AB 953: Law enforcement: racial profiling.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2015-10-03
Existing law creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and requires it to develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers, as described. Existing law prohibits a peace officer from engaging in racial profiling and requires the training to prescribe patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling, as defined. Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a study of the data that is voluntarily collected by jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling.
This bill would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, which would, among other changes, revise the definition of racial profiling to instead refer to racial or identity profiling, and make a conforming change to the prohibition against peace officers engaging in that practice.
The bill would require, beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. The bill would specify the composition of the board. The bill would require the board, among other duties, to investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies racial and identity profiling policies and practices across geographic areas in California, to annually make publicly available its findings and policy recommendations, to hold public meetings annually, as specified, and to issue the boards first annual report no later than January 1, 2018.
The bill would require each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops, as defined, conducted by the agencys peace officers, and require that data to include specified information, including the time, date, and location of the stop, and the reason for the stop. The bill would require an agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2019. The bill would require an agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2020. The bill would require an agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2022. The bill would require an agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2023.
By imposing a higher level of service on local entities that employ peace officers, the 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 creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and requires it to develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers, as described. Existing law prohibits a peace officer from engaging in racial profiling and requires the training to prescribe patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling, as defined. Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a study of the data that is voluntarily collected by jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling.
This bill would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, which would, among other changes, revise the definition of racial profiling to instead refer to racial or identity profiling, and make a conforming change to the prohibition against peace officers engaging in that practice.
The bill would require, beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. The bill would specify the composition of the board. The bill would require the board, among other duties, to investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies racial and identity profiling policies and practices across geographic areas in California, to annually make publicly available its findings and policy recommendations, to hold public meetings annually, as specified, and to issue the boards first annual report no later than January 1, 2018.
The bill would require each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops, as defined, conducted by the agencys peace officers, and require that data to include specified information, including the time, date, and location of the stop, and the reason for the stop. The bill would require an agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2019. The bill would require an agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2020. The bill would require an agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2022. The bill would require an agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2023.
By imposing a higher level of service on local entities that employ peace officers, the 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 creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and requires it to develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers, as described. Existing law prohibits a peace officer from engaging in racial profiling and requires the training to prescribe patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling, as defined. Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a study of the data that is voluntarily collected by jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling.
This bill would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, which would, among other changes, revise the definition of racial profiling to instead refer to racial or identity profiling, and make a conforming change to the prohibition against peace officers engaging in that practice. The bill would also require a peace officer who is the subject of a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every 6 months for 2 years, starting from the date a complaint is found to have been sustained.
The bill would require, beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. The bill would specify the composition of the board. The bill would require the board, among other duties, to investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies racial and identity profiling policies and practices, practices across geographic areas in California, to annually make publicly available its findings and policy recommendations, to hold public meetings annually, as specified, and to issue the boards first annual report no later than January 1, 2018.
The bill would require each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General on or before March 1, 2018, and each March 1 thereafter, data on all stops, as defined, conducted by the agencys peace officers, and require that data to include specified information, including the time, date, and location of the stop, and the reason for the stop. The bill would require the agencies to retain that data for a minimum of 5 years. The bill would also require the Attorney General to analyze the data collected, report its findings from the first analysis by January 1, 2019, issue reports each January 1, thereafter, and make the reports available to the public by posting them on the Department of Justices Internet Web site. The bill would require an agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2019. The bill would require an agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2020. The bill would require an agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2022. The bill would require an agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers to issue its first annual report by April 1, 2023.
By imposing a higher level of service on local entities that employ peace officers, the 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 creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and requires it to develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers, as described. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement peace officer from engaging in racial profiling and requires the training prescribe patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling, as defined. Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a study of the data that is voluntarily collected by jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling.
This bill, which would be known as would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, which would, among other changes, revise the definition of racial profiling to instead refer to racial or identity profiling, would and make a conforming change to the prohibition against law enforcement peace officers engaging in that practice, and would make the prohibition specifically applicable to probation and parole officers. practice. The bill would also require a law enforcement peace officer who is the subject of a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every 6 months for 2 years, starting from the date a complaint is found to have been sustained.
The bill would require, beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. The bill would specify the composition of the board. The bill would require the board, among other duties, to investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies racial and identity profiling policies and practices, to annually make publicly available its findings and recommendations, to hold public meetings annually, as specified, and to issue the boards first annual report no later than January 1, 2018.
The bill would require each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General on or before March 1, 2018, and each March 1 thereafter, data on all stops, as defined, conducted by the agencys peace officers, and require that data to include specified information, including the time, date, and location of the stop, and the reason for the stop. The bill would require the agencies to retain that data for a minimum of 5 years. The bill would also require the Attorney General to analyze the data collected, report its findings from the first analysis by January 1, 2019, issue reports each January 1, thereafter, and make the reports available to the public by posting them on the Department of Justices Internet Web site.
By imposing a higher level of service on local entities that employ peace officers, the 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 creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and requires it to develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers, as described. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling and requires the training prescribe patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling, as defined. Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a study of the data that is voluntarily collected by jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling.
This bill bill, which would be known as the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, would, among other changes, revise the definition of racial profiling to instead refer to racial or identity profiling, would make a conforming change to the prohibition against law enforcement officers engaging in that practice, and would make the prohibition specifically applicable to probation and parole officers. The bill would also require a law enforcement officer who is the subject of a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every 6 months for 2 years, starting from the date a complaint is found to have been sustained.
The bill would require, beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. The bill would specify the composition of the board. The bill would require the board, among other duties, to investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies racial and identity profiling policies and practices, to annually make publicly available its findings and recommendations, to hold public meetings annually, as specified, and to issue the boards first annual report no later than January 1, 2018.
The bill would require, on and after July 1, 2017, require each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General, on at least a quarterly basis, General on or before March 1, 2018, and each March 1 thereafter, data on all traffic, public transportation, and pedestrian stops stops, as defined, conducted by the agencys peace officers, and require that data to include specified information, including the time, date, and location of the stop, search, or seizure, stop, and the characteristics of each peace officer involved. reason for the stop. The bill would require the agencies to retain that data for a minimum of 5 years. The bill would require the Attorney General, no later than January 1, 2017, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data. The bill would also require the Attorney General to analyze the data collected, report its findings from the first analysis by July 1, 2018, January 1, 2019, issue reports each year July 1, January 1, thereafter, and make the reports available to the public by posting them on the Department of Justices Internet Web site.
By imposing a higher level of service on local entities that employ peace officers, the 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 creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and requires it to develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers, as described. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling and requires the training prescribe patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling, as defined. Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a study of the data that is voluntarily collected by jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling.
This bill would would, among other changes, revise the definition of racial profiling to instead refer to racial and or identity profiling, would make a conforming change to the prohibition against law enforcement officers engaging in that practice, and would make the prohibition specifically applicable to probation and parole officers. The bill would also require a law enforcement officer who is found to have engaged in the subject of a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every 6 months for 2 years, starting from the date each finding is made. a complaint is found to have been sustained.
The bill would require require, beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement. The bill would specify the composition of the board. The bill would require the board board, among other duties, to investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies racial and identity profiling policies and practices, to annually make publicly available its findings and recommendations, to hold public meetings annually, as specified, and to issue the boards first annual report no later than January 1, 2018.
The bill would require, on and after July 1, 2017, each state and local agency that employs peace officers to report to the Attorney General, on at least a quarterly basis, data on all traffic traffic, public transportation, and pedestrian stops conducted by the agencys peace officers, and require that data to include specified information, including the time, date, and location of the stop, search, or seizure, and the characteristics of each peace officer involved. The bill would require the agencies to retain that data for a minimum of 5 years. The bill would require the Attorney General, no later than January 1, 2017, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data. The bill would also require the Attorney General to analyze the data collected, report its findings from the first analysis by July 1, 2018, issue reports each year July 1, and make the reports available to the public by posting them on the Department of Justices Internet website Web site.
The bill would also require each year, on an annual basis, any state or local agency that employs peace, probation, or parole officers to report to the Attorney General, the number of complaints filed in each of the previous three years against peace officers in its employment alleging racial or identity profiling, wrongful arrest, or excessive force. The bill would require RIPA to analyze the complaints received and, by July 1, 2018, to publicly report the information received, its analysis of the information, and its recommendations.
By imposing a higher level of service on local entities that employ peace officers, the 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 creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and requires it to develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers, as described. Existing law prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling and requires the training prescribe patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling, as defined. Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a study of the data that is voluntarily collected by jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that revises the definition of racial profiling and requires law enforcement departments to collect, analyze, and report data on individual stops in order to identify and eliminate unjustified racial disparities and bias.
This bill would revise the definition of racial profiling to instead refer to racial and identity profiling, would make a conforming change to the prohibition against law enforcement officers engaging in that practice, and would make the prohibition specifically applicable to probation and parole officers. The bill would also require a law enforcement officer who is found to have engaged in racial or identity profiling to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every 6 months for 2 years, starting from the date each finding is made.
The bill would require the Attorney General to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) to eliminate racial and identity profiling and improve diversity and racial sensitivity in law enforcement. The bill would specify the composition of the board. The bill would require the board to investigate and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices, to annually make publicly available its findings and recommendations, and to issue the first report no later than January 1, 2018.
The bill would require, on and after July 1, 2017, each state and local agency that employs peace officers to report to the Attorney General, on at least a quarterly basis, data on all traffic and pedestrian stops conducted by the agencys peace officers, and require that data to include specified information, including the time, date, and location of the stop, search, or seizure, and the characteristics of each peace officer involved. The bill would require the agencies to retain that data for a minimum of 5 years. The bill would require the Attorney General, no later than January 1, 2017, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data. The bill would also require the Attorney General to analyze the data collected, report its findings from the first analysis by July 1, 2018, issue reports each year July 1, and make the reports available to the public by posting them on the Department of Justices Internet website.
The bill would also require each year, on an annual basis, any state or local agency that employs peace, probation, or parole officers to report to the Attorney General, the number of complaints filed in each of the previous three years against peace officers in its employment alleging racial or identity profiling, wrongful arrest, or excessive force. The bill would require RIPA to analyze the complaints received and, by July 1, 2018, to publicly report the information received, its analysis of the information, and its recommendations.
By imposing a higher level of service on local entities that employ peace officers, the 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 creates the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and requires it to develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers, as described. Existing law requires the training prescribe patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling, as defined. Existing law requires the Legislative Analysts Office to conduct a study of the data that is voluntarily collected by jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling.
This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that revises the definition of racial profiling and requires law enforcement departments to collect, analyze, and report data on individual stops in order to identify and eliminate unjustified racial disparities and bias.
(a)(1)Each state and local agency that employs peace officers shall annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops conducted by that agencys peace officers for the preceding calendar year.
(2)Each agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2019. Each agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2020. Each agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2022. Each agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2023.
(b)The reporting shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each stop:
(1)The time, date, and location of the stop.
(2)The reason for the stop.
(3)The result of the stop, such as, no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest.
(4)If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited.
