd and striking a 14-year-
old boy in the head with a flashlight.22 Under current California law, the public would
have no way to know about these incidents—in other words, no way to know which, if
any, officers have a pattern and practice of using force that does not result in great
bodily injury or death. This bill’s limited expansion of public access to law enforcement
records could provide the public with better information about their local law
enforcement agencies and, by extension, lead to more trust between the police and the
policed. At the same time, the bill’s provisions for records relating to uses of force will
not open the floodgates to releasing every complaint regarding the use of force, no
matter how frivolous or maliciously motivated, because existing law protects from
disclosure complaints that are frivolous or unfounded, or for which the officer was
exonerated.23
This bill’s expansion of the right of access to law enforcement records does not single
out law enforcement officers for negative treatment. Law enforcement officers have
long enjoyed a degree of privacy in their records not granted to any other category of
public employee.24 Given the unique role law enforcement officers play in society—with
heightened power to carry weapons, use force, and, in the most extreme circumstances,
injure or kill members of the public—the public interest in knowing when, and how
20 Relatedly, AB 718 (Cunningham, 2021), which is pending before the Assembly Public Safety
Committee, would require agencies to complete investigations of certain types of officer uses of force,
regardless of whether the officer separates from the agency prior to the completion of the investigation.
21 Haney v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1, 12.
22 Bailey, Former Minneapolis police officer charged in George Floyd’s death seeks to bar evidence of past neck and
body restraints, Washington Post (Nov, 17, 2020),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/minneapolis-floyd-police-restraints/2020/11/17/e9a9ef1e-
28ad-11eb-9b14-ad872157ebc9_story.html [last visited Apr. 7, 2021].
23 Pen. Code, § 832.5.
24 See, e.g., Chronicle Publishing v. Superior Court (1960) 54 Cal.2d 548, 564, 574-575; BRV, Inc. v. Superior
Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 758-759; Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (2004) 118
Cal.App.4th 1041, 1047; AFSCME v. Regents (1978) 80 Cal.App.913, 918.
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 11 of 21
often, officers have used force, engaged in discrimination, or committed acts of
dishonesty is arguably higher than it is for other public employees. By creating a limited
expansion of the existing right of public access to police records, this bill will bring the
public’s right to access law enforcement records closer to—though not as broad as—the
public right to access the records of virtually every other type of public employee.
Finally, increasing public access to police records—thereby increasing the public’s
insight into how their law enforcement agencies and officers work, and what practices
they engage in—could also help curtail the massive expense of judgments and
settlements in police misconduct lawsuits. The Marshall Project and FiveThirtyEight
reviewed available settlement records between 2010 and 2019 and determined that civil
suits relating to officer misconduct cost Los Angeles $329,925,620, and San Francisco
$27,873,298, in that period.25 In 2020, a federal judge entered a $2 million default
judgment against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department be cause it repeatedly
defied the court’s orders to produce a list of officers with histories of misconduct; the
judge noted that the defendants “committed serious, inexcusable discovery abuses and
have violated repeated court orders, thereby engaging in culp able conduct that led to
their default.”26 Increasing public access to misconduct would, therefore, not only
provide more information as to why these massive sums are being paid, but could also
lead to solutions that do not require paying millions of taxpayer dollars in judgments
and settlements.
The expanded categories of police records made accessible under this bill are not, by
national standards, exceptional. To the contrary, this bill’s expanded access would still
leave Californians with less access to police records than in many states. Nevertheless,
25 Thomson-Devaux, et al., Police Misconduct Costs Cities Millions Every Year. But That’s Where
Accountability Ends., The Marshall Project (Feb. 22, 2021),
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/02/22/police-misconduct-costs-cities-millions-every-year-
but-that-s-where-the-accountability-ends [last visited Apr. 7, 2021]. The study did not include other
California cities, but other sources suggest other cities are paying similarly significant settlements for
police misconduct. (E.g., Payton & Jones, San Diegans Paying Millions in Police Misconduct Settlements, NBC
San Diego (May 16, 2016), https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/investigations/san-diegans-paying-
millions-in-police-misconduct-settlements/2005003/ [last visited Apr. 7, 2021] (San Diego paid at least
$25 million in police misconduct settlements between 2008 and 2016); McGough, Sacramento County to pay
$27 million settlement after 2017 crash involving sheriff SUV, Sacramento Bee (Dec. 19, 2019; updated Dec. 21,
2019), https://www.sacbee.com/article238540143.html [last visited Apr. 7, 2021] (in 2019, Sacramento
agreed to a $27 million settlement for a crash that left a 10-year-old girl with brain damage).) In 2019,
Fresno’s actual payouts for police misconduct lawsuits so exceeded their budget that city
councilmembers were worried they would have to dip into the city’s emergency fund to make the
payments. (Hoggard, Action News Investigation: Fresno police payouts could create fiscal emergency, ABC
News (Sep. 24, 2019), https://abc30.com/frenso-police-fresno-excessive-force-brutality-officers/5565765/
[last visited Apr. 7, 2021].
26 Williams v. L.A. Sheriff’s Dep’t (C.D.Cal. Sept. 25, 2020) No. CV 17-05649-AB, 2020 LEXIS 250107. The Los
Angeles Sheriff’s Department ultimately released the list in response to a records request submitted
under SB 1421, though not until the Los Angeles Times brought a lawsuit to compel compliance with the
law. (Tchekmedyian and Poston, What secret files on police officers tell us about law enforcement, Los Angeles
Times (Mar. 19, 2021), https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-19/sb-1421-sheriffs-
department-disclosure [last visited Apr. 7, 2021].)
