Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training in the Department of Justice and requires the commission to adopt rules establishing minimum standards regarding the recruitment of peace officers. Existing law requires the commission to develop guidelines and implement courses of instruction regarding racial profiling, handling domestic violence, hate crimes, and human trafficking, among others.

This bill would require the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to ensure that the profiling of motorcycle riders is addressed in the course of basic law enforcement training and offered to law enforcement officers in conjunction with existing training regarding profiling. The bill would require all local law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy designed to condemn and prevent the profiling of motorcycle riders and to review and audit any existing policies to ensure that those policies do not enable or foster the practice of profiling motorcycle riders. Because this bill would impose additional duties on local law enforcement 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 these statutory provisions.

Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training in the Department of Justice and requires the commission to adopt rules establishing minimum standards regarding the recruitment of peace officers. Existing law requires the commission to develop guidelines and implement courses of instruction regarding racial profiling, handling domestic violence, hate crimes, and human trafficking, among others.

This bill would require the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to ensure that the profiling of motorcycle riders is addressed in the course of basic law enforcement training and offered to law enforcement officers in conjunction with existing training regarding profiling. The bill would require all local law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy designed to condemn and prevent the profiling of motorcycle riders and to review and audit any existing policies to ensure that those policies do not enable or foster the practice of profiling motorcycle riders. Because this bill would impose additional duties on local law enforcement 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 these statutory provisions.

Date of Hearing: April 15, 2015

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Jimmy Gomez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 334

Author:(Cooley) – As AmendedVer:April 7, 2015

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires training for law enforcement officers on the profiling of motorcycle riders, as defined, and requires local law enforcement agencies to adopt policies preventing the profiling of motorcycle riders. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires that The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) ensure that the profiling of motorcycle riders is addressed in the course of basic law enforcement training and offered to law enforcement officers in conjunction with existing training.

2. Defines “profiling of motorcycle riders” as the practice of detaining a suspect based on the fact a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle paraphernalia without any individualized suspicion of the particular person being stopped.

3. Requires local law enforcement agencies to adopt written policies designed to condemn and prevent the profiling of motorcycle riders.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Moderate one-time cost, $120,000 to $350,000 (GF), for POST to develop the required course on motorcycle profiling and review existing curriculum to determine what portion can be eliminated or reduced to incorporate the new course.

2. Moderate reimbursable one-time GF costs of $400,000 to $500,000, associated with the requirement for local agencies adopt written policies regarding profiling motorcycle riders. (Assume a cost of at least $1,000 per agency to review and audit existing procedures, practices, and training materials, to ensure local law enforcement agencies do not enable or foster the practice of profiling motorcycle riders and assume at least 400 agencies will submit a claim for reimbursement.)

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Current law requires POST to establish a certification program for peace officers, which shall be considered professional certificates.  Also requires that the course of basic training for law enforcement officers include adequate instruction on racial and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial and cultural groups.

2. Purpose. According to the author, “AB 334 ensures that law-abiding, recreational motorcycle riders, including those wearing ‘leathers’ for safety if their bike goes down, are not unfairly profiled by law enforcement and stopped without other reasonable cause. It directs the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to incorporate and address the profiling of motorcycle riders during continuing law enforcement training. The bill also requires local law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy to prevent the profiling of motorcycle riders.

3. Argument in Support: According to Western States Representative Nicholas Haris of the American Motorcyclist Association, “The motorcycling community is a diverse one, and individual riders deserve to be judged on specific actions and behaviors, not solely by their chosen mode of transportation.” Mr. Haris also refers to the fact that similar legislation has been enacted in Washington state in 2011 and has been proposed in Minnesota and Arizona.

4. Argument in Opposition: According to the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, the proposed legislation, “. . . if enacted, will hinder our ability to protect the public by classifying legitimate and constitutional police practices as unlawful. Additionally, AB 334 expressly states that law enforcement officers shall be banned from legally stopping motorcycle riders in cases where officers have a legal right – and duty – to stop riders in violation of traffic and other laws.”

“This bill in its current form will protect criminal motorcycle gang members and prevent dedicated law enforcement officers from ensuring the safety of the law-abiding public.”