(5)If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
(6)The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. For motor vehicle stops, this paragraph only applies to the driver, unless any actions specified under paragraph (7) apply in relation to a passenger, in which case the characteristics specified in this paragraph shall also be reported for him or her.
(7)Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A)Whether the peace officer asked for consent to search the person, and, if so, whether consent was provided.
(B)Whether the peace officer searched the person or any property, and, if so, the basis for the search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any.
(C)Whether the peace officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing the property.
(c)If more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer is required to collect and report to his or her agency the information specified under subdivision (b).
(d)State and local law enforcement agencies shall not report the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure, for purposes of this section. Notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be available to the public, except for the badge number or other unique identifying information of the peace officer involved, which shall be released to the public only to the extent the release is permissible under state law.
(e)Not later than January 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data required under subdivision (b). The regulations shall specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies. To the best extent possible, such regulations should be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
(f)All data and reports made pursuant to this section are public records within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 6252, and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253 and 6258.
(g)(1)For purposes of this section, peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, is limited to members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency, and California state or university educational institutions. Peace officer, as used in this section, does not include probation officers and officers in a custodial setting.
(2)For purposes of this section, stop means any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the persons body or property in the persons possession or control.
SEC. 3.Section 13012 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13012.(a)The annual report of the department provided for in Section 13010 shall contain statistics showing all of the following:
(1)The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities.
(2)The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents.
(3)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents.
(4)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court.
(5)(A)The total number of each of the following:
(i)Citizen complaints received by law enforcement agencies under Section 832.5.
(ii)Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor.
(iii)Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 13519.4. These statistics shall be disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged, such as based on a consideration of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.
(B)The statistics reported under this paragraph shall provide, for each category of complaint identified under subparagraph (A), the number of complaints within each of the following disposition categories:
(i)Sustained, which means that the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the truth of allegation in the complaint by preponderance of evidence.
(ii)Exonerated, which means that the investigation clearly established that the actions of the personnel that formed the basis of the complaint are not a violation of law or agency policy.
(iii)Not sustained, which means that the investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation in the complaint.
(iv)Unfounded, which means that the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true.
(C)The reports under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be made available to the public and disaggregated for each individual law enforcement agency.
(b)It shall be the duty of the department to give adequate interpretation of the statistics and so to present the information that it may be of value in guiding the policies of the Legislature and of those in charge of the apprehension, prosecution, and treatment of the criminals and delinquents, or concerned with the prevention of crime and delinquency. The report shall also include statistics which are comparable with national uniform criminal statistics published by federal bureaus or departments heretofore mentioned.
(c)Each year, on an annual basis, the Racial and Identity Profiling Board (RIPA), established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4, shall analyze the statistics reported pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of this section. RIPAs analysis of the complaints shall be incorporated into its annual report as required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4. The reports shall not disclose the identity of peace officers.
SEC. 4.Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13519.4.(a)The commission shall develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all peace officers in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 and who adhere to the standards approved by the commission, on the racial and cultural differences among the residents of this state. The course or courses of instruction and the guidelines shall stress understanding and respect for racial, identity, and cultural differences, and development of effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a diverse racial, identity, and cultural environment.
(b)The course of basic training for peace officers shall include adequate instruction on racial, identity, and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial, identity, and cultural groups. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of racial, identity, and cultural awareness and diversity.
(c)For the purposes of this section the following shall apply:
(1)Disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation have the same meaning as in Section 422.55.
(2)Culturally diverse and cultural diversity include, but are not limited to, disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation issues.
(3)Racial has the same meaning as race or ethnicity in Section 422.55.
(4)Stop has the same meaning as in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code.
(d)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)The working men and women in California law enforcement risk their lives every day. The people of California greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication of peace officers in protecting public safety. The good name of these officers should not be tarnished by the actions of those few who commit discriminatory practices.
(2)Racial or identity profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution and a democratic society. It is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.
(3)Racial or identity profiling alienates people from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people whom law enforcement is sworn to protect and serve.
(4)Pedestrians, users of public transportation, and vehicular occupants who have been stopped, searched, interrogated, and subjected to a property seizure by a peace officer for no reason other than the color of their skin, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability are the victims of discriminatory practices.
(5)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the changes to this section made by the act that added this paragraph that additional training is required to address the pernicious practice of racial or identity profiling and that enactment of this section is in no way dispositive of the issue of how the state should deal with racial or identity profiling.
(e)Racial or identity profiling, for purposes of this section, is the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.
(f)A peace officer shall not engage in racial or identity profiling.
(g)Every peace officer in this state shall participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training.
(h)The curriculum shall be evidence-based and shall include and examine evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that make up racial or identity profiling, including implicit bias. This training shall prescribe evidenced-based patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial or identity profiling. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board established pursuant to subdivision (j). The course of instruction shall include, but not be limited to, significant consideration of each of the following subjects:
(1)Identification of key indices and perspectives that make up racial, identity, and cultural differences among residents in a local community.
(2)Negative impact of intentional and implicit biases, prejudices, and stereotyping on effective law enforcement, including examination of how historical perceptions of discriminatory enforcement practices have harmed police-community relations and contributed to injury, death, disparities in arrest detention and incarceration rights, and wrongful convictions.
(3)The history and role of the civil and human rights movement and struggles and their impact on law enforcement.
(4)Specific obligations of peace officers in preventing, reporting, and responding to discriminatory or biased practices by fellow peace officers.
(5)Perspectives of diverse, local constituency groups and experts on particular racial, identity, and cultural and police-community relations issues in a local area.
(6)The prohibition against racial or identity profiling in subdivision (f).
(i)Once the initial basic training is completed, each peace officer in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 who adheres to the standards approved by the commission shall be required to complete a refresher course every five years thereafter, or on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity, and cultural trends.
(j)(1)Beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General shall establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.
(2)RIPA shall include the following members:
(A)The Attorney General, or his or her designee.
(B)The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or his or her designee.
(C)The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or his or her designee.
(D)The President of California State Sheriffs Association, or his or her designee.
(E)The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or his or her designee.
(F)The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, or his or her designee.
(G)A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity.
(H)Two representatives of human or civil rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil or human rights.
(I)Two representatives of community organizations who specialize in civil or human rights and criminal justice, and work with victims of racial and identity profiling. At least one representative shall be between 16 and 24 years of age.
(J)Two religious clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups.
(K)Up to two other members that the Governor may prescribe.
(L)Up to two other members that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate may prescribe.
(M)Up to two other members that the Speaker of the Assembly may prescribe.
(3)Each year, on an annual basis, RIPA shall do the following:
(A)Analyze the data reported pursuant to Section 12525.5 of the Government Code and Section 13012 of the Penal Code.
(B)Analyze law enforcement training under this section.
(C)Work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices across geographic areas in California.
(D)Conduct, and consult available, evidence-based research on intentional and implicit biases, and law enforcement stop, search, and seizure tactics.
(E)Issue a report that provides RIPAs analysis under subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, detailed findings on the past and current status of racial and identity profiling, and makes policy recommendations for eliminating racial and identity profiling. RIPA shall post the report on its Internet Web site. Each report shall include disaggregated statistical data for each reporting law enforcement agency. The report shall include, at minimum, each reporting law enforcement agencys total results for each data collection criteria under subdivision (b) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code for each calendar year. The reports shall be retained and made available to the public by posting those reports on the Department of Justices Internet Web site. The first annual report shall be issued no later than January 1, 2018. The reports are public records within the meaning of subdivision (d) of Section 6252 of the Government Code and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253, 6256, 6257, and 6258 of the Government Code.
(F)Hold at least three public meetings annually to discuss racial and identity profiling, and potential reforms to prevent racial and identity profiling. Each year, one meeting shall be held in northern California, one in central California, and one in southern California. RIPA shall provide the public with notice of at least 60 days before each meeting.
(4)Pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code, RIPA shall advise the Attorney General in developing regulations for the collection and reporting of stop data, and ensuring uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies.
(5)Members of RIPA shall not receive compensation, nor per diem expenses, for their services as members of RIPA.
(6)No action of RIPA shall be valid unless agreed to by a majority of its members.
(7)The initial terms of RIPA members shall be four years.
(8)Each year, RIPA shall elect two of its members as cochairpersons.
SEC. 5.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)(1)Each state and local agency that employs peace officers shall annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops conducted by that agencys peace officers for the preceding calendar year.
(2)Each agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2019. Each agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2020. Each agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2022. Each agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2023.
(b)The reporting shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each stop:
(1)The time, date, and location of the stop.
(2)The reason for the stop.
(3)The result of the stop, such as, no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest.
(4)If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited.
(5)If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
(6)The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. For motor vehicle stops, this paragraph only applies to the driver, unless any actions specified under paragraph (7) apply in relation to a passenger, in which case the characteristics specified in this paragraph shall also be reported for him or her.
(7)Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A)Whether the peace officer asked for consent to search the person, and, if so, whether consent was provided.
(B)Whether the peace officer searched the person or any property, and, if so, the basis for the search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any.
(C)Whether the peace officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing the property.
(c)If more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer is required to collect and report to his or her agency the information specified under subdivision (b).
(d)State and local law enforcement agencies shall not report the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure, for purposes of this section. Notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be available to the public, except for the badge number or other unique identifying information of the peace officer involved, which shall be released to the public only to the extent the release is permissible under state law.
(e)Not later than January 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data required under subdivision (b). The regulations shall specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies. To the best extent possible, such regulations should be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
(f)All data and reports made pursuant to this section are public records within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 6252, and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253 and 6258.
(g)(1)For purposes of this section, peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, is limited to members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency, and California state or university educational institutions. Peace officer, as used in this section, does not include probation officers and officers in a custodial setting.
(2)For purposes of this section, stop means any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the persons body or property in the persons possession or control.
SEC. 3.Section 13012 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13012.(a)The annual report of the department provided for in Section 13010 shall contain statistics showing all of the following:
(1)The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities.
(2)The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents.
(3)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents.
(4)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court.
(5)(A)The total number of each of the following:
(i)Citizen complaints received by law enforcement agencies under Section 832.5.
(ii)Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor.
(iii)Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 13519.4. These statistics shall be disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged, such as based on a consideration of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.
(B)The statistics reported under this paragraph shall provide, for each category of complaint identified under subparagraph (A), the number of complaints within each of the following disposition categories:
(i)Sustained, which means that the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the truth of allegation in the complaint by preponderance of evidence.
(ii)Exonerated, which means that the investigation clearly established that the actions of the personnel that formed the basis of the complaint are not a violation of law or agency policy.
(iii)Not sustained, which means that the investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation in the complaint.
(iv)Unfounded, which means that the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true.
(C)The reports under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be made available to the public and disaggregated for each individual law enforcement agency.
(b)It shall be the duty of the department to give adequate interpretation of the statistics and so to present the information that it may be of value in guiding the policies of the Legislature and of those in charge of the apprehension, prosecution, and treatment of the criminals and delinquents, or concerned with the prevention of crime and delinquency. The report shall also include statistics which are comparable with national uniform criminal statistics published by federal bureaus or departments heretofore mentioned.
