BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair A
2009-2010 Regular Session B
2
1
5
AB 2157 (Logue) 7
As Amended June16, 2010
Hearing date: June 29, 2010
Penal Code
SM:dl
PROBATION OFFICERS' FIREARMS QUALIFICATIONS
HISTORY
Source: Placer County Board of Supervisors
Prior Legislation: None directly on point
Support: Chief Probation Officers of California
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 63 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD PROBATION OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY FIREARMS BE REQUIRED
TO QUALIFY WITH THAT FIREARM ON A BI-ANNUAL BASIS AS OPPOSED TO THE
CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT THEY QUALIFY ON A QUARTERLY BASIS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to amend the requirement that
probation officers authorized to carry firearms must qualify
(More)
AB 2157 (Logue)
PageB
with that firearm on a quarterly basis and instead require
firearms qualification only on a bi-annual basis.
Existing law provides that parole and probation officers, as
specified, are peace officers whose authority extends to any
place in the state while engaged in the performance of the
duties of their respective employment and for the purpose of
carrying out the primary function of their employment or as
specified. Except as specified in this section, these peace
officers may carry firearms only if authorized and under those
terms and conditions specified by their employing agency.
(Penal Code section 830.5)
Existing law requires that any parole or probation officers who
are permitted to carry firearms shall meet the training
requirements of Section 832 and shall qualify with the firearm
at least quarterly. (Penal Code section 830.5(d).)
Existing law requires that all peace officers, as specified and
including probation officers, satisfactorily complete an
introductory course of training prescribed by the Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training. Satisfactory completion
of the course shall be demonstrated by passage of an appropriate
examination developed or approved by the commission. Training
in the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required of any
peace officer whose employing agency prohibits the use of
firearms. (Penal Code section 832.)
Existing law requires new probation officers, within one year,
to complete 174 hours of instruction in specific
performance/instructional objectives. (15 CCR Section 173).
Existing law mandates probation officers to complete 40 hours of
annual training. (15 CCR Section 184).
This bill would allow a probation officer, deputy probation
officer, or any superintendent, supervisor, or employee having
custodial responsibilities in an institution operated by a
probation department, or any transportation officer of a
probation department, who is permitted to carry firearms
(More)
AB 2157 (Logue)
PageC
pursuant to this section, either on or off duty, to qualify with
a firearm every six months rather than quarterly.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved. In
December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
federal three-judge panel issued an order requiring the state to
reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design capacity
-- a reduction of roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years.
In a prior, related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4,
2009, that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a tailspin,"
the state's independent oversight agency has reported.
. . . (Jan. 2007 Little Hoover Commission Report,
"Solving California's Corrections Crisis: Time Is
Running Out"). Tough-on-crime politics have increased
the population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . . As a
result, the state's prisons have become places "of
extreme peril to the safety of persons" they house, .
. . (Governor Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison
Overcrowding State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world," but the
state "reaps fewer public safety benefits." . . . .
Although California's existing prison system serves
neither the public nor the inmates well, the state has
for years been unable or unwilling to implement the
reforms necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
(More)
AB 2157 (Logue)
PageD
The massive 750% increase in the California prison
population since the mid-1970s is the result of
political decisions made over three decades, including
the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the
passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes
laws, as well as the state's counterproductive parole
system. Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the resources
and facilities required to meet the additional need
for space and for other necessities of prison
existence. Likewise, although state-appointed experts
have repeatedly provided numerous methods by which the
state could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, underfunded, or
postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to expend
the necessary funds to support the population growth
has brought California's prisons to the breaking
point. The state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues to
this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
system continue to languish without constitutionally
adequate medical and mental health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010 ruling
pending the state's appeal of the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court. On Monday, June 14, 2010, The U.S. Supreme Court agreed
to hear the state's appeal in this case.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
---------------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of California and the
Northern District of California United States District Court
composed of three judges pursuant to Section 2284, Title 28
United States Code (August 4, 2009).