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 12 of 21
the expansion of access is consistent with the wider trend of opening access to law
enforcement records. Last year, New York repealed its own statute making law
enforcement records entirely confidential—one of the strictest in the nation—and
replaced it with a statute making law enforcement records generally subject to public
disclosure, with exceptions for certain private information such as social security
numbers and medical information.27 Similarly, Hawaii—which previously had, like
California, a law-enforcement-officer-specific carve-out to their public disclosure
requirements—last year revoked that carve-out and opened up public access to
complaints about law enforcement, and also imposed a new requirement requiring each
county police department to submit an annual report to the Legislature identifying
misconduct incidents that resulted in suspension or discharge of a police officer.28 At
least 16 other states provide broad access to officer records, including public
complaints.29 Moreover, many other state legislatures are considering legislation this
year to broaden access to law enforcement personnel records and complaints of
misconduct.30 The bill’s opponents have not pointed to any evidence suggesting
negative consequences in states with broader access to police records.
27 See N.Y. Civ. Rights L. § 50-A (2014), repealed by NY A10611 (O’Donnell, Ch. 96, § 2, L. 2020); N.Y. PO
Law §§ 86, 87, 89.
28 See Haw. HB285 (Ch. 47, L. 2020); Haw. Rev. Stats. §§ 52D-3.5, 92F-14.
29 See Ala. Code, § 36-12-40 (Alabama); Ariz. Rev. Stat., §§38-1109, 39-121-128 (Arizona); Colo. Rev. Stat.,
§ 24-31-903 (Colorado; in 2020, adopted requirement that law enforcement report a wide range of
information regarding officer use of force and misconduct, to be published on a public website); Fla. Stat.
§§ 112.533, 119.01, 119.071 (Florida; personnel records are available except for private personal
information and records of an ongoing investigation); Ga. Code, §§ 50-18-71 & 15-18-72 (Georgia, with
limited exception for ongoing investigations and private personal information); Ky. Rev. Stat., §§ 61.872,
61,872 (Kentucky, subject to a privacy balancing test); 17-A MR.S. § 7070, 30-A M.R.S§§ 503, 2702 (Maine,
with limited exceptions for ongoing investigations and private personal information); Mass. Gen. Laws,
ch. 4, § 7, ch. 66, § 10 (Massachusetts; 2020 legislation removed records related to law enforcement
misconduct investigation from the definition of exempted records); Minn. Stat. § 13.43 (Minnesota); N.M.
Stat., § 14-2-1 (New Mexico; complaints and facts uncovered in investigations are disclosable, but
conclusions are not); N.D.C.C. § 44-04-19 (North Dakota); Ohio Rev. Code, § 149.43 (Ohio); Utah Code,
§§ 63G-2-201 & 301 (Utah, with limited exceptions for ongoing investigations and private personal
information); Rev. Code Wash. §§ 42.56.070, 42.53.240 (Washington); Wis. Stat. §§ 19.35-19.36 (Wisconsin,
with limited exceptions for ongoing investigations and private personal information); Perkins v. Freedom of
Info. Comm’n (Conn. 1993) 228 Conn. 158, 165-166 (Connecticut Supreme Court holding that public
employment records are generally discoverable under Connecticut’s Freedom of Information Act).
30 See, e.g., Md. SB 178 (Carter, 2021) (Maryland; would make law enforcement misconduct complaints
and records disclosable subject to considerations relating to privacy and ongoing investigations, rather
than per se private); N.H. SB 41 (French, 2021) (New Hampshire; would make police disciplinary
hearings public, subject to certain privacy exceptions); N.J. S-2656 (Weinberg, 2021) (New Jersey;
providing public access to law enforcement personnel complaints and disciplinary action s); Or. H.B. 3145
(Committee on Judiciary, 2021) (Oregon; would require creation of a public online database of complaints
and disciplinary actions against law enforcement officers).
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 13 of 21
4 This bill imposes procedural requirements for record requests and penalties for
failure to comply
Under current law, an agency producing records disclosable under the CPRA may
charge the requestor the “direct cost” of duplicating the records.31 As a general rule, the
agency should make disclosable records “promptly available”; the agency has 10 days
from the date of the request to determine if the request seeks disclosable records, subject
to a potential 14-day extension for specified reasons.32 SB 1421 also provides certain
law-enforcement- specific bases for withholding records for longer, such as when the
records relate to an incident that is the subject of an active criminal or misconduct
investigation.33 If a court determines that an agency’s refusal to produce records is not
justified, the requestor is awarded the court costs and reasonable attorney fees
associated with enforcing the request, to be paid by the refusing agency; if the court
determines that the request is “clearly frivolous,” the court must award the court costs
and reasonable attorney fees to the public agency refusing the request.34
This bill implements several changes to the procedural requirements for a law
enforcement agency responding to a CPRA request:
Clarifies that the costs of duplication awarded under the CPRA do not include
the costs of editing and redacting records;
Extends the standard 10-day disclosure window to give agencies 45 days to
respond to a records request (subject to the same enumerated bases for an
extension);
Establishes a 30-day grace period following the 45-day deadline, after which a
civil penalty of $1,000 per day for refusal to comply is imposed (so the penalty
does not start running until 75 days after the request);
Modifies the CPRA’s attorney fee provision so that, if court determines that an
agency improperly withheld records covered by Penal Code section 832.7, the
requester shall be entitled to twice their reasonable costs and attorney fees; and
States that, for purposes of releasing records under Penal Code section 832.7, the
attorney-client privilege shall not be asserted by the agency to limit the
disclosure of factual information provided by the public entity to its attorney,
factual information discovered by any investigation done by the public entity’s
attorney, or billing records related to the work done by the attorney.