(c)Each year, on an annual basis, the Racial and Identity Profiling Board (RIPA), established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4, shall analyze the statistics reported pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of this section. RIPAs analysis of the complaints shall be incorporated into its annual report as required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4. The reports shall not disclose the identity of peace officers.
SEC. 4.Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13519.4.(a)The commission shall develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all peace officers in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 and who adhere to the standards approved by the commission, on the racial and cultural differences among the residents of this state. The course or courses of instruction and the guidelines shall stress understanding and respect for racial, identity, and cultural differences, and development of effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a diverse racial, identity, and cultural environment.
(b)The course of basic training for peace officers shall include adequate instruction on racial, identity, and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial, identity, and cultural groups. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of racial, identity, and cultural awareness and diversity.
(c)For the purposes of this section the following shall apply:
(1)Disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation have the same meaning as in Section 422.55.
(2)Culturally diverse and cultural diversity include, but are not limited to, disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation issues.
(3)Racial has the same meaning as race or ethnicity in Section 422.55.
(4)Stop has the same meaning as in paragraph (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code.
(d)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)The working men and women in California law enforcement risk their lives every day. The people of California greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication of peace officers in protecting public safety. The good name of these officers should not be tarnished by the actions of those few who commit discriminatory practices.
(2)Racial or identity profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution and a democratic society. It is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.
(3)Racial or identity profiling alienates people from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people whom law enforcement is sworn to protect and serve.
(4)Pedestrians, users of public transportation, and vehicular occupants who have been stopped, searched, interrogated, and subjected to a property seizure by a peace officer for no reason other than the color of their skin, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability are the victims of discriminatory practices.
(5)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the changes to this section made by the act that added this paragraph that additional training is required to address the pernicious practice of racial or identity profiling and that enactment of this section is in no way dispositive of the issue of how the state should deal with racial or identity profiling.
(e)Racial or identity profiling, for purposes of this section, is the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.
(f)A peace officer shall not engage in racial or identity profiling.
(g)Every peace officer in this state shall participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training.
(h)The curriculum shall be evidence-based and shall include and examine evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that make up racial or identity profiling, including implicit bias. This training shall prescribe evidenced-based patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial or identity profiling. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board established pursuant to subdivision (j). The course of instruction shall include, but not be limited to, significant consideration of each of the following subjects:
(1)Identification of key indices and perspectives that make up racial, identity, and cultural differences among residents in a local community.
(2)Negative impact of intentional and implicit biases, prejudices, and stereotyping on effective law enforcement, including examination of how historical perceptions of discriminatory enforcement practices have harmed police-community relations and contributed to injury, death, disparities in arrest detention and incarceration rights, and wrongful convictions.
(3)The history and role of the civil and human rights movement and struggles and their impact on law enforcement.
(4)Specific obligations of peace officers in preventing, reporting, and responding to discriminatory or biased practices by fellow peace officers.
(5)Perspectives of diverse, local constituency groups and experts on particular racial, identity, and cultural and police-community relations issues in a local area.
(6)The prohibition against racial or identity profiling in subdivision (f).
(i)Once the initial basic training is completed, each peace officer in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 who adheres to the standards approved by the commission shall be required to complete a refresher course every five years thereafter, or on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity, and cultural trends.
(j)(1)Beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General shall establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.
(2)RIPA shall include the following members:
(A)The Attorney General, or his or her designee.
(B)The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or his or her designee.
(C)The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or his or her designee.
(D)The President of California State Sheriffs Association, or his or her designee.
(E)The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or his or her designee.
(F)The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, or his or her designee.
(G)A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity.
(H)Two representatives of human or civil rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil or human rights.
(I)Two representatives of community organizations who specialize in civil or human rights and criminal justice, and work with victims of racial and identity profiling. At least one representative shall be between 16 and 24 years of age.
(J)Two religious clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups.
(K)Up to two other members that the Governor may prescribe.
(L)Up to two other members that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate may prescribe.
(M)Up to two other members that the Speaker of the Assembly may prescribe.
(3)Each year, on an annual basis, RIPA shall do the following:
(A)Analyze the data reported pursuant to Section 12525.5 of the Government Code and Section 13012 of the Penal Code.
(B)Analyze law enforcement training under this section.
(C)Work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices across geographic areas in California.
(D)Conduct, and consult available, evidence-based research on intentional and implicit biases, and law enforcement stop, search, and seizure tactics.
(E)Issue a report that provides RIPAs analysis under subparagraphs (A) to (D), inclusive, detailed findings on the past and current status of racial and identity profiling, and makes policy recommendations for eliminating racial and identity profiling. RIPA shall post the report on its Internet Web site. Each report shall include disaggregated statistical data for each reporting law enforcement agency. The report shall include, at minimum, each reporting law enforcement agencys total results for each data collection criteria under subdivision (b) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code for each calendar year. The reports shall be retained and made available to the public by posting those reports on the Department of Justices Internet Web site. The first annual report shall be issued no later than January 1, 2018. The reports are public records within the meaning of subdivision (d) of Section 6252 of the Government Code and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253, 6256, 6257, and 6258 of the Government Code.
(F)Hold at least three public meetings annually to discuss racial and identity profiling, and potential reforms to prevent racial and identity profiling. Each year, one meeting shall be held in northern California, one in central California, and one in southern California. RIPA shall provide the public with notice of at least 60 days before each meeting.
(4)Pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code, RIPA shall advise the Attorney General in developing regulations for the collection and reporting of stop data, and ensuring uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies.
(5)Members of RIPA shall not receive compensation, nor per diem expenses, for their services as members of RIPA.
(6)No action of RIPA shall be valid unless agreed to by a majority of its members.
(7)The initial terms of RIPA members shall be four years.
(8)Each year, RIPA shall elect two of its members as cochairpersons.
SEC. 5.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)(1)Each state and local agency that employs peace officers shall annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops, as defined in subdivision (j), stops conducted by that agencys peace officers for the preceding calendar year. Each agencys annual report shall be submitted to the Attorney General no later than March 1 of the following calendar year. The first round of the annual reports shall be issued on or before March 1, 2018.
(2)Each agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2019. Each agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2020. Each agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2022. Each agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2023.
(b)The reporting shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each stop:
(1)The time, date, and location of the stop.
(2)The reason for the stop.
(3)The result of the stop, such as, no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest.
(4)If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited.
(5)If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
(6)The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. For motor vehicle stops, this paragraph only applies to the driver, unless any actions specified under paragraph (7) apply in relation to a passenger, in which case the characteristics specified in this paragraph shall also be reported for him or her.
(7)Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A)Whether the peace officer asked for consent to search the person, and, if so, whether consent was provided.
(B)Whether the peace officer searched the person or any property, and, if so, the basis for the search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any.
(C)Whether the peace officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing the property.
(c)If more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer is required to collect and report to his or her agency the information specified under subdivision (b).
(d)State and local law enforcement agencies shall not report the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure, for purposes of this section. Notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be available to the public, except for the badge number or other unique identifying information of the peace officer involved, which shall be released to the public only to the extent the release is permissible under state law.
(e)Not later than January 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data required under subdivision (b). The regulations shall specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies. To the best extent possible, such regulations should be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
(f)Each year, on an annual basis, each state and local law enforcement agency shall make publicly available a report that lists the agencys total results for each data collection criteria required under subdivision (b). The reports shall include the data collected during the preceding calendar year. The first round of the annual reports shall be issued by each agency on or before July 1, 2018. The Attorney General, in consultation with RIPA, shall determine the form in which agencies make the information publicly available. Each state and local law enforcement agency shall post the reports on the Internet Web site for that agency, or, if an agency does not have an Internet Web site, the Department of Justice shall post the agencys reports on its Internet Web site.
(g)Data reported pursuant to this section shall be retained by the reporting agency for a minimum of five years.
(h)Each year, on an annual basis, the Attorney General shall analyze the data collected. The Attorney General shall report its findings from the first analysis by January 1, 2019, and shall issue reports on the first day of each January thereafter. The reports shall be available to the public by posting those reports on the Department of Justices Internet Web site.
(i)
(f)All data and reports made pursuant to this section are public records within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 6252, and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253 and 6258.
(j)
(g)(1)For purposes of this section, peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, is limited to members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency, and California state or university educational institutions. Peace officer, as used in this section, does not include probation officers and officers in a custodial setting.
(2)For purposes of this section, stop means any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the persons body or property in the persons possession or control.
SEC. 3.Section 13012 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13012.(a)The annual report of the department provided for in Section 13010 shall contain statistics showing all of the following:
(1)The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities.
(2)The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents.
(3)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents.
(4)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court.
(5)(A)The total number of each of the following:
(i)Citizen complaints received by law enforcement agencies under Section 832.5.
(ii)Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor.
(iii)Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 13519.4. These statistics shall be disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged, such as based on a consideration of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.
(B)The statistics reported under this paragraph shall provide, for each category of complaint identified under subparagraph (A), the number of complaints within each of the following disposition categories:
(i)Sustained, which means that the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the truth of allegation in the complaint by preponderance of evidence.
(ii)Exonerated, which means that the investigation clearly established that the actions of the personnel that formed the basis of the complaint are not a violation of law or agency policy.
(iii)Not sustained, which means that the investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation in the complaint.
(iv)Unfounded, which means that the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true.
(C)The reports under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be made available to the public and disaggregated for each individual law enforcement agency.
(b)It shall be the duty of the department to give adequate interpretation of the statistics and so to present the information that it may be of value in guiding the policies of the Legislature and of those in charge of the apprehension, prosecution, and treatment of the criminals and delinquents, or concerned with the prevention of crime and delinquency. The report shall also include statistics which are comparable with national uniform criminal statistics published by federal bureaus or departments heretofore mentioned.
(c)Each year, on an annual basis, the Racial and Identity Profiling Board (RIPA), established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4, shall analyze the statistics reported pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of this section. RIPAs analysis of the complaints shall be incorporated into its annual report as required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4. The reports shall not disclose the identity of peace officers.
SEC. 4.Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13519.4.(a)The commission shall develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all peace officers in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 and who adhere to the standards approved by the commission, on the racial and cultural differences among the residents of this state. The course or courses of instruction and the guidelines shall stress understanding and respect for racial, identity, and cultural differences, and development of effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a diverse racial, identity, and cultural environment.
(b)The course of basic training for peace officers shall include adequate instruction on racial, identity, and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial, identity, and cultural groups. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of racial, identity, and cultural awareness and diversity.
(c)For the purposes of this section the following shall apply:
(1)Disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation have the same meaning as in Section 422.55.
(2)Culturally diverse and cultural diversity include, but are not limited to, disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation issues.
(3)Racial has the same meaning as race or ethnicity in Section 422.55.
(4)Stop has the same meaning as in paragraph (2) of subdivision (j) (g) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code.
(d)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)The working men and women in California law enforcement risk their lives every day. The people of California greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication of peace officers in protecting public safety. The good name of these officers should not be tarnished by the actions of those few who commit discriminatory practices.
(2)Racial or identity profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution and a democratic society. It is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.
