BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Adam B. Schiff, Chairman
1999-2000 Regular Session
AB 2484 A
Author: Assembly Member Romero B
As Amended June 19, 2000
Hearing Date: June 20, 2000 2
Civil Code 4
DLM:pjs 8
4
SUBJECT
Civil and Constitutional Rights: Attorney General
Enforcement
DESCRIPTION
This bill would prohibit any governmental authority from
engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct by law
enforcement officers that deprives any person of rights,
privileges, or immunities protected by the law or
constitution.
The bill would also state that the Attorney General may
bring a civil action in the name of the people to obtain
appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate
the pattern or practice of conduct, above, whenever the
Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that such
a violation has occurred.
BACKGROUND
This bill comes in response to the worst police scandal in
the history of Los Angeles - the Los Angeles Police
Department's Rampart corruption scandal. As widely
reported in the media, the Rampart scandal includes a
litany of systemic police abuses: unjustified shootings,
beatings, perjury and tampering with and stealing evidence.
Nearly three dozen related convictions have been
overturned and more cases - 3,000 so far - require review.
AB 2484 is modeled after a nearly identical provision in
the federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
(more)
AB 2484 (Romero)
Page 2
of 1994, which allows the U.S. Department of Justice to
enforce the constitutional rights of individuals abused by
police officers.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1. Existing law provides, generally, that the Attorney
General is the chief law enforcement officer of
California, with the duty to see that this state's laws
are
uniformly and adequately enforced.
Existing law , the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, provides
criminal penalties and civil liability against persons
who, whether or not acting under color of law, interfere
or attempt to interfere by threats, intimidation, or
coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by the
individual of rights secured by the constitution or laws
of the state or federal government.
This bill would provide that, no governmental authority,
or person or agent acting on behalf of a governmental
authority, shall engage in a pattern or practice of
conduct by law enforcement officers, that deprives any
person of rights, privileges, or immunities protected by
the law or the Constitution.
2. Existing law provides that whenever there is
reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of
persons is engaged in conduct which interferes with the
full enjoyment of any rights under the Banes, Ralph and
Unruh Civil Rights Acts, the Attorney General, any
district attorney or city attorney, or an individual may
bring an enforcement action for preventive relief.
This bill would clarify that the Attorney General may
bring a civil action in the name of the people to obtain
appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate
the pattern or practice of conduct (by law enforcement
officers, that deprives any person of rights, privileges,
or immunities protected by the law or constitution)
whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to
believe that such a violation has occurred.
COMMENT
AB 2484 (Romero)
Page 3
1. Stated need for legislation and support
In support of this measure, the author states, "The
recent allegations of police misconduct in the Rampart
Division of the LAPD is a vivid reminder of the damage
that can be done when police officers violate the civil
rights of California's residents. Innocent individuals
can be sent to jail and prison. In Rampart, over 3,000
cases have been tainted by the misconduct of police
officers. Lives can be completely shattered as a result
of false arrests and imprisonment. And the public trust
is severely undermined when officers betray their duties
to serve and protect Californians.
"AB 2484 is an effort to increase accountability and
oversight when police misconduct permeates a law
enforcement agency. This bill is not designed to respond
to single incidents of police misconduct. Instead, it
applies only when the policies, both official and
unofficial, of a police department result in civil rights
violations of Californians. This could include a pattern
of unlawful searches, arrests, excessive force, as well
as a variety of other violations?. Simply put, this bill
provides the State's top law enforcement officer, the
Attorney General, the authority to try to reform the
policies of police departments in our state if there is a
demonstrated pattern and practice of civil rights
violations."
The Coalition for Police Accountability writes in support
to say, "We understand that this bill is modeled on a
federal statute, 42 U.S.C. Section 14141, and would
provide a remedy for systematic violations of
constitutional rights, such as the use of excessive
force, false arrest, illegal searches, and the like."
The Attorney General adds, AB 2484 "will provide this
office with an important statutory directive to
investigate and prosecute violations of civil rights
committed by law enforcement personnel that reflect a
pattern or practice. In order to maintain public trust
in law enforcement, it is necessary to eliminate unlawful
conduct committed by some law enforcement personnel that
violates that trust. We think that justification for
AB 2484 (Romero)
Page 4
such statutory authority is apparent at the state level
as it has been on the federal level."