With respect to the provision excluding the cost of redaction and editing from
otherwise-disclosable documents, this provision merely codifies existing case law.
Courts have long held that the CPRA’s recoverable costs do not include redaction costs,
31 Gov. Code, § 6253(b).
32 Id. § 6253(b) & (c).
33 Pen. Code, § 832.7(b)(7).
34 Gov. Code, § 6259.
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 14 of 21
and the California Supreme Court recently held that the CPRA likewise does not permit
an agency to recover the costs of editing or redacting electronic files.35
Regarding the modified timing for records production, the bill is both more generous
and more severe than current law. To aid law enforcement agencies, the bill expands
the default 10-day production period substantially, to 45 days. The bill then grants
agencies an additional 30-day grace period during which they are technically out of
compliance but can cure the violation with no penalty. Then, if after a full 75 days from
the date of the request, a law enforcement agency still has not responded to a request
for documents under Penal Code section 832.7, a $1,000-per-day civil penalty begins to
run, and continues until the records are disclosed. According to the author, this penalty
is necessary to discourage violations of the disclosure law. In light of the numerous
agency efforts to evade compliance, discussed above, it appears the balance struck by
the bill—giving law enforcement significantly more time than other agencies in which
to respond to document requests, but imposing a penalty if the agency fails to respond
within 75 days—is reasonable.
Similarly, with respect to the provision of double attorney fees and costs for requestors
who had to go to court in order to enforce a valid record request, the author states that
the frequency with which agencies refuse to comply with valid SB 1421 requests
suggests that the CPRA’s provision for attorney fees and costs is not an adequate
incentive to encourage law enforcement agencies to comply with such requests. Given
that there are no damages awardable in a suit to enforce a valid document request—
compensatory or punitive—the addition of double attorney fees and costs would
provide added incentive to reconsider improper refusals to produce records.
Finally, the provision that the attorney-client privilege cannot be asserted to prevent the
disclosure of factual information provided by an agency’s attorney, or factual
information discovered by any attorney, or billing records relating to an investigation
uncovered by an attorney, appears not to significantly exceed the bounds of existing
case law on the scope of the attorney-client privilege.36 Moreover, to the extent the bill
represents a new exception to the attorney-client privilege, California’s privilege is
35 National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (2020) 9 Cal.5th 488, 492 (cost of redacting electronic records
not recoverable under the CPRA); North County Parents Organization v. Department of Education (1994) 23
Cal.App.4th 144, 146-147 (cost of redacting paper records not recoverable under the CPRA).
36 Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981) 449 U.S. 383, 395-396 (The “ ‘protection of privilege extends only to
communications and not to facts. A fact is one thing and a communication concerning that fact is an
entirely different thing.’ ”); Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 296-
299 (documents “not made for the purpose of legal consultation…are not protected by the attorney-client
privilege,” so attorney billing records are not categorically privileged under the CPRA); Greyhound Corp.
v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 397-387 (holding that a party’s transmission of statements to their
attorney does not create an attorney-client privilege where none previously existed; “because the
privilege tends to suppress otherwise relevant facts, it is to be strictly construed…[the privilege] does not
extend to subject matter otherwise unprivileged merely because that subject matter was communicated to
an attorney.”)
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 15 of 21
established by the Legislature and can likewise be limited by the Legislature when the
policy considerations weigh in favor of such a limitation.37
5. The author has pledged to continue work on the bill and develop a record retention
policy that will not require law enforcement agencies to maintain records indefinitely
Under current law, law enforcement agencies and departments must retain law
enforcement personnel records for at least five years.38 As currently drafted, SB 16
removes the five-year retention period—making the retention period essentially
indefinite—and clarifies that all complaints and related reports, including those
currently in the possession of the agency or department, are subject to disclosure.
According to the author, the current five-year period is too short to allow for
meaningful public access to information—especially in the wake of certain agencies
preemptively destroying records.39 Understanding that an indefinite retention period
could be overly burdensome to agencies, the author has informed Committee staff that
she is continuing to work with stakeholders and administration to devise a record-
retention period that properly balances the public’s interest in disclosure with the
administrative costs and burdens that record retention imposes on law enforcement
agencies.
6. Amendments
The author has agreed to accept the following amendments, to clarify the provisions
relating to the release of information relating to additional officers involved in an
incident and add protections against disclosure for whistleblowers:
Amendment 1
On page 8, in line 28, after “a” insert “sustained”
Amendment 2
On page 9, in line 3, after “of” insert “whistleblowers,”
7. Arguments in Support
According to supporter California News Publishers Association:
Courts have long recognized that activity of police officers is of the highest
public concern, particularly when they use serious or deadly force. Law
enforcement officials wield immense power. For that reason, they should be
37 E.g., Roberts v. City of Palmdale (2019) 5 Cal.4th 363, 373 (evidentiary privileges are available only as
defined by statute); see also Evid. Code, § 911.
38 Pen. Code, § 832.5(b).
39 California police are destroying files and charging high fees to release misconduct records, supra, fn. 9.
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 16 of 21
subject to at least the same level of scrutiny as all other public employees whose
personnel records are disclosable in cases of heightened public concern. In the
case of police shootings, the public interest in disclosure is at its zenith, even
when there is no claim of misconduct and a use of force is “within policy.”