(3)Racial or identity profiling alienates people from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people whom law enforcement is sworn to protect and serve.
(4)Pedestrians, users of public transportation, and vehicular occupants who have been stopped, searched, interrogated, and subjected to a property seizure by a peace officer for no reason other than the color of their skin, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability are the victims of discriminatory practices.
(5)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the changes to this section made by the act that added this paragraph that additional training is required to address the pernicious practice of racial or identity profiling and that enactment of this section is in no way dispositive of the issue of how the state should deal with racial or identity profiling.
(e)Racial or identity profiling, for purposes of this section, is the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.
(f)A peace officer shall not engage in racial or identity profiling.
(g)Every peace officer in this state shall participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training.
(h)The curriculum shall be evidence-based and shall include and examine evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that make up racial or identity profiling, including implicit bias. This training shall prescribe evidenced-based patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial or identity profiling. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board established pursuant to subdivision (j). The course of instruction shall include, but not be limited to, significant consideration of each of the following subjects:
(1)Identification of key indices and perspectives that make up racial, identity, and cultural differences among residents in a local community.
(2)Negative impact of intentional and implicit biases, prejudices, and stereotyping on effective law enforcement, including examination of how historical perceptions of discriminatory enforcement practices have harmed police-community relations and contributed to injury, death, disparities in arrest detention and incarceration rights, and wrongful convictions.
(3)The history and role of the civil and human rights movement and struggles and their impact on law enforcement.
(4)Specific obligations of peace officers in preventing, reporting, and responding to discriminatory or biased practices by fellow peace officers.
(5)Perspectives of diverse, local constituency groups and experts on particular racial, identity, and cultural and police-community relations issues in a local area.
(6)The prohibition against racial or identity profiling in subdivision (f).
(i)Once the initial basic training is completed, each peace officer in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 who adheres to the standards approved by the commission shall be required to complete a refresher course every five years thereafter, or on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity, and cultural trends. In addition to any remedies provided in law or equity, any peace officer who is the subject of a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained shall participate in training to correct racial or identity profiling at least every six months for two years, starting from the date a complaint is found to have been sustained.
(j)(1)Beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General shall establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.
(2)RIPA shall include the following members:
(A)The Attorney General, or his or her designee.
(B)The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or his or her designee.
(C)The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or his or her designee.
(D)The President of California State Sheriffs Association, or his or her designee.
(E)The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or his or her designee.
(F)The Commissioner of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Highway Patrol, or his or her designee.
(G)The Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, or his or her designee.
(H)The Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, or his or her designee.
(I)The Chair of the California Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, or his or her designee.
(J)The Chair of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus, or his or her designee.
(K)
(G)A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity.
(L)
(H)Two representatives of human or civil rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil or human rights.
(M)
(I)Two representatives of community organizations who specialize in civil or human rights and criminal justice, and work with victims of racial and identity profiling. At least one representative shall be between 16 and 24 years of age.
(N)
(J)Two religious clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups.
(O)
(K)Up to two other members that the Attorney General Governor may prescribe.
(L)Up to two other members that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate may prescribe.
(M)Up to two other members that the Speaker of the Assembly may prescribe.
(3)Each year, on an annual basis, RIPA shall do the following:
(A)Analyze the data reported pursuant to Section 12525.5 of the Government Code and Section 13012 of the Penal Code.
(B)Analyze law enforcement training under this section.
(C)Work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices. practices across geographic areas in California.
(D)Conduct, and consult available, evidence-based research on intentional and implicit biases, and law enforcement stop, search, and seizure tactics.
(D)
(E)Issue a report that provides RIPAs analysis under subparagraphs (A) to (C), (D), inclusive, detailed findings on the past and current status of racial and identity profiling, and makes policy recommendations for eliminating racial and identity profiling. RIPA shall post the report on its Internet Web site. Each report shall include disaggregated statistical data for each reporting law enforcement agency. The report shall include, at minimum, each reporting law enforcement agencys total results for each data collection criteria under subdivision (b) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code for each calendar year. The reports shall be retained and made available to the public by posting those reports on the Department of Justices Internet Web site. The first annual report shall be issued no later than January 1, 2018. The reports are public records within the meaning of subdivision (d) of Section 6252 of the Government Code and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253, 6256, 6257, and 6258 of the Government Code.
(E)
(F)Hold at least three public meetings annually to discuss racial and identity profiling, and potential reforms to correct prevent racial and identity profiling. Each year, one meeting shall be held in northern California, one in central California, and one in southern California. RIPA shall provide the public with notice of at least 60 days prior to before each meeting.
(4)Pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code, RIPA shall advise the Attorney General in developing regulations for the collection and reporting of stop data, and ensuring uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies.
(5)Members of RIPA shall not receive compensation, nor per diem expenses, for their services as members of RIPA.
(6)No action of RIPA shall be valid unless agreed to by a majority of its members.
(7)The initial terms of RIPA members shall be four years.
(8)Each year, RIPA shall elect two of its members as cochairpersons.
SEC. 5.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)Each state and local agency that employs peace officers shall annually report to the Attorney General data on all stops, as defined in subdivision (j), conducted by that agencys peace officers for the preceding calendar year. Each agencys annual report shall be submitted to the Attorney General no later than March 1 of the following calendar year. The first round of the annual reports shall be issued on or before March 1, 2018.
(b)The reporting shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each stop:
(1)The time, date, and location of the stop.
(2)The reason for the stop.
(3)The result of the stop, such as, no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest.
(4)If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited.
(5)If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
(6)The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. For motor vehicle stops, this paragraph only applies to the driver, unless any actions specified under paragraph (7) apply in relation to a passenger, in which case the characteristics specified in this paragraph shall also be reported for him or her.
(7)Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A)Whether the peace officer asked for consent to search the person, and, if so, whether consent was provided.
(B)Whether the peace officer searched the person or any property, and and, if so so, the basis for the search, search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any.
(C)Whether the peace officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing the property.
(c)If more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer is required to collect and report to his or her agency the information specified under subdivision (b).
(d)State and local law enforcement agencies shall not report the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure, for purposes of this section. Notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be available to the public, except for the badge number or other unique identifying information of the peace officer involved, which shall be released to the public only to the extent the release is permissible under state law.
(e)Not later than January 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data required under subdivision (b). The regulations shall specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies. To the best extent possible, such regulations should be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
(f)Each year, on an annual basis, each state and local law enforcement agency shall make publicly available a report that lists the agencys total results for each data collection criteria required under subdivision (b). The reports shall include the data collected during the preceding calendar year. The first round of the annual reports shall be issued by each agency on or before July 1, 2018. The Attorney General, in consultation with RIPA, shall determine the form in which agencies make the information publicly available. Each state and local law enforcement agency shall post the reports on the Internet Web site for that agency, or, if an agency does not have an Internet Web site, the Department of Justice shall post the agencys reports on its Internet Web site.
(g)Data reported pursuant to this section shall be retained by the reporting agency for a minimum of five years.
(h)Each year, on an annual basis, the Attorney General shall analyze the data collected. The Attorney General shall report its findings from the first analysis by January 1, 2019, and shall issue reports on the first day of each January thereafter. The reports shall be available to the public by posting those reports on the Department of Justices Internet Web site.
(i)All data and reports made pursuant to this section are public records within the meaning of subdivision (e) of Section 6252, and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253 and 6258.
(j)(1)For purposes of this section, peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, is limited to members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency, except probation officers and officers in a custodial setting, agency, and California state or university educational institutions. Peace officer, as used in this section, does not include probation officers and officers in a custodial setting.
(2)For purposes of this section, stop means any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the persons body or property in the persons possession or control.
SEC. 3.Section 13012 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13012.(a)The annual report of the department provided for in Section 13010 shall contain statistics showing all of the following:
(1)The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities.
(2)The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents.
(3)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents.
(4)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court.
(5)(A)The total number of each of the following:
(i)Citizen complaints received by law enforcement agencies under Section 832.5.
(ii)Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor.
(iii)Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 13519.4. These statistics shall be disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged, such as based on a consideration of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.
(B)The statistics reported under this paragraph shall provide, for each category of complaint identified under subparagraph (A), the number of complaints within each of the following disposition categories:
(i)Sustained, which means that the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the truth of allegation in the complaint by preponderance of evidence.
(ii)Exonerated, which means that the investigation clearly established that the actions of the personnel that formed the basis of the complaint are not a violation of law or agency policy.
(iii)Not sustained, which means that the investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation in the complaint.
(iv)Unfounded, which means that the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true.
(C)The reports under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be made available to the public and disaggregated for each individual law enforcement agency.
(b)It shall be the duty of the department to give adequate interpretation of the statistics and so to present the information that it may be of value in guiding the policies of the Legislature and of those in charge of the apprehension, prosecution, and treatment of the criminals and delinquents, or concerned with the prevention of crime and delinquency. The report shall also include statistics which are comparable with national uniform criminal statistics published by federal bureaus or departments heretofore mentioned.
(c)Each year, on an annual basis, the Racial and Identity Profiling Board (RIPA), established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4, shall analyze the statistics reported pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of this section. RIPAs analysis of the complaints shall be incorporated into its annual report as required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4. The reports shall not disclose the identity of peace officers.
SEC. 4.Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13519.4.(a)The commission shall develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all peace officers in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 and who adhere to the standards approved by the commission, on the racial and cultural differences among the residents of this state. The course or courses of instruction and the guidelines shall stress understanding and respect for racial, identity, and cultural differences, and development of effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a diverse racial, identity, and cultural environment.
(b)The course of basic training for peace officers shall include adequate instruction on racial, identity, and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial, identity, and cultural groups. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of racial, identity, and cultural awareness and diversity.
(c)For the purposes of this section the following shall apply:
(1)Disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation have the same meaning as in Section 422.55.
(2)Culturally diverse and cultural diversity include, but are not limited to, disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation issues.
(3)Racial has the same meaning as race or ethnicity in Section 422.55.
(4)Stop has the same meaning as in paragraph (2) of subdivision (j) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code.
(d)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)The working men and women in California law enforcement risk their lives every day. The people of California greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication of peace officers in protecting public safety. The good name of these officers should not be tarnished by the actions of those few who commit discriminatory practices.
(2)Racial or identity profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution and a democratic society. It is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.
(3)Racial or identity profiling alienates people from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people whom law enforcement is sworn to protect and serve.
(4)Pedestrians, users of public transportation, and vehicular occupants who have been stopped, searched, interrogated, and subjected to a property seizure by a peace officer for no reason other than the color of their skin, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability are the victims of discriminatory practices.
(5)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the changes to this section made by the act that added this paragraph that additional training is required to address the pernicious practice of racial or identity profiling and that enactment of this section is in no way dispositive of the issue of how the state should deal with racial or identity profiling.
(e)Racial or identity profiling, for purposes of this section, is the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop. stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.
(f)A peace officer shall not engage in racial or identity profiling.
(g)Every peace officer in this state shall participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training.
(h)The curriculum shall be evidence-based and shall include and examine evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that make up racial or identity profiling, including implicit bias. This training shall prescribe evidenced-based patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial or identity profiling. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board established pursuant to subdivision (j). The course of instruction shall include, but not be limited to, significant consideration of each of the following subjects:
(1)Identification of key indices and perspectives that make up racial, identity, and cultural differences among residents in a local community.