(More)
AB 2157 (Logue)
PageE
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
State law requires that Probation and Parole Officers
complete quarterly arms training, while all other
peace officers are required to complete arms training
at a minimum of every six months, annually, or at the
discretion of the agency. The quarterly arms
requirement results in Placer County's Probation
Officers spending significant hours in arms training
and expending large rounds of ammunition in training,
which is costly.
This bill amends the Penal Code (Sec. 830.5) to
require that Probation Officers' arming requirements
be equivalent to the penal code section (Sec. 830.1)
which specifies training standards for sheriff's
deputies and police officers.
2. Arming Probation Officers
Probation officers in California are responsible for supervising
adults and juveniles who are placed on probation by the courts.
They also conduct background investigations on persons convicted
of felonies and provide the court with "presentence reports" to
assist the court in sentencing. Supervising a probationer
involves both monitoring his or her compliance with the terms
and conditions of the probation agreement as well as assisting
the probationer in successfully completing their probationary
term by complying with those terms, finding stable housing,
employment and completing any necessary treatment programs. The
role of the probation officer is, therefore, part law
enforcement officer and part social worker.
(More)
AB 2157 (Logue)
PageF
If a county probation department does authorize its probation
officers to carry firearms, then those officers must "qualify"
or pass a proficiency test, with that firearm on a quarterly
basis. This same requirement applies to all parole agents.
This bill would ease this firearms training requirement for
probation officers only and require that they "qualify" only
semi-annually.
Whether probation officers should be armed has always been a
controversial subject. A December 2001 article in the journal
Federal Probation framed the issue as follows:
Whether POs should be armed continues to be a fiercely
debated topic in corrections today. In the federal
probation system, all but 11 of the 94 federal
judicial districts permit U.S. probation officers to
carry firearms. A review of the literature reveals
three major issues related to arming: philosophy,
liability, and officer safety (Brown, 1990; Sluder, et
al., 1991; DelGrosso, 1997).
The philosophical debate revolves around whether a
probation officer can effectively perform traditional
probation work while armed, with traditionalists
tending toward the negative anti-arming response and
enforcement-oriented POs tending toward the positive.
The traditionalists believe that carrying a firearm
contributes to an atmosphere of distrust between the
"client" and the probation officer, ultimately
impacting the ability of the officer to be an
effective agent of change. Enforcement-oriented
probation officers, on the other hand, commonly view a
firearm as an additional tool to protect themselves
from the risk associated with increased interaction
with violent, serious and/or highrisk offenders
(Sluder, et al., 1991).
( http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/ProbationPretrialServices/
FederalProbationJournal/FederalProbationJournal.aspx?doc=/uscourt
(More)
AB 2157 (Logue)
PageG
s/FederalCourts/PPS/Fedprob/2001decfp.pdf )
The authors concluded:
The view of the authors on the issue of arming
probation officers is consistent with that supported
by the American Correctional Association, which
indicates that there should be a demonstrated need for
firearms, and once the need is established there
should be adequate and ongoing training.(Id at page
27, emphasis in original.)
Current California law permits probation officers to be armed
only if so authorized by their employing agency. (Penal Code
section 830.5.) Not all probation departments in California arm
their officers. Earlier this year an announcement by the Chief
Probation Officer in Santa Clara County that it might allow a
select group of its probation officers to carry firearms drew
criticism.
Santa Clara County, Calif., may soon equip a select
group of probation officers with firearms for the
first time - a move the probation chief describes as
necessary for the protection of her employees, reports
the San Jose Mercury News. The push to arm probation
officers who supervise more than 700 of the most
serious juvenile and adult offenders returned to their
communities has brought strong criticism from some
justice experts. They say the overwhelming presence
of a gun undercuts the officers' critical role
connecting ex-offenders with treatment, jobs and
education while they monitor the terms of their
probation - a vital part of the job which is part-cop,
part-social worker.
Union members and elected officials appear to support
the change. San Mateo, San Francisco and Marin arm
some probation officers. But Barry Krisberg, a senior
(More)
AB 2157 (Logue)
PageH
fellow at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, called
the plan a "very bad idea that should be avoided at
all costs." Krisberg said police officers are armed;
probation officers need a markedly different approach.