SB 16 provides a balanced framework for mandating the disclosure of records,
while protecting investigatory and safety interests…
A lack of transparency results in distrust. SB 16 mandates transparency to help
cure the problems secrecy has shown over this category of public information in
the last 40 years. SB 16 further peels back the veil of secrecy that has shrouded
this information from public view while providing enough flexibility for
agencies to protect the rights of the officers that serve the public.
According to supporter National Association of Social Workers – California Chapter:
This bill would make every incident involving use of force to make a member of
the public comply with an officer, force that is unreasonable, or excessive force
subject to disclosure. The bill would also require records relating to sustained
findings of unlawful arrests and unlawful searches to be subject to disclosure.
Additionally, disclosure of records are required for incidents in which a
sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency
that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in conduct involving prejudice or
discrimination on the basis of specified protected classes.
SB 16 would require that records relating to an incident in which an officer
resigned before an investigation is completed to also be subject to rel ease. We
believe that these protections significantly strengthen existing law and will lead
to a more just police force.
According to supporter American Civil Liberties Union of California:
Following the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Sean
Monterrosa, Erik Salgado, Andres Guardado, and many others, people across the
nation are asking elected officials to divest from police, increase accountability
and oversight, and reinvest in communities. SB 16 is one of several attempts by
the Legislature to strengthen accountability by expanding the law enforcement
records available to the public.
According to supporter Oakland Privacy:
In our own experience, the enforcement section of SB 16 will be valuable. We
often file public records request[s] that are delayed and/or denied for no
apparent reason, but a seeming calculation by the municipality that we won’t go
to court, or if we don, the attorneys’ fees will be a manageable cost of doing
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 17 of 21
business. While thanks to the services of several public interest attorneys, we
have been able to file some public records lawsuits over disclosable documents
that were not released (Sacramento County Sheriff 2020, Fresno County Sheriff
2020, Oakland Police Department 2020), we realize we are in a privileged
position compared to many, including, most poignantly, impacted community
members themselves whose interest lie beyond just public advocacy…
We would like to see the calculus changed so that municipal authorities would
perceive more severe consequences for failing to release disclosable records. This
would be a service to California taxpayers who shouldn’t be paying for
unnecessary litigation.
8. Arguments in Opposition
According to opponent California Police Chiefs Association:
Our primary concerns of SB 776 include:
1. Expands to release of virtually all use of force incidents. This is a major
expansion of existing law, which currently only requires the release of the
most serious cases. For many departments, “use of force” is defined so
broadly it would apply to every instance someone was lawfully brought into
custody. The amount of work and cost to agencies to release these files is
exorbitant, especially given the fact many of these incidents are minor and
non-controversial.
2. Removes that qualification complaints must be sustained to trigger release.
Under SB 1421, personnel files related to specified misconduct are only
releasable after a complaint is sustained – SB 16 removes this requirement
and allows the release of unfounded and un-sustained complaints regarding
minor use of force cases. This fails to meet a balancing test between an
officer’s privacy rights and the desire for public disclosure. Officers who are
innocent should not be subject to public scrutiny over mere complaints alone.
3. Retention and penalties will unduly cost millions. SB 16 mandates all files
be held indefinitely, which would cost local governments hundreds of
thousand, if not millions in storage fees and server space. Additionally, the
penalty structure for delayed release of requests, which fines agencies $1,000
per day, fails to consider the dramatic increase in workload and limited
resources the legislation also creates.
According to opponent California State Sheriffs’ Association:
Until the enactment of SB 1421 from 2018, statute and case law provided
enhanced and appropriate privacy protections for peace officer personnel
records as well as methods and circumstances under which records could be
accessed. SB 1421 made specified records available for public disclosure but
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 18 of 21
mainly limited the scope of what could be released to records relating to uses of
force that resulted in death or great bodily injury or other situations in which a
complaint of wrongdoing had been sustained. SB 16 eliminates the requirement
that records be made available for release regarding use of force be limited to
situations involving death or great bodily injury and instead makes nearly all
records relative to nearly any use of force available to the public. The bill also
adds to the types of complaints about which records would be public…
Additionally, we strongly object to the provisions that establish civil fines and
the ability to seek costs and attorney’s fees if an agency fails to disclose, timely
disclose, or properly redact specified records. It often takes considerable time to
appropriately redact and prepare records for release and this reality will be
exacerbated by the increased number of records that are made available by the
bill. Even a harmless mistake or an inadvertent delay in release could subject
already cash-strapped local agencies to significant financial harm.