(2)Negative impact of intentional and implicit biases, prejudices, and stereotyping on effective law enforcement, including examination of how historical perceptions of discriminatory enforcement practices have harmed police-community relations and contributed to injury, death, disparities in arrest detention and incarceration rights, and wrongful convictions.
(3)The history and role of the civil and human rights movement and struggles and their impact on law enforcement.
(4)Specific obligations of peace officers in preventing, reporting, and responding to discriminatory or biased practices by fellow peace officers.
(5)Perspectives of diverse, local constituency groups and experts on particular racial, identity, and cultural and police-community relations issues in a local area.
(6)The prohibition against racial or identity profiling in subdivision (f).
(i)Once the initial basic training is completed, each peace officer in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 who adheres to the standards approved by the commission shall be required to complete a refresher course every five years thereafter, or on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity, and cultural trends. In addition to any remedies provided in law or equity, any peace officer who is the subject of a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained shall participate in training to correct racial or identity profiling at least every six months for two years, starting from the date a complaint is found to have been sustained.
(j)(1)Beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General shall establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.
(2)RIPA shall include the following members:
(A)The Attorney General, or his or her designee.
(B)The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or his or her designee.
(C)The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or his or her designee.
(D)The President of California State Sheriffs Association, or his or her designee.
(E)The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or his or her designee.
(F)The President Commissioner of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, or his or her designee.
(G)The Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, or his or her designee.
(H)The Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, or his or her designee.
(I)The Chair of the California Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, or his or her designee.
(J)The Chair of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus, or his or her designee.
(K)A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity.
(L)Two representatives of human or civil rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil or human rights.
(M)Two representatives of community organizations who specialize in civil or human rights and criminal justice, and work with victims of racial and identity profiling.
(N)Two religious clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups.
(O)Up to two other members that the Attorney General may prescribe.
(3)Each year, on an annual basis, RIPA shall do the following:
(A)Analyze the data reported pursuant to Section 12525.5 of the Government Code and Section 13012 of the Penal Code.
(B)Analyze law enforcement training under Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code. this section.
(C)Work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices.
(D)Issue a report that provides RIPAs analysis under subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, detailed findings on the past and current status of racial and identity profiling, and makes recommendations for eliminating racial and identity profiling. RIPA shall post the report on its Internet Web site. The first annual report shall be issued no later than January 1, 2018. The reports are public records within the meaning of subdivision (d) of Section 6252 of the Government Code and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253, 6256, 6257, and 6258 of the Government Code.
(E)Hold at least three public meetings annually to discuss racial and identity profiling, and potential reforms to correct racial and identity profiling. Each year, one meeting shall be held in northern California, one in central California, and one in southern California. RIPA shall provide the public with notice at least 60 days prior to each meeting.
SEC. 5.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)On and after July 1, 2017, each Each state and local agency that employs peace officers shall annually report to the Attorney General, on at least a quarterly basis, General data on all traffic, public transportation, and pedestrian stops stops, as defined in subdivision (j), conducted by that agencys peace officers. officers for the preceding calendar year. Each agencys annual report shall be submitted to the Attorney General no later than March 1 of the following calendar year. The first round of the annual reports shall be issued on or before March 1, 2018.
(b)The data collection and reporting shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each stop, search, or seizure: stop:
(1)The time, date, and location of the stop, search, or seizure. stop.
(2)The characteristics of each peace officer involved in the stop, including, but not limited to, his or her badge or identification number, race or ethnicity, gender, age, assignment, division or station, and shift, and whether he or she was in uniform.
(3)
(2)The basis reason for the stop, including, but not limited to, the offense suspected, and whether the action was initiated in response to a call for service, and, if the action was initiated in response to a call for services, the incident identifier. stop.
(4)
(3)The result of the stop, such as stop, such as, no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest.
(5)
(4)If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited. warning provided or violation cited.
(6)
(5)If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
(7)
(6)A description of all persons detained during the stop. The description The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped, unless otherwise required by law. The description shall include, but not be limited to: stopped. For motor vehicle stops, this paragraph only applies to the driver, unless any actions specified under paragraph (7) apply in relation to a passenger, in which case the characteristics specified in this paragraph shall also be reported for him or her.
(A)The number of persons stopped.
(B)The race or ethnicity, gender, and age of all persons stopped.
(C)The sexual orientation and religious affiliation, if any was perceived.
(D)Whether the person stopped had limited English proficiency.
(E)Any mental or physical disability of a person stopped.
(F)Whether the peace officer previously stopped the person.
(G)For traffic stops, whether the person was a driver or passenger.
(8)
(7)Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A)Whether the peace officer asked for consent to frisk or search any the person, and and, if so, whether consent was provided.
(B)Whether the peace officer searched any the person or any property, and if so, which persons were searched and what property was searched, so the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any.
(C)Whether the peace officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, the person from whom the property was seized, seized and the basis for seizing the property.
(9)Whether the peace officer used force during the encounter, and if so, the type of force used and reason for using the force.
(A)A description of any person upon whom force was used.
(B)The description required pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer who used force, and the information shall not have been obtained by requesting it from the person upon whom force was used, unless otherwise required by law. The description shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(i)The race or ethnicity, gender, and age of the person.
(ii)The sexual orientation and religious affiliation of the person, if any was perceived.
(iii)Whether the person had limited English proficiency.
(iv)Any perceived mental or physical disability or preexisting injury or medical condition of the person.
(v)Whether the person was homeless.
(10)Whether any other governmental or nongovernmental agency or service provider was called to respond to the scene, and if so, what agency or service provider, and the reason the agency or service provider was called to respond.
(11)Whether any person sustained any injuries during the encounter, and if so, which person, and the nature of the injuries and medical treatment provided, if any.
(c)If more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer is required to collect and report to his or her agency the information specified under subdivision (b).
(c)
(d)State and local law enforcement agencies shall not report the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure, for purposes of this section. Notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be available to the public, except for the badge number or other unique identifying information of the peace officer involved, which shall be released to the public only to the extent the release is permissible under state law.
(d)
(e)Not later than January 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including including the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data required under subdivision (b). The regulations shall specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies. To the best extent possible, such regulations should be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
(e)
(f)Each year, on an annual basis, each state and local law enforcement agency shall make publicly available a report that lists the agencys total results for each data collection criteria required under subdivision (b). The reports shall include the data collected during the preceding calendar year. The first round of the annual reports shall be issued by each agency on or before July 1, 2018. The Attorney General, in consultation with RIPA, shall determine the form in which agencies make the information publicly available. Each state and local law enforcement agency shall post the reports on the Internet Web site for that agency, or or, if an agency does not have an Internet Web site, the Department of Justice shall post the agencys reports on its Internet Web site.
(f)
(g)Data reported pursuant to this section shall be retained by the reporting agency for a minimum of five years.
(g)
(h)Each year, on an annual basis, the Attorney General shall analyze the data collected. The Attorney General shall report its findings from the first analysis by July 1, 2018, January 1, 2019, and shall issue reports on the first day of each July January thereafter. The reports shall be available to the public by posting those reports on the Department of Justices Internet Web site.
(h)
(i)All data and reports made pursuant to this section are public records within the meaning of subdivision (d) (e) of Section 6252, and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253, 6256, 6257, 6253 and 6258.
(j)(1)For purposes of this section, peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, is limited to members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency, except probation officers and officers in a custodial setting, and California state or university educational institutions.
(2)For purposes of this section, stop means any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the persons body or property in the persons possession or control.
SEC. 2.SEC. 3.Section 13012 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13012.(a)The annual report of the department provided for in Section 13010 shall contain statistics showing all of the following:
(1)The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities.
(2)The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents.
(3)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents.
(4)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court.
(5)(A)The total number of each of the following:
(i)Citizens Citizen complaints received by law enforcement agencies under Section 832.5.
(ii)Citizens Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor.
(iii)Citizens Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 13519.4. These statistics shall be disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged, such as based on a consideration of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.
(B)The statistics reported under this paragraph shall provide, for each category of category of complaint identified under subparagraph (A), the number of complaints within each of the following disposition categories:
(i)Sustained, which means that the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the truth of allegation in the complaint by preponderance of evidence.
(ii)Exonerated, which means that the investigation clearly established that the action actions of the personnel that formed the basis of the complaint are not a violation of law or agency policy.
(iii)Not sustained, which means that the investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation in the complaint.
(iv)Unfounded, which means that the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true.
(C)The reports under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be made available to the public and disaggregated for each individual law enforcement agency.
(b)It shall be the duty of the department to give adequate interpretation of the statistics and so to present the information that it may be of value in guiding the policies of the Legislature and of those in charge of the apprehension, prosecution, and treatment of the criminals and delinquents, or concerned with the prevention of crime and delinquency. The report shall also include statistics which are comparable with national uniform criminal statistics published by federal bureaus or departments heretofore mentioned.
(c)Each year, on an annual basis, the Racial and Identity Profiling Board (RIPA), established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4, shall analyze the statistics reported pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 13012. this section. RIPAs analysis of the complaints shall be incorporated into its annual report as required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4. The reports shall not disclose the identity of peace officers.
(d)Not later than July 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including RIPA, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, university academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the reporting of information pursuant to this section.
SEC. 3.SEC. 4.Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13519.4.(a)The commission shall develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all peace officers in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 and who adhere to the standards approved by the commission, on the racial and cultural differences among the residents of this state. The course or courses of instruction and the guidelines shall stress understanding and respect for racial, identity, and cultural differences, and development of effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a diverse racial, identity, and cultural environment.
(b)The course of basic training for peace officers shall include adequate instruction on racial, identity, and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial, identity, and cultural groups. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of racial, identity, and cultural awareness and diversity.
(c)For the purposes of this section the following shall apply:
(1)Disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation have the same meaning as in Section 422.55.
(2)Culturally diverse and cultural diversity include, but are not limited to, disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation issues.
(3)Racial has the same meaning as race or ethnicity in Section 422.55.
(4)Stop has the same meaning as in paragraph (2) of subdivision (j) of Section 12525.5 of the Government Code.
(d)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)The working men and women in California law enforcement risk their lives every day. The people of California greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication of peace officers in protecting public safety. The good name of these officers should not be tarnished by the actions of those few who commit discriminatory practices.
(2)Racial or identity profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution and a democratic society. It is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.
(3)Racial or identity profiling alienates people from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people whom law enforcement is sworn to protect and serve.
(4)Pedestrians, users of public transportation, and vehicular occupants who have been stopped, searched, interrogated, and subjected to a property seizure by a peace officer for no reason other than the color of their skin, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability are the victims of discriminatory practices.
(5)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the changes to this section made by the act that added this paragraph that more than additional training is required to address the pernicious practice of racial or identity profiling and that enactment of this section is in no way dispositive of the issue of how the state should deal with racial or identity profiling.
(e)Racial or identity profiling, for purposes of this section, is the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to officer activities following an initial contact. a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.
(f)A peace officer shall not engage in racial or identity profiling.