Analysis Prepared by: Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 24, 2015

Counsel: David Billingsley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Bill Quirk, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 334

Author:(Cooley) – As Introduced Ver:February 13, 2015

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Requires training for law enforcement officers on the profiling of motorcycle riders. Requires local law enforcement agency to adopt policies preventing the profiling of motorcycle riders. Defines “profiling of motorcycle riders.” Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires that The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) ensure that the profiling of motorcycle riders is addressed in the course of basic law enforcement training and offered to law enforcement officers in conjunction with existing training regarding profiling.

2. Requires local law enforcement agencies adopt written policies designed to condemn and prevent the profiling of motorcycle riders. Requires that such policies review and audit existing procedures, practices, and training materials, to ensure that they do not enable or foster the practice of profiling motorcycle riders.

3. Defines “profiling of motorcycle riders” as the practice of detaining a suspect based on the fact a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle paraphernalia without any individualized suspicion of the particular person being stopped.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires all peace officers to complete an introductory course of training prescribed by POST, demonstrated by passage of an appropriate examination developed by POST.  (Pen. Code, § 832, subd. (a).)
   
   
   

2. Establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Training and Standards.  (Pen. Code, § 13500.)
   
   
   

3. Empowers POST to develop and implement programs to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement.  (Pen. Code, §13503.)
   
   
   

4. Authorizes POST, for the purpose of raising the level of competence of local law enforcement officers, to adopt rules establishing minimum standards related to physical, mental and moral fitness and training that shall govern the recruitment of any peace officers in California.  (Pen. Code, § 13510, subd. (a).)
   
   
   

5. Requires POST to conduct research concerning job-related educational standards and job-related selection standards to include vision, hearing, physical ability, and emotional stability and adopt standards supported by this research.  (Pen. Code, § 13510, subd. (b).)
   
   
   

6. Requires POST to establish a certification program for peace officers, which shall be considered professional certificates.  (Pen. Code, § 13510.1, subd. (a).)
   
   
   

7. Requires that the course of basic training for law enforcement officers include adequate instruction on racial and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial and cultural groups. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (b).)
   
   
   

8. Defines "Racial profiling," as the practice of detaining a suspect based on a broad set of criteria which casts suspicion on an entire class of people without any individualized suspicion of the particular person being stopped. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (e).)
   
   
   

9. Prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (f).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Far from the stereotypical ‘outlaw’ image, motorcycle enthusiasts are more likely to be middle-class baby-boomers, and a great many are veterans who enjoy the independence and comradery that the sport affords. An increasing number of these enthusiasts are older Californians that didn’t have time for this hobby in the past, but now are either discovering or re-discovering their passion for motorcycles. They find it to be a fun recreational activity to participate in with friends and family.

“According to the American Motorcycle Association, the average age of their more than 215,000 members is 46 years old. Over the past ten years, the average age of motorcycle owners nationally rose from 33 to 40. Data from the California Highway Patrol’s SWITRS (Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) show the steady climb of licensed motorcycle drivers in California, from approximately 800,000 in 1994 to nearly 1.4 million in 2012. According to the DMV, 47% of California’s 1.4 million motorcycle licensees are over the age of 50. Since its founding in 1987, Motorcycle Safety Foundation-authorized schools have educated more than 900,000 prospective motorcyclists in California in motorcycle safety, including 62,000 in 2013 alone. Motorcycle education consists of classroom time and practical learning to teach students safe riding practices.

“AB 334 ensures that law-abiding, recreational motorcycle riders, including those wearing ‘leathers’ for safety if their bike goes down, are not unfairly profiled by law enforcement and stopped without other reasonable cause. It directs the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to incorporate and address the profiling of motorcycle riders during continuing law enforcement training. The bill also requires local law enforcement agencies to adopt a written policy to prevent the profiling of motorcycle riders.

“In 2011, Washington State enacted a similar statute. This bill proposes California adopt the Washington approach.”

2. Prevalence of Profiling of Motorcyclists: Based on the material provided by the author, there were nearly 1.4 million licensed motorcycle drivers in California in 2012. However, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of “profiling” based on riding a motorcycle, or wearing motorcycle paraphernalia. The author did provide some anecdotal evidence of profiling, but no data has been provided to the Committee.