SUPPORT
Alameda County Public Defender
American Civil Liberties Union of California
Asian Americans Advancing Justice—California
Asian Solidarity Collective
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Black Media
California Broadcasters Association
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California Faculty Association
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Innocence Project
California News Publishers Association
California Nurses Association/National Nurses United
California Public Defenders Association
Californians for Safety and Justice
Conference of California Bar Associations
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Equal Rights Advocates
Ethnic Media Services
First Amendment Coalition
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Loyola Project for the Innocent
March for Our Lives – California
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
NextGen California
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 19 of 21
Northern California Innocence Project
Oakland Privacy
Pillars of the Community San Diego
Prosecutors Alliance of California
San Francisco Office of the District Attorney
San Francisco Public Defender
San Leandro for Accountability, Transparency and Equality
SEIU California
Showing Up for Racial Justice – North County San Diego
Showing Up for Racial Justice San Diego
Smart Justice California
Team Justice San Diego
Underground Scholars Initiative of UC Berkeley
Voices for Progress
We The People San Diego
OPPOSITION
Association of Probation Supervisors of LA County
California Association of Joint Powers Authorities
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Law Enforcement Association of Records Supervisors
California Narcotics Officers’ Association
California Peace Officers’ Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs’ Association
City of Thousand Oaks
Deputy Sheriffs Association of San Diego
El Segundo Police Officers Association
Hawthorne Police Officers Association
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Professional Association
Los Angeles County Probation Managers Association AFSCME Local 1967
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Public Risk Innovation, Solutions, And Management
Riverside Police Officers Association
Sacramento County Probation Association
San Diego District Attorney Investigators Association
San Francisco Police Officers Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Santa Monica Police Officers Association
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 20 of 21
Torrance Police Officers Association
RELATED LEGISLATION
Pending Legislation:
SB 2 (Bradford, 2021) empowers the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training to investigate and determine the fitness of any person to serve as a peace
officer in the state; establishes the Peace Officer Accountability Division, which is
tasked with review and investigate grounds for decertification and make findings as to
whether grounds for action against an officer’s certification exist; and adds
circumstances in which police officer records are subject to public disclosure. SB 2 is
pending before the Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 718 (Cunningham, 2021) requires investigations into allegations that a law
enforcement officer engaged in certain conduct, such as discharging a firearm or using
force that resulted in death or great bodily injury, be completed regardless of whether
the officer voluntarily separates from the agency before the investigation is completed.
AB 718 is pending before the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.
AB 60 (Salas, 2021) adds criteria disqualifying individuals from serving as a peace
officer; establish the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Board, which would
provide recommendations to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
relating to officer retention; expands the authority of the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training; and adds standards relating to the certification of officers and
officer retirement/resignation. AB 60 is pending before the Assembly Public Safety
Committee.
AB 17 (Cooper, 2021) establishes the Peace Officer Standards Accountability Board,
which would provide recommendations to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards
and Training relating to officer retention; expand the authority of the Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training; and add standards relating to the certification of
officers and officer retirement/resignation. AB 17 is pending before the Assembly
Public Safety Committee.
Prior Legislation:
SB 1220 (Umberg, 2020) would have required prosecuting agencies to maintain a list of
law enforcement officers who, in the last five years, had sustained findings of certain
bad conduct, conduct of moral turpitude, or were convicted or had charges pending for
certain crimes. SB 1220 was vetoed by Governor Newsom, who expressed concern
about the costs associated with the bill.
SB 16 (Skinner)
Page 21 of 21
SB 776 (Skinner, 2020) was substantially similar to this bill and would have expanded
access to records in the same way. The bill was passed by the Assembly on August 31,
2020, but was not brought for a concurrence vote in the Senate before the end of session.
SB 731 (Bradford, 2020) would have established the Peace Officer Standards
Accountability Board, which would develop and carry out procedures for revoking a
law enforcement officer’s certification under specified circumstances; added criteria
prohibiting an individual from serving as a law enforcement officer; and added
circumstances in which police officer records are subject to public disclosure. SB 731
was not brought up for a vote in the full Assembly.
AB 1599 (Cunningham, 2019) would have required investigations into allegations that a
law enforcement officer engaged in certain conduct, such as discharging a firearm or
using force that resulted in death or great bodily injury, be completed regardless of
whether the officer voluntarily separates from the agency before the investigation is
completed. AB 1599 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1421 (Skinner, Ch. 988, Stats. 2018) provides a public right to access certain law
enforcement officer personnel records, including records relating to the discharge of a
firearm at a person, an incident where the use of force resulted in death or great bodily
injury, and an incident in which a sustained finding was made that an office engaged in
sexual assault involving a member of the public.
AB 2327 (Quirk, Ch. 966, 2018) requires any department or agency employing law
enforcement officers to maintain a record of any investigations against an officer, and
required officer permission before the record was disclosed to a hiring department.
AB 1428 (Low, 2018) would have required a district attorney’s office make the results of
investigations involving a law enforcement officer shooting a civilian publicly available
on the internet, and require agencies that employ police officers to make certain data
regarding serious uses of force by law enforcement officers on the internet. AB 1428 was
held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1286 (Leno, 2016) would have provided a public right to access certain law
enforcement officer personnel records, including records relating to the discharge of a
firearm at a person, an incident where the use of force resulted in death or great bodily
injury, and an incident in which an officer engaged in discrimination or unequal
treatment on the basis of protected characteristics. SB 1286 was held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
PRIOR VOTES:
Senate Public Safety Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 0)
**************
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 13, 2021
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 10, 2021
SENATE BILL No. 619
Introduced by Senator Laird
February 18, 2021
An act to amend Section 42652.5 of the Public Resources Code,
relating to solid waste.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 619, as amended, Laird. Organic waste: reduction regulations.
Existing law requires the State Air Resources Board to complete,
approve, and implement a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions
of short-lived climate pollutants in the state to achieve, among other
things, a reduction in the statewide emissions of methane by 40%.
Existing law requires the methane emissions reduction goals to include
specified targets to reduce the landfill disposal of organics. Existing
law requires the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, in
consultation with the state board, to adopt regulations to achieve those
targets for reducing organic waste in landfills, and authorizes those
regulations to require local jurisdictions to impose requirements on
generators or other relevant entities within their jurisdiction, to authorize
local jurisdictions to impose penalties on generators for noncompliance,
and to include penalties to be imposed by the department for
noncompliance. Existing law provides that those regulations shall take
effect on or after January 1, 2022, except that the imposition of penalties
by local jurisdictions pursuant to the regulations shall not take effect
until 2 years after the effective date of the regulations.