(g)Every peace officer in this state shall participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training.
(h)The curriculum shall utilize the Tools for Tolerance for Law Enforcement Professionals framework be evidence-based and shall include and examine evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that make up racial or identity profiling, including implicit bias. This training shall prescribe evidenced-based patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial or identity profiling. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board established pursuant to subdivision (j). The course of instruction shall include, but not be limited to, significant consideration of each of the following subjects:
(1)Identification of key indices and perspectives that make up racial, identity, and cultural differences among residents in a local community.
(2)Negative impact of intentional and implicit biases, prejudices, and stereotyping on effective law enforcement, including examination of how historical perceptions of discriminatory enforcement practices have harmed police-community relations and contributed to injury, death, disparities in arrest, detention and incarceration rights, and wrongful convictions.
(3)The history and role of the civil and human rights movement and struggles and their impact on law enforcement.
(4)Specific obligations of peace officers in preventing, reporting, and responding to discriminatory or biased practices by fellow peace officers.
(5)Perspectives of diverse, local constituency groups and experts on particular racial, identity, and cultural and police-community relations issues in a local area.
(6)The prohibition against racial or identity profiling in subdivision (f).
(i)Once the initial basic training is completed, each peace officer in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 who adheres to the standards approved by the commission shall be required to complete a refresher course every five years thereafter, or on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity, and cultural trends. In addition to any remedies provided in law or equity, any peace officer who is the subject of a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained shall participate in training to correct racial or identity profiling at least every six months for two years, starting from the date a complaint is found to have been sustained.
(j)(1)Beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General shall establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.
(2)RIPA shall include the following members:
(A)The Attorney General, or his or her designee.
(B)The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or his or her designee.
(C)The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or his or her designee.
(D)The President of California State Sheriffs Association, or his or her designee.
(E)The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or his or her designee.
(F)The President of the Chief Probation Officers of California, President of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, or his or her designee.
(G)The Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, or his or her designee.
(H)The Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, or his or her designee.
(I)The Chair of the California Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, or his or her designee.
(J)The Chair of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus, or his or her designee.
(K)A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity.
(L)Two representatives of human or civil rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil or human rights.
(M)Two representatives of community organizations who specialize in civil or human rights and criminal justice, and work with victims of racial and identity profiling.
(N)Two religious clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups based on religious beliefs or practices. groups.
(O)Up to two other members that the Attorney General may prescribe.
(3)Each year, on an annual basis, RIPA shall do the following:
(A)Analyze the data reported pursuant to Section 12525.5 of the Government Code and Section 13012. 13012 of the Penal Code.
(B)Analyze law enforcement training under Section 13519.4. 13519.4 of the Penal Code.
(C)Investigate and analyze Work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices.
(D)Issue a report that provides RIPAs analysis under subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, including detailed findings on the past and current status of racial and identity profiling, and makes recommendations for eliminating racial and identity profiling. RIPA shall post the reports report on its Internet Web site. The first annual report shall be issued no later than January 1, 2018. The reports are public records within the meaning of subdivision (d) of Section 6252 of the Government Code and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253, 6256, 6257, and 6258 of the Government Code.
(E)Hold at least three public meetings annually to discuss racial and identity profiling, and potential reforms to correct racial and identity profiling. Each year, one meeting shall be held in northern California, one in central California, and one in southern California. RIPA shall provide the public with notice at least 60 days prior to each meeting.
SEC. 4.SEC. 5.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)On and after July 1, 2017, each state and local agency that employs peace officers shall report to the Attorney General, on at least a quarterly basis, data on all traffic traffic, public transportation, and pedestrian stops conducted by that agencys peace officers.
(b)The data collection and reporting shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each stop, search, or seizure:
(1)The time, date, and location of the stop, search, or seizure.
(2)The characteristics of each peace officer involved in the stop, including, but not limited to, his or her badge or identification number, race or ethnicity, gender, age, assignment, division or station, and shift, and whether he or she was in uniform.
(3)The basis for the stop, including, but not limited to, the offense suspected, and whether the action was initiated in response to a call for service, and, if the action was initiated in response to a call for services, the incident identifier.
(4)The result of the stop, such as no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or custodial arrest.
(5)If a warning or citation was issued, the violation charged or warning provided. warning provided or violation cited.
(6)If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
(7)A description of all persons detained during the stop. The description shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. stopped, unless otherwise required by law. The description shall include, but not be limited to:
(A)The number of persons stopped.
(B)The perceived or voluntarily disclosed race or ethnicity, gender, and age of all persons stopped.
(C)The sexual orientation and religious affiliation, if any was perceived.
(C)
(D)Whether any person had language barriers, including, but not limited to, the person stopped had limited English proficiency.
(D)
(E)Any mental or physical disability of a person who was stopped. disability of a person stopped.
(E)
(F)Whether the peace officer personally knew any person prior to the stop. previously stopped the person.
(F)
(G)For traffic stops, whether the person was a driver or passenger.
(8)Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A)Whether the officer asked if any person was on probation or parole, and if so, which persons were asked.
(B)
(A)Whether the peace officer asked for consent to frisk or search any person, and if so, whether consent was provided.
(C)
(B)Whether the peace officer searched any person or property, and if so, which persons were searched and what property was searched, the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any.
(D)
(C)Whether the peace officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, the person from whom the property was seized, and the basis for seizing the property.
(E)Whether the person was armed with a weapon and, if so, with what type of weapon.
(F)
(9)Whether the peace officer used force during the encounter, and if so, the type of force used and reason for using the force.
(9)
(A)A description of any person upon whom force was used, including, but not limited to, all of the following information: used.
(B)The description required pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer who used force, and the information shall not have been obtained by requesting it from the person upon whom force was used, unless otherwise required by law. The description shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(A)
(i)The perceived or voluntarily disclosed race or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion and age of the person.
(ii)The sexual orientation and religious affiliation of the person, if any was perceived.
(B)
(iii)Whether the person had limited English proficiency.
(C)
(iv)Any perceived mental or physical disability or preexisting injury or medical condition of the person.
(v)Whether the person was homeless.
(10)Whether any other governmental or nongovernmental agency or service provider was called to respond to the scene, and if so, what agency or service provider, and the reason the agency or service provider was called to respond.
(11)Whether any person sustained any injuries during the encounter, and if so, which person, and the nature of the injuries and medical treatment provided. provided, if any.
(c)State and local law enforcement agencies shall not report the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure, for purposes of this section. Notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be available to the public, except for the badge number or other unique identifying information of the peace officer involved, which shall be released to the public only to the extent the release is permissible under state law.
(d)Not later than January 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data required under subdivision (b). The regulations shall specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies. To the best extent possible, such regulations should be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
(e)Each year, on an annual basis, each state and local law enforcement agency shall make publicly available a report that lists the agencys total results for each data collection criteria required under subdivision (b). The reports shall include the data collected during the preceding calendar year. The first round of the annual reports shall be issued by each agency on or before July 1, 2018. The Attorney General, in consultation with RIPA, shall determine the form in which agencies make the information publicly available. Each state and local law enforcement agency shall post the reports on the Internet Web site for that agency, or if an agency does not have an Internet Web site, the Department of Justice shall post the agencys reports on its Internet Web site.
(f)Data reported pursuant to this section shall be retained by the reporting agency for a minimum of five years.
(g)Each year, on an annual basis, the Attorney General shall analyze the data collected. The Attorney General shall report its findings from the first analysis by July 1, 2018, and shall issue reports on the first day of each July 1 thereafter. The reports shall be available to the public by posting those reports on the Department of Justices Internet Web site.
(h)All data and reports made pursuant to this section are public records within the meaning of subdivision (d) of Section 6252, and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253, 6256, 6257, and 6258.
SEC. 2.Section 12525.6 is added to the Government Code, to read:12525.6.(a)Each year, on an annual basis, any state or local agency that employs peace, probation, or parole officers shall report to the Attorney General, the number of complaints filed in each of the previous three years against peace officers in its employment alleging racial or identity profiling, as defined by subdivision (e) of Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code, wrongful arrest, or excessive force. The reports shall include, at minimum, the specific types of racial or identify profiling alleged in each complaint, such as based on race, color, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, housing status, or mental or physical disability. The reports shall also include the disposition for each complaint.
(b)Each year, on an annual basis, RIPA shall analyze the complaints received from law enforcement pursuant to subdivision (a) and, by July 1, 2018, publicly report the information received, its analysis of the information, and its recommendations. The reports shall not disclose the identity of peace officers.
(c)Not later than July 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including the Racial Profiling Advisory Board, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, university academic, research, and community and civil rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the reporting of information pursuant to this section.
SEC. 3.Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13519.4.(a)The commission shall develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 and who adhere to the standards approved by the commission, on the racial and cultural differences among the residents of this state. The course or courses of instruction and the guidelines shall stress understanding and respect for racial and cultural differences, and development of effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a racially and culturally diverse environment.
(b)The course of basic training for law enforcement officers shall 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. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of cultural awareness and diversity.
(c)For the purposes of this section the following shall apply:
(1)Disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation have the same meaning as in Section 422.55.
(2)Culturally diverse and cultural diversity include, but are not limited to, disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation issues.
(3)Racial has the same meaning as race or ethnicity in Section 422.55.
(d)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)Racial profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of a democratic society. It is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.
(2)Motorists who have been stopped by the police for no reason other than the color of their skin or their apparent nationality or ethnicity are the victims of discriminatory practices.
(3)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the changes to Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code made by the act that added this subdivision that more than additional training is required to address the pernicious practice of racial profiling and that enactment of this bill is in no way dispositive of the issue of how the state should deal with racial profiling.
(4)The working men and women in California law enforcement risk their lives every day. The people of California greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication of law enforcement officers in protecting public safety. The good name of these officers should not be tarnished by the actions of those few who commit discriminatory practices.
(e)Racial or identity profiling, for purposes of this section, is the consideration of or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to routine or spontaneous law enforcement activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following an initial contact. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as, asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.
(f)A law enforcement officer shall not engage in racial or identity profiling. For purposes of this subdivision, law enforcement includes, but is not limited to, municipal police, sheriffs, members of the California Highway Patrol, probation officers, and parole officers.
(g)Every law enforcement officer in this state shall participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training.
(h)The curriculum shall utilize the Tools for Tolerance for Law Enforcement Professionals framework and shall include and examine evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that make up racial and identity profiling, including implicit bias. This training shall prescribe evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial and identity profiling. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board established pursuant to subdivision (j). The course of instruction shall include, but not be limited to, significant consideration of each of the following subjects:
(1)Identification of key indices and perspectives that make up cultural differences among residents in a local community.
(2)Negative impact of intentional and implicit biases, prejudices, and stereotyping on effective law enforcement, including examination of how historical perceptions of discriminatory enforcement practices have harmed police-community relations and contributed to injury, death, disparities in arrest, detention and incarceration rates, and wrongful convictions.
(3)The history and the role of the civil rights movement and struggles and their impact on law enforcement.
(4)Specific obligations of officers in preventing, reporting, and responding to discriminatory or biased practices by fellow officers.
