Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 AB 392 (WEBER) AND SB 230 (CABALLERO)Eo ;AGENDA REPOR MEETING DATE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SUMMARY: MAY 21, 2019 Agenda Item —9— Reviewed: 9Reviewed: City Manager Finance Director iV�A HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MATTHEW S. WEST, CITY MANAGER AB 392 (WEBER) AND SB 230 (CABALLERO) Staff has prepared an overview of AB 392 (Weber) and SB 230 (Caballero), two bills relating to police use of force. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council take the following positions regarding the two bills, and direct staff to communicate the positions to the State Legislature: 1. Take an OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED position on AB 392 (Weber): Peace officers: deadly force. 2. Take a SUPPORT position on SB 230 (Caballero) Law enforcement: use of deadly force: training: policies. 3. Other actions at the pleasure of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared brief summaries of AB 392 (Weber) and SB 230 (Caballero), two bills relating to police use of force. Each bill has a brief synopsis and groups in support and opposition have been included as attachments. AB 392 (Weber): Peace officers: deadly force. Location: Assembly Rules Committee Overview: Agenda Report — AB 392 and SB 230 May 21, 2019 Page 2 Under existing law, a homicide committed by a peace officer is justifiable when necessarily committed in arresting a person who has committed a felony and the person is fleeing or resisting such arrest. AB 392 would redefine and narrow the circumstances under which a homicide by a peace officer is deemed justifiable. As redefined, a homicide would be deemed justifiable when the killing is necessary in self-defense or the defense of another (the existing legal standard for self-defense), or when the killing is necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon whose immediate apprehension is necessary to prevent death or serious injury. (By way of example, if a felon flees but the immediate apprehension of the felon is not necessary to prevent death or serious injury, reasonable force other than deadly force could be used to arrest the felon, but the use of lethal force against that individual would no longer be deemed justifiable.) The bill would additionally bar the use of this defense if the peace officer acted in a criminally negligent manner that caused the death, including if the officer's criminally negligent actions created the necessity for the use of deadly force. Specifically, AB 392: - Defines the terms "necessary" to mean that given the totality of the circumstances, an objectively reasonable peace officer in the same situation would conclude that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of deadly force that would prevent death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person. - States that defenses to justifiable homicide do not provide a peace officer with a defense to manslaughter, as specified, if that person was killed due to the criminally negligent conduct of the officer. - States that a peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a crime may use reasonable force, other than deadly force, to effect the arrest, to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. Arguments in Support (ACLU, others): AB 392 updates California law so that police can use deadly force only when necessary to prevent death or serious injury, and requires them to use tactics to de-escalate a situation or use alternatives to deadly force when reasonable. Changing this standard will mean that officers will be trained to use deadly force less often and will be held accountable when they do. Supporters believe that approval of AB 392 would result in fewer deaths in situations where non -lethal force is a reasonable alternative. Arguments in Opposition (Law Enforcement, including but not limited to Chief Greenberg): AB 392 could discourage proactive policing. Fearing repercussions ranging from employee discipline to criminal prosecution based on this new standard, it is possible that officers who today would purposefully put themselves in harm's way to do their job might Agenda Report — AB 392 and SB 230 May 21, 2019 Page 3 tomorrow decline to act. This bill will also cause hesitation by law enforcement officials during critical situations, adding risk to the public at large. In addition, the new limitations on law enforcement may embolden some felons to flee law enforcement rather than to submit to custody, also adding risk to the public at large. Approval of AB 392 would represent a significant change in the law applicable to law enforcement officials, and would significantly reduce legal protections afforded officers in the conduct of law enforcement activities. In addition, retraining of most police officers would be necessary if AB 392 is approved. As a result, Staff recommends a position of "Oppose Unless Amended". SB 230 (Caballero): Law enforcement: use of deadly force: training: policies. Location: Senate Appropriations Committee (but placed on the Committee's suspense file' on May 13th) Overview: - Requires each law enforcement agency to maintain a policy that provides guidelines on the use of force, using de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention tactics, and other alternatives to force when feasible, specific guidelines for the application of deadly force, and factors for evaluating and reviewing all use of force incidents, among other things. - Requires each agency to make its use -of -force policy accessible to the public. - Requires Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) to implement a course or courses of instruction for the regular and periodic training of law enforcement officers in the use of force. - Requires POST to develop uniform, minimum guidelines for adoption and promulgation