This bill would delay the effective date of the regulations from January
1, 2022, to January 1 of an unspecified year, and would provide that
97
the operative date of each of the requirements in the regulations in effect
as of December 31, 2021, shall be an unspecified amount of years after
the operative date identified in the regulations. The bill would delay
the imposition of penalties by local jurisdictions and the department
pursuant to the regulations to January 1 of an unspecified year and
would authorize the department to develop tools and incentives that
encourage and reward early action by local jurisdictions.
This bill, until January 1, 2023, would require the department to only
impose a penalty on a local jurisdiction, and would require a penalty
to only accrue, for a violation of the regulations if the local jurisdiction
did not make a reasonable effort, as determined by the department, to
comply with the regulations.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 42652.5 of the Public Resources Code is
line 2 amended to read:
line 3 42652.5. (a) The department, in consultation with the State
line 4 Air Resources Board, shall adopt regulations to achieve the organic
line 5 waste reduction goals for 2020 and 2025 established in Section
line 6 39730.6 of the Health and Safety Code. The regulations shall
line 7 comply with all of the following:
line 8 (1) May require local jurisdictions to impose requirements on
line 9 generators or other relevant entities within their jurisdiction and
line 10 may authorize local jurisdictions to impose penalties on generators
line 11 for noncompliance.
line 12 (2) Shall include requirements intended to meet the goal that
line 13 not less than 20 percent of edible food that is currently disposed
line 14 of is recovered for human consumption by 2025.
line 15 (3) Shall not establish a numeric organic waste disposal limit
line 16 for individual landfills.
line 17 (4) May include different levels of requirements for local
line 18 jurisdictions and phased timelines based upon their progress in
line 19 meeting the organic waste reduction goals for 2020 and 2025
line 20 established in Section 39730.6 of the Health and Safety Code. The
line 21 department shall base its determination of progress on relevant
line 22 factors, including, but not limited to, reviews conducted pursuant
line 23 to Section 41825, the amount of organic waste disposed compared
97
— 2 — SB 619
line 1 to the 2014 level, per capita disposal rates, the review required by
line 2 Section 42653, and other relevant information provided by a
line 3 jurisdiction.
line 4 (5) May include penalties to be imposed by the department for
line 5 noncompliance. If penalties are included, they shall not exceed
line 6 the amount authorized pursuant to Section 41850.
line 7 (6) Shall take effect on or after January 1, 2022, except the
line 8 imposition of penalties pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not take
line 9 effect until two years after the effective date of the regulations.
line 10 (b) Until January 1, 2023, the department shall only impose, in
line 11 accordance with the enforcement procedures specified in Section
line 12 18996.2 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, a penalty
line 13 on a local jurisdiction, and a penalty shall only accrue, for a
line 14 violation of the regulations if the local jurisdiction did not make
line 15 a reasonable effort, as determined by the department, to comply
line 16 with the regulations.
line 17 (b)
line 18 (c) A local jurisdiction may charge and collect fees to recover
line 19 the local jurisdiction’s costs incurred in complying with the
line 20 regulations adopted pursuant to this section.
line 21 SECTION 1. Section 42652.5 of the Public Resources Code
line 22 is amended to read:
line 23 42652.5. (a) The department, in consultation with the State
line 24 Air Resources Board, shall adopt regulations to achieve the organic
line 25 waste reduction goals for 2020 and 2025 established in Section
line 26 39730.6 of the Health and Safety Code. The regulations shall
line 27 comply with all of the following:
line 28 (1) May require local jurisdictions to impose requirements on
line 29 generators or other relevant entities within their jurisdiction and
line 30 may authorize local jurisdictions to impose penalties on generators
line 31 for noncompliance.
line 32 (2) Shall include requirements intended to meet the goal that
line 33 not less than 20 percent of edible food that is currently disposed
line 34 of is recovered for human consumption by 2025.
line 35 (3) Shall not establish a numeric organic waste disposal limit
line 36 for individual landfills.
line 37 (4) May include different levels of requirements for local
line 38 jurisdictions and phased timelines based upon their progress in
line 39 meeting the organic waste reduction goals for 2020 and 2025
line 40 established in Section 39730.6 of the Health and Safety Code. The
97
SB 619 — 3 —
line 1 department shall base its determination of progress on relevant
line 2 factors, including, but not limited to, reviews conducted pursuant
line 3 to Section 41825, the amount of organic waste disposed compared
line 4 to the 2014 level, per capita disposal rates, the review required by
line 5 Section 42653, and other relevant information provided by a
line 6 jurisdiction.
line 7 (5) May include penalties to be imposed by the department for
line 8 noncompliance. If penalties are included, they shall not exceed
line 9 the amount authorized pursuant to Section 41850.
line 10 (6) Shall take effect on or after January 1, ____. The operative
line 11 date of each of the requirements in the regulations in effect as of
line 12 December 31, 2021, shall be ____ years after the operative date
line 13 identified in the regulations. The imposition of penalties shall not
line 14 take effect until January 1, ____. The department may develop
line 15 tools and incentives that encourage and reward early action by
line 16 local jurisdictions.
line 17 (b) A local jurisdiction may charge and collect fees to recover
line 18 the local jurisdiction’s costs incurred in complying with the
line 19 regulations adopted pursuant to this section.