(5)Perspectives of diverse, local constituency groups and experts on particular cultural and police-community relations issues in a local area.
(6)The prohibition against racial and identity profiling in subdivision (f).
(i)Once the initial basic training is completed, each law enforcement officer in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 who adheres to the standards approved by the commission shall be required to complete a refresher course every five years thereafter, or on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity, and cultural trends. A law enforcement officer, as described in subdivision (f), who is found to have engaged in racial or identity profiling shall participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years, starting from the date each finding is made.
(j)(1)Beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General shall establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in law enforcement.
(2)RIPA shall include the following members:
(A)The Attorney General, or a designee.
(B)The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or a designee.
(C)The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or a designee.
(D)The Chair of the Legislative Black Caucus of the California Legislature, or his or her designee.
(E)The Chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus of the California Legislature, or his or her designee.
(F)The Chair of the Asian and Pacific Islander Caucus of the California Legislature, or his or her designee.
(G)The Chair of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus of the California Legislature, or his or her designee.
(H)A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity.
(I)Two representatives of civil rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil and human rights and criminal justice.
(J)Two community organizers who specialize in civil or human rights and criminal justice.
(K)A clergy member who specializes in addressing and reducing bias toward individuals and groups based on religious beliefs or practices.
(L)Other members as the board may prescribe.
(3)RIPA shall investigate and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices in law enforcement. RIPA shall annually make publicly available its findings and recommendations. The first report of those findings and recommendations shall be issued no later than January 1, 2018.
SEC. 2.Section 13012 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13012.(a)The annual report of the department provided for in Section 13010 shall contain statistics showing all of the following:
(a)
(1)The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities.
(b)
(2)The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents.
(c)
(3)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents.
(d)
(4)The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court.
(e)The number of citizens complaints received by law enforcement agencies under Section 832.5. These statistics shall indicate the total number of these complaints, the number alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor, and the number sustained in each category. The report shall not contain a reference to any individual agency but shall be by gross numbers only.
(5)(A)The total number of each of the following:
(i)Citizens complaints received by law enforcement agencies under Section 832.5.
(ii)Citizens complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor.
(iii)Citizens complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 13519.4. These statistics shall be disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged, such as race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability.
(B)The statistics reported under this paragraph shall provide, for each category of category of complaint identified under subparagraph (A), the number of complaints within each of the following disposition categories:
(i)Sustained, which means that the investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to prove the truth of allegation in the complaint by preponderance of evidence.
(ii)Exonerated, which means that the investigation clearly established that the action of the personnel that formed the basis of the complaint are not a violation of law or agency policy.
(iii)Not sustained, which means that the investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation in the complaint.
(iv)Unfounded, which means that the investigation clearly established that the allegation is not true.
(C)The reports under subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall be made available to the public and disaggregated for each individual law enforcement agency.
It
(b)It shall be the duty of the department to give adequate interpretation of the statistics and so to present the information that it may be of value in guiding the policies of the Legislature and of those in charge of the apprehension, prosecution, and treatment of the criminals and delinquents, or concerned with the prevention of crime and delinquency. The report shall also include statistics which are comparable with national uniform criminal statistics published by federal bureaus or departments heretofore mentioned.
(c)Each year, on an annual basis, the Racial Identity Profiling Board (RIPA), established pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4, shall analyze the statistics reported pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 13012. RIPAs analysis of the complaints shall be incorporated into its annual report as required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 13519.4. The reports shall not disclose the identity of peace officers.
(d)Not later than July 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including RIPA, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, university academic, research, and civil and human rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the reporting of information pursuant to this section.
SEC. 3.Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13519.4.(a)The commission shall develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement peace officers in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 and who adhere to the standards approved by the commission, on the racial and cultural differences among the residents of this state. The course or courses of instruction and the guidelines shall stress understanding and respect for racial racial, identity, and cultural differences, and development of effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a racially and culturally diverse racial, identity, and cultural environment.
(b)The course of basic training for law enforcement peace officers shall include adequate instruction on racial racial, identity, and cultural diversity in order to foster mutual respect and cooperation between law enforcement and members of all racial racial, identity, and cultural groups. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of racial, identity, and cultural awareness and diversity.
(c)For the purposes of this section the following shall apply:
(1)Disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation have the same meaning as in Section 422.55.
(2)Culturally diverse and cultural diversity include, but are not limited to, disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation issues.
(3)Racial has the same meaning as race or ethnicity in Section 422.55.
(d)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)The working men and women in California law enforcement risk their lives every day. The people of California greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication of peace officers in protecting public safety. The good name of these officers should not be tarnished by the actions of those few who commit discriminatory practices.
(1)
(2)Racial or identity profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of our Constitution and a democratic society. It is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.
(3)Racial or identity profiling alienates people from law enforcement, hinders community policing efforts, and causes law enforcement to lose credibility and trust among the people whom law enforcement is sworn to protect and serve.
(2)Motorists who
(4)Pedestrians, users of public transportation, and vehicular occupants who have been stopped stopped, searched, interrogated, and subjected to a property seizure by the police a peace officer for no reason other than the color of their skin or their apparent nationality or ethnicity skin, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability are the victims of discriminatory practices.
(3)
(5)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the changes to Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code this section made by the act that added this subdivision paragraph that more than additional training is required to address the pernicious practice of racial or identity profiling and that enactment of this bill section is in no way dispositive of the issue of how the state should deal with racial or identity profiling.
(4)The working men and women in California law enforcement risk their lives every day. The people of California greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication of law enforcement officers in protecting public safety. The good name of these officers should not be tarnished by the actions of those few who commit discriminatory practices.
(e)Racial or identity profiling, for purposes of this section, is 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 consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to officer activities following an initial contact. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.
(f)A law enforcement A peace officer shall not engage in racial or identity profiling.
(g)Every law enforcement peace officer in this state shall participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training.
(h)The curriculum shall utilize the Tools for Tolerance for Law Enforcement Professionals framework and shall include and examine the evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that make up racial profiling or identity profiling, including implicit bias. This training shall prescribe evidenced-based patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial or identity profiling. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of racial profiling. the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board established pursuant to subdivision (j). The course of instruction shall include, but not be limited to, adequate significant consideration of each of the following subjects:
(1)Identification of key indices and perspectives that make up racial, identity, and cultural differences among residents in a local community.
(2)Negative impact of intentional and implicit biases, prejudices, and stereotyping on effective law enforcement, including examination of how historical perceptions of discriminatory enforcement practices have harmed police-community relations and contributed to injury, death, disparities in arrest, detention and incarceration rights, and wrongful convictions.
(3)The history and the role of the civil and human rights movement and struggles and their impact on law enforcement.
(4)Specific obligations of peace officers in preventing, reporting, and responding to discriminatory or biased practices by fellow peace officers.
(5)Perspectives of diverse, local constituency groups and experts on particular racial, identity, and cultural and police-community relations issues in a local area.
(6)The prohibition against racial or identity profiling in subdivision (f).
(i)Once the initial basic training is completed, each law enforcement peace officer in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 who adheres to the standards approved by the commission shall be required to complete a refresher course every five years thereafter, or on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial and cultural trends. racial, identity, and cultural trends. In addition to any remedies provided in law or equity, any peace officer who is the subject of a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained shall participate in training to correct racial or identity profiling at least every six months for two years, starting from the date a complaint is found to have been sustained.
(j)The Legislative Analyst shall conduct a study of the data being voluntarily collected by those jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling, including, but not limited to, the California Highway Patrol, the City of San Jose, and the City of San Diego, both to ascertain the incidence of racial profiling and whether data collection serves to address and prevent such practices, as well as to assess the value and efficacy of the training herein prescribed with respect to preventing local profiling. The Legislative Analyst may prescribe the manner in which the data is to be submitted and may request that police agencies collecting such data submit it in the requested manner. The Legislative Analyst shall provide to the Legislature a report and recommendations with regard to racial profiling by July 1, 2002.
(j)(1)Beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General shall establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.
(2)RIPA shall include the following members:
(A)The Attorney General, or his or her designee.
(B)The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or his or her designee.
(C)The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or his or her designee.
(D)The President of California State Sheriffs Association, or his or her designee.
(E)The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or his or her designee.
(F)The President of the Chief Probation Officers of California, or his or her designee.
(G)The Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, or his or her designee.
(H)The Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, or his or her designee.
(I)The Chair of the California Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, or his or her designee.
(J)The Chair of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus, or his or her designee.
(K)A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity.
(L)Two representatives of human or civil rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil or human rights.
(M)Two representatives of community organizations who specialize in civil or human rights and criminal justice, and work with victims of racial and identity profiling.
(N)Two clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing bias toward individuals and groups based on religious beliefs or practices.
(O)Up to two other members that the Attorney General may prescribe.
(3)Each year, on an annual basis, RIPA shall do the following:
(A)Analyze the data reported pursuant to Section 12525.5 of the Government Code and Section 13012.
(B)Analyze law enforcement training under Section 13519.4.
(C)Investigate and analyze state and local law enforcement agencies racial and identity profiling policies and practices.
(D)Issue a report that provides RIPAs analysis under subparagraphs (A) to (C), inclusive, including detailed findings on the past and current status of racial and identity profiling, and makes recommendations for eliminating racial and identity profiling. RIPA shall post the reports on its Internet Web site. The first annual report shall be issued no later than January 1, 2018. The reports are public records within the meaning of subdivision (d) of Section 6252 of the Government Code and are open to public inspection pursuant to Sections 6253, 6256, 6257, and 6258 of the Government Code.
(E)Hold at least three public meetings annually to discuss racial and identity profiling, and potential reforms to correct racial and identity profiling. Each year, one meeting shall be held in northern California, one in central California, and one in southern California. RIPA shall provide the public with notice at least 60 days prior to each meeting.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
(a)On and after July 1, 2017, each state and local agency that employs peace officers shall report to the Attorney General, on at least a quarterly basis, data on all traffic and pedestrian stops conducted by that agencys peace officers.
(b)The data collection and reporting shall include, at a minimum, the following information for each stop, search, or seizure:
(1)The time, date, and location of the stop, search, or seizure.
(2)The characteristics of each officer involved in the stop, including, but not limited to, his or her badge or identification number, race or ethnicity, gender, age, assignment, division or station, and shift, and whether he or she was in uniform.
(3)The basis for the stop, including, but not limited to, the offense suspected, and whether the action was initiated in response to a call for service, and, if the action was initiated in response to a call for services, the incident identifier.
(4)The result of the stop, such as no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or custodial arrest.
(5)If a warning or citation was issued, the violation charged or warning provided.
(6)If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
(7)A description of all persons detained during the stop. The description shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. The description shall include, but not be limited to:
(A)The number of persons stopped.
(B)The perceived or voluntarily disclosed race or ethnicity, gender, and age of all persons stopped.
(C)Whether any person had language barriers, including, but not limited to, limited English proficiency.
(D)Any mental or physical disability of a person who was stopped.
(E)Whether the officer personally knew any person prior to the stop.
(F)For traffic stops, whether the person was a driver or passenger.
(8)Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A)Whether the officer asked if any person was on probation or parole, and if so, which persons were asked.