by California law enforcement agencies for the use of force, as specified. - Encourages law enforcement agencies to adopt and promulgate a use -of -force policy. Arguments in Support (Law Enforcement, include Chief Greenberg): SB 230 sets a clear and enforceable standard for authorizing the use of force; provides law enforcement with the training and resources needed to minimize the use of force; and mandates that every department adopt modernized and comprehensive use of force policies. ' Under the rules of the California State Senate, a bill placed on the Suspense File may only be moved to Second Reading by an action of the committee. Agenda Report — AB 392 and SB 230 May 21, 2019 Page 4 Arguments in Opposition (ACLU, others): SB 230 would broaden police officers' authority to use deadly force on the public, including those who do not pose a threat, authorize policies that are contrary to best practices, and provide no improvements whatsoever to training. Attachments 1. AB 392 Support/Opposition 2. SB 230 Support/Opposition Agenda Report — AB 392 and SB 230 May 21, 2019 Page 5 Attachment 1: AB 392 Support/Opposition Major Support (As of April 8) Alliance for Boys and Men of Color (Co -Sponsor), American Civil Liberties Union of California (Co -Sponsor), Anti Police -Terror Project (Co -Sponsor), Black Lives Matter (Co - Sponsor), California Faculty Association (Co -Sponsor), California Families United 4 Justice (Co -Sponsor), Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (Co -Sponsor), PICO California (Co -Sponsor), PolicyLink (Co -Sponsor), Stop Terrorism and Oppression by the Police Coalition (Co -Sponsor), United Domestic Workers of America-AFSCME Local 3930/AFL-CIO (Co -Sponsor), Youth Justice Coalition (Co -Sponsor), All Saints Church, Pasadena, Alliance San Diego, American Friends Service Committee, Amnesty International USA, Annual Pan African Global Trade & Investment Conference, Anti - Defamation League, Asian Americans Advancing Justice — California, Asian Law Alliance, Asian Pacific Environmental Network, Asian Solidarity Collective, Associate Professor Stoughton at the University of South Carolina, AYPAL: Building API Community Power, Bay Area Student Activists, Black American Political Association of California, Brothers, Sons, Selves Coalition, California Black Health Network, California Calls, California Civil Liberties Advocacy, California Immigrant Policy Center, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, California League of United Latin American Citizens, California Nurses Association, California Pan -Ethnic Health Network, California Public Defenders Association, California State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, California Urban Partnership, California Voices for Progress, Center for African Peace and Conflict Resolution, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Change Begins With ME, Children's Defense Fund — California, City and County of San Francisco District Attorney, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, Cloverdale Indivisible, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Coalition for Justice and Accountability, Committee for Racial Justice, Community Coalition for Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment, Council on American -Islamic Relations, California, Courage Campaign, Davis People Power, Disability Rights California, Drug Policy Alliance, Earl B. Gilliam Bar Association, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Empowering Pacific Islander Communities (EPIC), Exonerated Nation, Fair Chance Project, Fannie Lou Hamer Institute, Fathers & Families of San Joaquin, Feminists in Action Los Angeles, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Greater Sacramento Urban League, Green Party of Sacramento County, HAWK Institute, Hillcrest Indivisible, Human Impact Partners, If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, Indivisible CA 37, Indivisible CA -43, Indivisible CA: Statestrong, Indivisible Colusa County, Indivisible Marin, Indivisible Peninsula and CA -14, Indivisible Project, Indivisible Sausalito, Indivisible South Bay -LA, Indivisible Stanislaus, Indivisible Ventura, Indivisible Watu, Indivisible: San Diego Central, Indivisibles of Sherman Oaks, Initiate Justice, InnerCity Struggle, International Human Rights Clinic at Santa Clara Law, Japanese American Citizens League, San Jose Chapter, Jewish Voice for Peace, San Diego Chapter, Justice & Witness Ministry of Plymouth United Church of Christ, Justice Teams Network, Kehilla Community Synagogue, LA Voice, League of Women Voters of California, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Los Angeles Black Worker Center, Mid -City Community Agenda Report — AB 392 and SB 230 May 21, 2019 Page 6 Advocacy Network, Motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement, National Center for Youth Law, National Juvenile Justice Network, National Lawyers Guild Los Angeles, National Nurses United, Oakland Police Commission, Oakland Privacy, Orange County Communities Organized For Responsible Development, Orchard City Indivisible, Our Revolution Long Beach, Pacifica Social Justice, Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, Paving Great Futures, Peace and Freedom Party of California, People Power LA I West, Pillars of the Community, Professor Alpert at the University of South Carolina, Progressive Students of Miracosta College, Public Health Advocates, Public Health Justice Collective, Resistance Northridge -Indivisible, Reverend Al Sharpton- National Action Network, Revolutionary Scholars, Riverside Temple Beth EI, Rooted In Resistance, Sacramento Area Black Caucus, Sacramento Jewish Community Relations Council, Sacramento LGBT Community Center, San Diegans for Criminal Justice Reform, San Diego City College's Urban Scholar's Union, San Diego High School's Cesar Chavez Service