December 5, 2008
n s Pursuant to Elections Code
Section 9005, we have reviewed the proposed constitutional amendment
cited as "The California Public Safety and Law Enforcement Act" (A.G.
File No. 08‑0017).
Background
Law Enforcement Certification and Training.
Currently, there are roughly 200,000 law enforcement officers
employed by a variety of public agencies in California, including the
California Highway Patrol, city and university police departments, and
state and local correctional departments. Under existing state law,
these officers are not required to obtain a specific state license or
certification for employment. However, state law does require
individuals interested in becoming a law enforcement officer to meet
minimum eligibility requirements, such as completing specified levels of
education.
State and local law enforcement agencies have the
discretion to impose additional eligibility requirements beyond those
specified in statute. For example, many law enforcement agencies choose
to require their officers to meet the higher-level standards and
training of the state Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
(POST). The commission requires that candidates for officer positions
complete a minimum of 664 hours on a range of topics, including use of
force. In addition, POST-certified officers are required to complete
"refresher" training sessions on an ongoing basis. The training provided
by POST is primarily supported with revenues collected from criminal
penalties and fees.
Law Enforcement Officer Violations.
Under existing law, state and local law enforcement agencies are
required to establish a process for members of the public to file a
complaint against an officer. When a complaint is filed, most agencies
typically conduct an internal investigation. However, some agencies may
have an external board—consisting of private citizens or law enforcement
experts—that conducts an independent review of internal officer
investigations. Officers also may be subject to legal action in a civil
or criminal court.
When an officer is being investigated for
misconduct, he or she is entitled to certain procedural rights. For
example, state law specifies how interrogations must be carried out, the
type of appeal process available to officers, and the procedures for
updating personnel files. These particular statutory provisions are
cited in state law as the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of
Rights. In addition, individual law enforcement agencies must follow
local procedural guidelines, as well as those established in
negotiations with employee unions. If an officer is found to have acted
inappropriately, the disciplinary action taken by the responsible agency
could result in his or her termination or criminal charges.
Proposal
This measure
amends the State Constitution to (1) establish a new statewide board
responsible for licensing and regulating certain law enforcement
officers and (2) require certain state, county, and city agencies to
provide specified training to these officers.
Creates Law Enforcement Licensing Board.
The measure creates a 13-member California Law Enforcement State
License Board with authority to regulate the licensing and qualification
of state, county, and city law enforcement officers. The members of the
board would be appointed by the Governor and include representatives
from non-profit organizations, public education, the news media, private
businesses, and the medical community. Current or former law enforcement
officers would not be eligible for appointment to the board. The term of
each board member would vary for the initial set of appointees, but
would be six years for subsequent appointees.
The primary responsibilities of the board would
be to:
-
License
Law Enforcement Officers. The board would require law
enforcement officers—specifically state, county, and city employees
who have the power to arrest, search, or seize property—to obtain a
state license that must be renewed annually. The board would also
adopt regulations for the suspension or revocation of a license. In
addition, the board would charge licensing fees to fully support its
operating expenses.
-
Require Bond
and Insurance Coverage. The board would be able to require
an individual with a state law enforcement license to post a bond in
an amount determined by the board and/or have a specified level of
insurance coverage essentially for liability purposes.
-
Establish a
Public Complaint Process. The measure requires the board to
establish a complaint process in which the public could report cases
of inappropriate conduct by law enforcement officers. The measure
would also make it a citizen's right to file such complaints.
-
Conduct
Independent Investigations. The measure authorizes the board
to conduct independent investigations, hold public hearings, appoint
grand juries, and take other actions to regulate law enforcement
officers. The measure also empowers the board to compel the
testimony and obtain any evidence it requires from members of any
state or local public agency.
-
Maintain a Law
Enforcement Database. The board would also be required to
establish a database of every law enforcement officer who has caused
serious injury or death through the use of lethal force in the line
of duty. The database would also include any officer deemed to be
"troubled or at-risk" by the state, county, or city agencies that
employ them.
Requires Specified Law Enforcement
Training. The measure requires state, county, and city law
enforcement agencies to train officers in "diffusing situations and
deescalating violence" and the use of alternatives to lethal force.
Although this level of training is not required of all officers under
current law, officers employed at agencies that participate in POST
currently receive such training.
Fiscal Effects
Depending on how this measure is interpreted and
implemented, it could have significant fiscal effects on state and local
governments. These effects are discussed below.
Administrative and Operating Costs of the
Board. The operations of the California Law Enforcement State
License Board (such as investigations and public hearings) would
increase state expenditures in the tens of millions of dollars annually.
However, under this measure, these additional costs would be funded with
a roughly comparable amount of revenues collected by the board from
licensing fees.
Payment of Law Enforcement Licensing Fees.
In order to fully offset its administrative and operating costs,
the board would likely charge licensing fees for application and renewal
that on average could exceed $400 annually. In some, but not all cases,
public agencies (such as the Office of Real Estate Appraisers) reimburse
their employees for the costs of obtaining a professional certificate or
license. Moreover, some state, county, and city law enforcement agencies
currently pay for their employees to attend POST training sessions.
If the individuals applying for the new law enforcement licenses
required under this initiative are not reimbursed for these costs by
their employers, state, county, and city agencies would not incur costs
related to the licensing requirements. However, if such agencies
reimburse their employees for the costs of the licenses, state, city,
and county costs could collectively reach the high tens of millions of
dollars annually.
Bond and Insurance Coverage Costs.
The fiscal impact of allowing the board to require bond and/or insurance
coverage for licensed officers would depend on (1) the level of coverage
required and (2) whether officers would be reimbursed by their employers
for the cost of such coverage. If law enforcement agencies provide such
reimbursement, this provision of the measure potentially could
collectively result in additional state, county, and city costs in the
hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Increased Law Enforcement Training Costs.
As noted earlier, this measure requires state and local law
enforcement agencies to provide specific training to their officers. The
fiscal impact of this requirement would partially depend on the extent
to which agencies currently provide this training, such as through the
use of POST. Depending on how law enforcement agencies choose to satisfy
the measure’s new training requirements, the costs to the state, county,
and cities could collectively amount to millions of dollars annually.
Increased Legal Counsel Costs.
Under this measure, state and local law enforcement agencies may find it
necessary to provide legal counsel to represent their officers at the
review hearings held by the California Law Enforcement State License
Board. Such actions could result in additional state, county, and city
costs that collectively could amount to millions of dollars annually.
Summary of Fiscal Effects
This measure would have
the following major fiscal effects:
-
Increased state
expenditures in the tens of millions of dollars annually to support
the operations of the new California Law Enforcement State License
Board, which would be funded with revenues collected by the board
from licensing fees.
-
Increased state,
county, and city costs that collectively could reach the hundreds of
millions of dollars annually for licensing, bond and insurance
coverage, law enforcement training, and the provision of legal
counsel, depending upon how this measure is interpreted and
implemented.
Return to Initiatives and Propositions
Return to Legislative Analyst's Office Home Page