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also supports
the bill, stating that "The Legislature has granted the
Attorney General statutory authority to bring civil
actions against persons or entities engaging in
violations of constitutional or civil rights in numerous
areas, including housing, employment, public
accommodations, unfair business practices, and hate
crimes. However, no such specific statutory authority is
granted the Attorney General where there is evidence of
systemic violations of constitutional rights by law
enforcement agencies. AB 2484 remedies that deficiency."
2. Federal model for legislation
Under the federal Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, the U.S. Department of Justice
may sue for declaratory and equitable relief if any
governmental authority or person acting on behalf of any
governmental authority engages in a pattern or practice
of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives
persons of their rights under the Constitution or the
laws of the United States. (42 U.S.C. section 14141.)
The rational for the federal Act was explained by its
sponsor, the Attorney General, "Under the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Department
may file suit where there is a pattern or practice of
misconduct that violates the Constitution or Federal law.
Importantly, this authority allows the Department to
address law enforcement management practices that
countenance misconduct. The Department for many years has
criminally prosecuted individual police officers who
abuse their authority. However, criminal prosecutions do
not directly confront broader management problems."
Justice Initiative Underway to Combat Police Misconduct,
U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Rights Division bulletin.
"Section 14141 was an outgrowth of the beating of Rodney
King by Los Angeles police and the Christopher
Commission's subsequent finding that the Los Angeles
Police Department had in effect condoned brutal conduct
by its officers through a pattern of lax supervision and
AB 2484 (Romero)
Page 5
inadequate investigation of complaints?Section 14141
substantially enhances the Department's authority with
regard to local police affairs by affording the Civil
Rights Division a statutory basis for intervening in
police 'patterns and practices' in ways analogous to
statutes that have authorized federal government
intervention in other spheres-like voting, housing,
public accommodations, and access to public facilities."
Livingston, Police Reform and the Department of Justice,
818 Buffalo Criminal Law Review [Vol. 2:817].
3. Pattern and practice explained
This bill would prohibit governmental authorities and
their agents from engaging in a pattern or practice of
conduct by law enforcement officers?"
The triggering element for Attorney General
involvement is the reasonable belief that such an
impermissible pattern or practice of conduct exists.
However, the bill does not define the term "pattern or
practice of conduct." Looking at how the phrase is
understood in other contexts may shed light.
"? (i)n the Title VII context, the Supreme Court has
suggested that the term 'pattern or practice' has a
'usual meaning' - a meaning denoting something more 'than
the mere occurrence of isolated or 'accidental' or
sporadic [unlawful] acts." (Livingston, supra.) In
International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States
(1977) 431 U.S. 324, the court stated that "a 'pattern or
practice of conduct by law enforcement officers'
depriving persons of constitutional or statutory rights,
then, likely denotes a course of conduct that is
'standard operating procedure' within a police department
? the regular rather than the unusual practice." (Id.)
4. Recent amendments remove juvenile justice language
This bill was recently amended to remove reference to
patterns and practices of conduct by "officials or
employees of any governmental agency with responsibility
for the administration of juvenile justice or the
incarceration of juveniles."
5. Related pending legislation
AB 2484 (Romero)
Page 6
AB 2719 (Wesson), currently pending on the Senate Floor,
would allow the Attorney General, a district attorney, or
a city attorney to be awarded a
$25,000 civil penalty in successful enforcement actions
under the Ralph Act.
In addition, the bill would declare that an action
brought pursuant to the Bane Civil Rights Act (Civil Code
Section 52.1) for a violation of a person's
constitutional rights, does not require the individual
whose rights were violated to prove that he or she is a
member of a protected class.
AB 1993 (Romero), would make it a felony for a peace
officer, or any person acting at the request of a peace
officer, to knowingly alter, place or move physical
matter with the specific intent that such an action
results in a person being charged with a crime. AB 1993
is currently pending in the Senate Public Safety
Committee.
Support: American Civil Liberties Union; California
Attorney General's Office; California Attorneys for
Criminal Justice; California Child, Youth, and
Family Coalition; Coalition for Police
Accountability
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: Author
Related Pending Legislation: AB 2719 (Wesson), pending on
the Senate Floor;
AB 1993 (Romero), pending before
the Senate
Public Safety Committee
Prior Legislation: None Known
Prior Vote: Assembly Judiciary Committee (14-0) Assembly
Floor (75-0)
AB 2484 (Romero)
Page 7
**************