Club, San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, San Diego LGBT Community Center, San Francisco No Injunctions Coalition, San Francisco Peninsula People Power, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP, Santa Barbara Women's Political Committee, Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, Showing Up for Racial Justice, Bay Area, Showing Up for Racial Justice, Boston, Showing Up for Racial Justice, Greater Dayton, Showing Up for Racial Justice, Marin, Showing Up for Racial Justice, Sacred Heart, Showing Up for Racial Justice, San Diego, Showing Up for Racial Justice, Santa Barbara, Sister Warrior Freedom Coalition, Social & Environmental Justice Committee of the Universalist Unitarian Church of Riverside, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, The Pacific Palisades Democratic Club, The Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans, The Praxis Project, The Resistance Northridge -Indivisible, The W. Haywood Burns Institute, The Women's Foundation of California, Think Dignity, Together We Will/Indivisible - Los Gatos, United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council, We The People - San Diego, White People 4 Black Lives, Women For: Orange County, Youth Alive!, Youth Forward Major Opposition (as of April 8) Anaheim Police Association, Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Brawley Public Safety Employee Association, Brisbane Police Officers Association, California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California College and University Police Chiefs Association, California Correctional Supervisors Organization, Inc., California Narcotic Officers' Association, California Peace Officers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., California State Sheriffs' Association, California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, Chula Vista Police Officers Association, EI Cerrito Police Employees Association, Fresno Police Officers Association, Glendale Police Officers' Association, Hanford Police Officers' Association, Hawthorne Police Officers Association, Kern Law Enforcement Association, League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association, Los Angeles Police Protective League, Napa County Deputy Sheriff's Association, North Valley Chapter of PORAC, Peace Officers Association of Petaluma, Peace Officers Research Association of California, Riverside Agenda Report — AB 392 and SB 230 May 21, 2019 Page 7 County Sheriffs Department, Riverside Sheriffs' Association, Sacramento County Alliance of Law Enforcement, San Diego County Probation Officer Association, San Diego District Attorney Investigator's Association, San Diego Harbor Police Officers Association Agenda Report — AB 392 and SB 230 May 21, 2019 Page 8 Attachment 2: SB 230 Support/Opposition Major Support (as of April 23) Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Brawley Public Safety Employee Association; California Narcotic Officers' Association; California Peace Officers Association; California Probation, Parole and Correctional Association; California; State Sheriffs' Association; California Statewide Law Enforcement Association; Chief Probation Officers of California; Chula Vista Police Officers Association; City of Ontario Police Department; Clovis Police Officers Association; Crime Victims United of California; EI Cerrito Police Employees Association; Fresno Police Officers Association; Glendale Police Officers' Association; Kern Law Enforcement Association; League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Napa County Deputy Sheriffs' Association; North Valley Chapter of PORAC; Peace Officers Association of Petaluma; Resource Protection Peace Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs' Association; Sacramento County Alliance of Law Enforcement; Salinas City Council; San Diego District Attorney Investigators Association; San Diego County Probation Officers Association; San Diego Harbor Police Officers Association, Santa Barbara Deputy Sheriff's Association; Solano County Deputy Sheriff Association; Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association; Stockton Police Officer's Association; Union City Police Officer's Association Major Opposition (as of April 23) American Civil Liberties Union of California; Alliance of San Diego; Anti Police -Terror Project; Asian Americans Advancing Justice — California; California Civil Liberties Advocacy; California Families United 4 Justice; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Change Begins With Me; Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE); The Council on American -Islamic Relations - California; Courage Campaign; Davis People Power; Drug Policy Alliance; Earl B. Gilliam Bar Association; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Feminists in Action; Human Impact Partners; Indivisible Los Angeles, CA -43; Indivisible Marin; Indivisible Peninsula/CA-14; Indivisible Project; Indivisible Sausalito; Indivisible South Bay; Indivisible Stanislaus; Indivisible California StateStrong (60 Indivisible Groups); Indivisibles of Sherman Oaks; InnerCity Struggle; Justice Teams Network; League of Women Voters of California; MILPA; Oakland Privacy; Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD); Our Revolution Long Beach; People Power LA/West; Public Health Justice Collective; Revolutionary Scholars; Rooted in Resistance; San Francisco No Injunctions Coalition; San Francisco Public Defender's Office; San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP; Showing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ) Bay Area; SURJ San Jose; SURJ Santa Barbara; The Resistance Northridge - Indivisible; Think Dignity; Together We Will/Indivisible — Los Gatos; Universalist Unitarian Church of Riverside; We The People — San Diego; White People 4 Black Lives; Youth ALIVE; Youth Forward; Youth Justice Coalition