O
97
— 4 — SB 619
AB 843
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 7, 2021
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON UTILITIES AND ENERGY
Chris Holden, Chair
AB 843 (Aguiar-Curry) – As Introduced February 17, 2021
SUBJECT: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: renewable feed-in tariff
SUMMARY: Allows Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) to access the California Public
Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Bioenergy Market Adjusting Tariff (BioMAT) program.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Requires investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to collectively procure no more than 250
megawatts (MW) of generated resources from bioenergy projects, and the CPUC to
allocate amongst the IOUs shares of the 250 MW from bioenergy derived from organic
waste diversion, dairy and agricultural sources, and byproducts of forest management.
Requires the CPUC to encourage IOUs to develop programs and services that facilitate
the development of bioenergy and biogas. This program is known as BioMAT. (Public
Utilities Code § 399.20)
2) Establishes the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program, which requires that 50%
of electricity retail sales must come from renewable energy sources by 2026 and 60% by
2030. (Public Utilities Code § 399.11-399.33)
3) Requires the CPUC, in consultation with the Independent System Operator, to establish
resource adequacy requirements for all load-serving entities (LSEs), facilitate the
development of resources, equitably allocate costs of generating capacity, minimize
enforcement requirements and costs, and maximize the ability of CCAs to determine the
resources used to serve their customers. (Public Utilities Code § 380)
4) Authorizes the creation of CCAs, describes essential CCA program elements, requires the
states’ utilities to provide certain services to CCAs, and establishes methods to protect
existing utility customers from liabilities they might incur when a portion of the utility’s
customers transfer their energy services to a CCA. Confers the CPUC general jurisdiction
over CCA program implementation. (Public Utilities Code § 366.2)
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and will be referred to the Appropriations
Committee for its review of the fiscal effect of this bill.
BACKGROUND:
BioMAT Program – A feed-in tariff (FIT) is a contracting mechanism for small renewable
generators to sell power to a utility at predefined terms and conditions, without contract
negotiations. For the IOUs, the FIT operates as a "must-take" contract in its portfolio. If the
participant generates the power, the IOU must take it and pay for it according to the pre-defined
terms of the FIT.
The BioMAT program is a feed-in tariff program for small bioenergy renewable generators less
than 5 MW in size. The BioMAT program offers up to 250 MW to eligible projects through a
AB 843
Page 2
fixed-price standard contract to export electricity to IOUs. Electricity generated as part of the
BioMAT program counts towards the utilities’ RPS and resource adequacy targets. Small-scale
bioenergy projects can be procured in three categories:
Category 1: Biogas from wastewater treatment, municipal organic waste diversion, food
processing, and co-digestion - 110 MW
Category 2: Dairy and other agricultural bioenergy - 90 MW
Category 3: Bioenergy using byproducts of sustainable forest management, including
fuels from high hazard zones effective February 1, 2017 - 50 MW
As shown in Table 1, only a small fraction of the BioMAT program allocations have been
contracted out. BioMAT contract prices are costly compared to $28/MWh for RPS eligible
energy contracts across all technology types in 2019.1 Bioenergy is one of the most expensive of
California’s electricity sources. In 2018, the levelized cost of biomass power averaged $166 per
megawatt-hour compared to $49 per megawatt-hour for photovoltaic solar and $57 for wind.2
Table 1. BioMAT Allocation Summary in 20203
BioMAT Category BioMAT MW
Allocation
MW
Contracted
MW
Remaining
Contract Price
($/MWh)
1: Biogas from waste 110 13 97 127.72
2: Dairy and agricultural
bioenergy
90 22 68 Dairy: 187.72
Other Ag:
183.72
3: Forest bioenergy 50 11 39 199.72
Total 250 41 204 -
CCA procurement guidelines – CCAs are governmental entities formed by cities and counties to
serve the energy requirements of their local residents and businesses. Once established, a CCA
purchases power for its customers. CCA customer rates are not regulated by the CPUC. Rather,
the CCA sets its own pricing, following its own public process. While the CCA is responsible for
procurement, the IOU still provides other services such as transmission, distribution, metering,
billing, collection, and customer service. The nature of these divided but related responsibilities
requires partnership between the CCA and the IOU on many operational issues. For instance, the
bill that CCA customers receive comes from the IOU and identifies the amount that a customer
owes to the CCA for procurement and to the IOU for the remaining electric services. However,
the CPUC’s oversight of the IOUs’ and CCAs’ RPS compliance differs. While the CPUC
“approves” RPS plans for IOUs, the CPUC only “accepts” these plans for CCAs. Additionally,
CCAs do not need CPUC approval for solicitations and procurement contracts.
1 2020 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report, CPUC. p.6 2 Estimated Cost of New Utility-Scale Generation in California: 2018 Update (May 2019), CEC Staff Report; CEC-
200-2019-500, at B-12 (levelized mid-level cost of Solar PV: C-Si, Tracking 100 MW is $49), at B-18 (levelized
mid-level cost of Wind 80 m Hub Height 100 MW is $57), and B-21 (levelized mid-level cost of Biomass fluidized
bed boiler 20 MW is $166). The levelized cost estimates reflect the average cost per megawatt-hour for an
independent developer to build and operate a power plant over the lifetime of the facility.
3 2020 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report, CPUC. p. 45
AB 843
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1) Author’s Statement. “California has ambitious renewable energy goals. Baseload
renewable resources, like bioenergy resources, have a role to play in California’s
transition to renewable energy. In 2012, the California Legislature passed SB 1122,
which required the state’s investor-owned utilities to procure 250 megawatts of bioenergy
resources from small-scale producers. Cost recovery for these baseload resources would
come from all customers through a nonbypassable charge under the Commission’s
BioMAT program. AB 843 is a narrow bill aimed at allowing community choice
aggregators (CCAs) to access the BioMAT program to procure bioenergy electricity
projects. AB 843 does not propose any structural changes to the existing program and
allows for similar PUC oversight of the program with these new applicants.