"The issue boils down to: Are these people law
enforcement officers, or are they treaters and
helpers?" Krisberg said. "You can't be delivering
cognitive behavioral therapy with a gun strapped to
your waist. The therapeutic relationship is inhibited
and destroyed by someone carrying a gun openly."
( http://thecrimereport.org/2010/02/02/ca-county-to-arm-some-
probation-officers-krisberg-criticizes-idea/ )
(More)
Marin County does not arm its probation officers. In 2008 a
grand jury recommended that it revisit this policy. Its Chief
Probation Officer disagreed:
"Our focus is on the rehabilitative side, rather than
control and surveillance," said Chief Probation
Officer William Burke, who has not yet prepared an
official response to the report. "If we go down the
path of arming, we're drifting from what our true
function is. When you walk in with a gun on your hip,
you have a different relationship with someone than
when you don't."
Burke disagrees with the grand jury's assertion that
Marin's probation officers are more likely to monitor
violent offenders today than they were a decade ago.
"I don't know that things are more dangerous now than
they were 10 years ago," Burke said. "Marin County's
arrest records for felonies are among the lowest in
the state. It's not quite the war zone some people
would suggest."
Stating that only 6 of the Bay Area's 14 counties choose to
arm their probation officers Burke stated:
"There are probation departments with greater public
safety issues than Marin which choose not to arm,"
Burke said, noting that Alameda, Contra Costa and
Solano counties use unarmed officers.
( http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_9639017?IADID=Search-ww
(More)
AB 2157 (Logue)
PageJ
w.marinij.com-www.marinij.com )
3. Probation Officer Firearms Training and What This Bill
Would Do
Probation officers, who have limited peace-officer status,
receive significantly less training than police officers or
sheriff's deputies. Those with full peace officer status
are required to complete a 664-hour basic training course
certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and
Training (Penal Code section 832.4) and often receive
considerably more training in addition to the basic course.
Probation officers, by contrast, are required to complete
174 hours of training in probation work as well as the
40-hour POST-certified Penal Code 832 course on laws of
arrest and arrest procedures and, if their department
chooses to arm them, 24 hours of firearms training.
In addition, current state law requires that probation
officers and parole agents who carry firearms must
"qualify" with their firearm on a quarterly basis. (Penal
Code section 830.5(d).) This bill would relax that
standard for probation officers, allowing them to "qualify"
on a semi-annual basis. Just as each county is free to
decide whether to arm any or all of its probation officers,
each county also sets its own standards for what it means
to "qualify." There is no statewide standard as to
whether, for example, "qualification" requires mere
"static" firing at a non-moving target, or, for example,
nighttime firing, or "shoot/don't shoot" simulations of
people jumping out from behind barriers who may or may not
be legitimate targets, or even simply being required to
fire, unload, reload and fire again. In short, what it
means for a probation officer to "qualify" with their
firearm is unregulated and, in the event of a shooting by a
probation officer, each county would be left to defend the
adequacy of its training practices.
AB 2157 (Logue)
PageK
The first question raised by this bill is whether
semi-annual firearms qualification for probation officers
is sufficient in light of the reduced level of firearms
training that these officers receive in comparison to full
peace officers. Another issue members may wish to consider
is whether reducing the firearms qualification
requirements, and thus the cost to counties to arm their
probation officers, will encourage more probation
departments to arm their probation officers. Members may
also wish to consider whether relaxing the requirements for
firearms qualification for probation officers, but not for
parole agents, is justified and whether this could be
expected to lead to relaxing the same standards for parole
agents.
IS SEMI-ANNUAL FIREARMS QUALIFICATION FOR PROBATION
OFFICERS SUFFICIENT?
COULD THESE REDUCED TRAINING REQUIREMENTS EXPOSE COUNTIES
TO GREATER RISK OF LIABILITY IN THE EVENT OF A SHOOTING BY
A PROBATION OFFICER?
WILL REDUCING THIS TRAINING REQUIREMENT ENCOURAGE MORE
DEPARTMENTS TO ARM THEIR PROBATION OFFICERS?
WILL THIS LEAD TO RELAXING THE STANDARDS FOR FIREARM
QUALIFICATION FOR PAROLE AGENTS?
***************