3. Current POST Training: POST was created by the legislature in 1959 to set minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement.  According to the POST Web site, the Regular Basic Course Training includes 42 separate topics, ranging from juvenile law and procedure to search and seizure.  [POST, Regular Basic Course Training Specifications; [<http://post.ca.gov/regular-basic-course-training-specifications.aspx>.]  These topics are taught during a minimum of 664 hours of training.  [POST, Regular Basic Course, Course Formats, available at: <http://post.ca.gov/regular-basic-course.aspx.>] 

POST currently provides specific training on racial profiling and cultural diversity in connection with the mandate of Penal Code section 13519.4. According to POST that curriculum consists of the following:

Racial Profiling Training

Part I – Initial* - 5 Hours

(1) Why Are We Here?

(2) Racial Profiling Defined

(3) Legal Considerations

(4) History of Civil Rights

(5) Impact of Racial Profiling

(6) Community Considerations

(7) Ethical Considerations

Part II – Refresher** - 2 Hours

(1) Review of Applicable Initial Training

(2) Update on Changes in Law and Practices

*Included in Basic Course after January 1, 2004.

**To be completed every five years after initial training

POST also provided a list of classes within their curriculum related to the constitutional legality of enforcement actions and impartial policing:

Leadership, Professionalism and Ethics

Policing the Community (Fair and impartial enforcement)

Introduction to Criminal Law

Laws of Arrest

Search and Seizure

Gang Awareness

4. U.S. Constitution, 4^TH Amendment Implications: The proposed legislation will not impact the way courts evaluate the lawfulness of police enforcement actions, including investigative detentions, searches and arrests.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure covers law enforcement actions including investigative detentions, arrests, searches of persons or vehicles.

The test to determine the constitutional validity of an officer’s detention, search, arrest or other action implicating the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is and objective test. In analyzing the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure, "it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard" Terry v. Ohio (1968) 39 U.S. 1, 21. Under that test, the court would examine whether objective facts legally support the enforcement action the officer took. The officer’s subjective belief or intent is generally not material to the judicial determination of the legality of the enforcement action.

5. Proposed Legislation Will Not Affect the Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Law Enforcement During a Detention, Arrest, or Search: Proposition 8, passed in 1982, limited the circumstances a trial court may exclude relevant evidence as a sanction for the violation of state statutes. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (d).) Pursuant to Proposition 8, trial courts can only exclude evidence acquired through an unreasonable search or seizure by law enforcement if that exclusion is required under federal law.

"What Proposition 8 does is to eliminate a judicially created remedy for violations of the search and seizure provisions of the federal or state Constitutions, through the exclusion of evidence so obtained, except to the extent that exclusion remains federally compelled." In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal. 3d 873,886-887.)

6. Proposed Amendment to be Taken in Committee: The proposed amendment alters the definition of “profiling of motorcycle riders.” The language of the proposed amendment is as follows:

(c) For purposes of this section, “profiling of motorcycle riders” is the practice of detaining a suspect based on the fact a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle paraphernalia without any individualized suspicion of the particular person being stopped.

The language of the proposed amendment is consistent with the language the Legislature adopted to define “racial profiling.” (Cal. Pen. Code, § 13519.4.)

Letters in Support and Opposition were submitted prior to the proposed amendment.

7. Argument in Support: According to Western States Representative Nicholas Haris of the American Motorcyclist Association, “The motorcycling community is a diverse one, and individual riders deserve to be judged on specific actions and behaviors, not solely by their chosen mode of transportation.” Mr. Haris also refers to the fact that similar legislation has been enacted in Washington state in 2011 and has been proposed in Minnesota and Arizona.

8. Argument in Opposition: According to the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, the proposed legislation, “. . . if enacted, will hinder our ability to protect the public by classifying legitimate and constitutional police practices as unlawful. Additionally, AB 334 expressly states that law enforcement officers shall be banned from legally stopping motorcycle riders in cases where officers have a legal right – and duty – to stop riders in violation of traffic and other laws.”

“This bill in its current form will protect criminal motorcycle gang members and prevent dedicated law enforcement officers from ensuring the safety of the law-abiding public.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Biker’s Rights Organization

American Motorcyclist Association

California Public Defender Association

ABATE of California

126 private individuals

Opposition

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officer Association

Fraternal Order of Police

Long Beach Police Officers Association

Santa Ana Police Officers Association

Analysis Prepared by:

David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744