Separate but related, cities and counties are currently implementing SB 1383 (Lara,
2016), which sets targets for reducing short-lived climate pollutants including methane
and black carbon. One of the potential compliance pathways a city/county can take to
reduce short-lived climate pollutants is through bioenergy. Some local governments have
expressed interest in exploring bioenergy with their CCAs, but these projects are usually
cost-prohibitive for CCAs without access to cost recovery through the BioMAT program.
The air emissions impact of the catastrophic 2020 California wildfires is currently
estimated to be over 100 million metric tons of CO2. Because the BioMAT program
supports generation from the byproducts of sustainable forest management, AB 843
would help ensure that there are profitable waste streams for some of this material,
incentivizing better forest and agricultural land management as well as providing
potential renewable energy resources for microgrids and other backup energy projects.”
2) CCA participation in BioMAT. When the BioMAT program was first established in 2012,
there was only one CCA serving customers. There are now 23 CCAs that serve more than
11 million customers in the state. If enacted, AB 843 will allow a growing portion of the
state’s energy sector to participate in BioMAT. Support for AB 843 states that BioMAT
participation will enable CCAs to procure more renewable resources and contribute to
grid reliability.
Until August 2020, BioMAT program costs were recovered from IOU customers and
CCA customers who departed from IOU service after the signing of BioMAT contracts.
The CPUC asserted that the environmental and public safety goals of the BioMAT
program benefit all Californians, and it is inequitable to impose the costs on only
customers served by IOUs. 4 The staff proposed and adopted a nonbypassable charge to
all customers in each IOU’s service territory, including CCA customers, and to collect
those charges through the IOU’s public purpose program charge. In the same program
review, the CPUC staff also proposed that non-IOU LSEs be allowed to participate in the
BioMAT program and benefit from the nonbypassable charge.
4 CPUC D. 20-08-043
AB 843
Page 4
The CPUC staff proposal was not adopted however, because existing code specifies only
IOUs may participate in BioMAT, and because of concerns about the limited oversight
the CPUC may have over non-IOU entities. The CPUC stated, “[Jurisdictional limits and
regulatory distinctions between IOUs and CCAs] may present problems in assessing the
value of a project's attributes and cost allocation, given the Commission's limited
oversight over non-IOU LSEs.”5
This bill partially addresses these concerns by specifying that CCAs may submit eligible
bioenergy contracts for cost recovery under similar conditions as apply to IOUs, which
could include the nonbypassable charge discussed in the CPUC Decision. However, due
to the CPUC’s limited oversight of CCA procurement and the relative novelty of the cost
recovery process, potential difficulties remain with designing an effective nonbypassable
charge with all CCAs procuring. Opposition to the bill echo this concern, and state that
the CPUC’s lack of ability to compel a prudency review of CCA program administration
still remains an issue. The committee may wish to consider amendments that allow the
CPUC to compel a prudency review of BioMAT program administration should the CCAs
be permitted to participate.
The CPUC may require administrative flexibility in these initial stages, so that cost
allocations are fairly socialized to all customers. This bill currently requires CCAs to
participate in a cost recovery process defined in a specific Decision, but this could
prematurely constrain the CPUC in designing the optimal cost recovery process. As such,
the committee may wish to consider striking the specific Decision that the bill refers to
for cost recovery mechanisms and instead reference the same cost recovery principles
apply to the CCAs as they do to the IOUs.
3) BioMAT and ReMAT Statute. The statute for BioMAT is nested within the code which
implements a separate but related program, the Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff
(ReMAT) program. As a result, this bill erroneously includes CCA participation in the
ReMAT program in addition to the BioMAT program, counter to the author’s intent. The
committee may wish to consider technical changes to ensure CCA participation is limited
only to the BioMAT program.
4) Prior Legislation.
SB 1122 (Rubio) Established the BioMAT program and required the CPUC to implement
a cost recovery process for energy purchased by IOUs from bioenergy renewable
generators less than 5 MW in size. Status: Chapter 612, Statutes of 2012.
SB 1383 (Lara) Among its provisions, required the CEC and the CPUC to develop
recommendations for the development and use of biomethane and biogas as part of the
2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report, and to adopt policies and incentives to increase
the production and use of biomethane and biogas. Status: Chapter 395, Statutes of
2016.
5 CPUC D. 20-08-043 p. 18
AB 843
Page 5
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Aries Clean Energy, LLC
Bioenergy Association of California
Brad Thompson Company
California Biomass Energy Alliance
California Community Choice Association
California Compost Coalition
Californians Against Waste
County of Santa Barbara
East Bay Community Energy (EBCE)
Fall River Resource Conservation District
Hitachi Zosen Inova
Marin Clean Energy (MCE)
Marin Sanitary Service
Napa Recycling & Waste Services
Peninsula Clean Energy
Pioneer Community Energy
Pit Resource Conservation District
Placer County Air Pollution Control District
Resource Recovery Coalition of California
Rural County Representatives of California
Tss Consultants
USA Renewable Energy
Valley Clean Energy Alliance
Wisewood Energy
Oppose
Coalition of California Utility Employees
Elders Climate Action, Norcal and Socal Chapters
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Other
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Analysis Prepared by: Jane Park / U. & E. / (916) 319-2083