(B)Whether the officer asked for consent to frisk or search any person, and if so, whether consent was provided.
(C)Whether the officer searched any person or property, and if so, which persons were searched and what property was searched, the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any.
(D)Whether the officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, the person from whom the property was seized, and the basis for seizing the property.
(E)Whether the person was armed with a weapon and, if so, with what type of weapon.
(F)Whether the officer used force during the encounter, and if so, the type of force used and reason for using the force.
(9)A description of any person upon whom force was used, including, but not limited to, all of the following information:
(A)The perceived or voluntarily disclosed race or ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion of the person.
(B)Whether the person had limited English proficiency.
(C)Any perceived mental or physical disability or preexisting injury or medical condition of the person.
(10)Whether any other governmental or nongovernmental agency or service provider was called to respond to the scene, and if so, what agency or service provider, and the reason the agency or service provider was called to respond.
(11)Whether any person sustained any injuries during the encounter, and if so, which person, and the nature of the injuries and medical treatment provided.
(c)State and local law enforcement agencies shall not report the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure, for purposes of this section. Notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be available to the public, except for the badge number or other unique identifying information of the officer involved, which shall be released to the public only to the extent the release is permissible under state law.
(d)Not later than January 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, academic, research, and civil rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the collection and reporting of data required under subdivision (b). The regulations shall specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices across all reporting agencies. To the best extent possible, such regulations should be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
(e)Each year, on an annual basis, each state and local law enforcement agency shall make publicly available a report that lists the agencys total results for each data collection criteria required under subdivision (b). The reports shall include the data collected during the preceding calendar year. The first round of the annual reports shall be issued by each agency on or before July 1, 2018. The Attorney General, in consultation with RIPA, shall determine the form in which agencies make the information publicly available. Each state and local law enforcement agency shall post the reports on the Internet Web site for that agency, or if an agency does not have an Internet Web site, the Department of Justice shall post the agencys reports on its Internet Web site.
(f)Data reported pursuant to this section shall be retained by the reporting agency for a minimum of five years.
(g)Each year, on an annual basis, the Attorney General shall analyze the data collected. The Attorney General shall report its findings from the first analysis by July 1, 2018, and shall issue reports each July 1 thereafter. The reports shall be available to the public by posting those reports on the Department of Justices Internet Web site.
SEC. 2.Section 12525.6 is added to the Government Code, to read:12525.6.(a)Each year, on an annual basis, any state or local agency that employs peace, probation, or parole officers shall report to the Attorney General, the number of complaints filed in each of the previous three years against peace officers in its employment alleging racial or identity profiling, as defined by subdivision (e) of Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code, wrongful arrest, or excessive force. The reports shall include, at minimum, the specific types of racial or identify profiling alleged in each complaint, such as based on race, color, age, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, housing status, or mental or physical disability. The reports shall also include the disposition for each complaint.
(b)Each year, on an annual basis, RIPA shall analyze the complaints received from law enforcement pursuant to subdivision (a) and, by July 1, 2018, publicly report the information received, its analysis of the information, and its recommendations. The reports shall not disclose the identity of peace officers.
(c)Not later than July 1, 2017, the Attorney General, in consultation with stakeholders, including the Racial Profiling Advisory Board, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and community, professional, university academic, research, and community and civil rights organizations, shall issue regulations for the reporting of information pursuant to this section.
SEC. 3.Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13519.4.(a)The commission shall develop and disseminate guidelines and training for all law enforcement officers in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 and who adhere to the standards approved by the commission, on the racial and cultural differences among the residents of this state. The course or courses of instruction and the guidelines shall stress understanding and respect for racial and cultural differences, and development of effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a racially and culturally diverse environment.
(b)The course of basic training for law enforcement officers shall 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. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of cultural awareness and diversity.
(c)For the purposes of this section the following shall apply:
(1)Disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation have the same meaning as in Section 422.55.
(2)Culturally diverse and cultural diversity include, but are not limited to, disability, gender, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation issues.
(3)Racial has the same meaning as race or ethnicity in Section 422.55.
(d)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)Racial profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of a democratic society. It is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.
(2)Motorists who have been stopped by the police for no reason other than the color of their skin or their apparent nationality or ethnicity are the victims of discriminatory practices.
(3)It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting the changes to Section 13519.4 of the Penal Code made by the act that added this subdivision that more than additional training is required to address the pernicious practice of racial profiling and that enactment of this bill is in no way dispositive of the issue of how the state should deal with racial profiling.
(4)The working men and women in California law enforcement risk their lives every day. The people of California greatly appreciate the hard work and dedication of law enforcement officers in protecting public safety. The good name of these officers should not be tarnished by the actions of those few who commit discriminatory practices.
(e)Racial or identity profiling, for purposes of this section, is 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. consideration of or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to routine or spontaneous law enforcement activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following an initial contact. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as, asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.
(f)A law enforcement officer shall not engage in racial or identity profiling. For purposes of this subdivision, law enforcement includes, but is not limited to, municipal police, sheriffs, members of the California Highway Patrol, probation officers, and parole officers.
(g)Every law enforcement officer in this state shall participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training.
(h)The curriculum shall utilize the Tools for Tolerance for Law Enforcement Professionals framework and shall include and examine the evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that make up racial and identity profiling, including implicit bias. This training shall prescribe evidence-based patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial and identity profiling. In developing the training, the commission shall consult with appropriate groups and individuals having an interest and expertise in the field of racial profiling. the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board established pursuant to subdivision (j). The course of instruction shall include, but not be limited to, adequate significant consideration of each of the following subjects:
(1)Identification of key indices and perspectives that make up cultural differences among residents in a local community.
(2)Negative impact of intentional and implicit biases, prejudices, and stereotyping on effective law enforcement, including examination of how historical perceptions of discriminatory enforcement practices have harmed police-community relations and contributed to injury, death, disparities in arrest, detention and incarceration rates, and wrongful convictions.
(3)The history and the role of the civil rights movement and struggles and their impact on law enforcement.
(4)Specific obligations of officers in preventing, reporting, and responding to discriminatory or biased practices by fellow officers.
(5)Perspectives of diverse, local constituency groups and experts on particular cultural and police-community relations issues in a local area.
(6)The prohibition against racial and identity profiling in subdivision (f).
(i)Once the initial basic training is completed, each law enforcement officer in California as described in subdivision (a) of Section 13510 who adheres to the standards approved by the commission shall be required to complete a refresher course every five years thereafter, or on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary, in order to keep current with changing racial, identity, and cultural trends. A law enforcement officer, as described in subdivision (f), who is found to have engaged in racial or identity profiling shall participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years, starting from the date each finding is made.
(j)The Legislative Analyst shall conduct a study of the data being voluntarily collected by those jurisdictions that have instituted a program of data collection with regard to racial profiling, including, but not limited to, the California Highway Patrol, the City of San Jose, and the City of San Diego, both to ascertain the incidence of racial profiling and whether data collection serves to address and prevent such practices, as well as to assess the value and efficacy of the training herein prescribed with respect to preventing local profiling. The Legislative Analyst may prescribe the manner in which the data is to be submitted and may request that police agencies collecting such data submit it in the requested manner. The Legislative Analyst shall provide to the Legislature a report and recommendations with regard to racial profiling by July 1, 2002.
(j)(1)Beginning July 1, 2016, the Attorney General shall establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in law enforcement.
(2)RIPA shall include the following members:
(A)The Attorney General, or a designee.
(B)The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or a designee.
(C)The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or a designee.
(D)The Chair of the Legislative Black Caucus of the California Legislature, or his or her designee.
(E)The Chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus of the California Legislature, or his or her designee.
(F)The Chair of the Asian and Pacific Islander Caucus of the California Legislature, or his or her designee.
(G)The Chair of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Caucus of the California Legislature, or his or her designee.
(H)A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity.
(I)Two representatives of civil rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil and human rights and criminal justice.
(J)Two community organizers who specialize in civil or human rights and criminal justice.
(K)A clergy member who specializes in addressing and reducing bias toward individuals and groups based on religious beliefs or practices.
(L)Other members as the board may prescribe.
(3)RIPA shall investigate and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices in law enforcement. RIPA shall annually make publicly available its findings and recommendations. The first report of those findings and recommendations shall be issued no later than January 1, 2018.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SECTION 1.It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that revises the definition of racial profiling and requires law enforcement departments to collect, analyze, and report data on individual stops in order to identify and eliminate unjustified racial disparities and bias.
It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that revises the definition of racial profiling and requires law enforcement departments to collect, analyze, and report data on individual stops in order to identify and eliminate unjustified racial disparities and bias.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 45. Noes 27. Page 1842.) |
| Oct 3, 2015 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 466, Statutes of 2015. |
| Oct 3, 2015 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 18, 2015 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Sep 10, 2015 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 43. Noes 30.). |
| Sep 10, 2015 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 43. Noes 30. Page 3079.). |
| Sep 10, 2015 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 26. Noes 13. Page 2616.). |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Sep 9, 2015 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. |
| Aug 31, 2015 | Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 27, 2015 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 27). |
| Aug 17, 2015 | In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Jul 7, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (July 7). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 30, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Jun 18, 2015 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Feb 26, 2015 | Read first time. To print. |
| Jun 3, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. |
| Jun 3, 2015 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| Jun 2, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jun 1, 2015 | Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading. |
| May 28, 2015 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 28). |
| May 13, 2015 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Apr 22, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 20, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Apr 16, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 14, 2015 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Apr 6, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Mar 26, 2015 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Mar 26, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended. |
| Feb 27, 2015 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 29. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2015 | AB 953 WEBER Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 9, 2015 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB953 Weber By Mitchell | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 27, 2015 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Aug 17, 2015 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 7, 2015 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
|
| Jun 3, 2015 | AB 953 WEBER Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 28, 2015 | Do pass as amended. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 21, 2015 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| A New PATH | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Advancement Project | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Advancing Justice | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Aids Project Los Angeles | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Alliance for Boys and Men of Color | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Alliance San Diego | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| American Civil Liberties Union of California | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| API Equality-LA | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Sacramento | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Asian Law Alliance | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Association For Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Bay Area Youth Summit | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| black women for wellness | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Board of Rabbis of Southern California | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Brown Boi Project | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California Association Of Highway Patrolmen | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California Attorneys For Criminal Justice | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California Black Health Network | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California College And University Police Chiefs Association | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California Correctional Supervisors Organization, Inc. | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California Federation Of Teachers | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| California Immigrant Policy Center | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California Nurses Association | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California Partnership | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California Peace Officers Association | * Against | Jul 7, 2015 |
| California Police Chiefs Association | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California Public Defenders Association | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| California Public Defenders Association, Children's Defense Fund of California | * Support | Jul 7, 2015 |
| California State Conference of the NAACP | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California State Council of Service Employees International | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| California State Sheriffs' Association | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Californians United for a Responsible Budget | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Central American Resource Center, Los Angeles | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Children's Defense Fund-California | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| City of West Hollywood | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Community Coalition | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Council on American-Islamic Relations | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Courage Campaign | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Dignity & Power Now | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Drug Policy Alliance | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Ella Baker Center For Human Rights | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Empowering Pacific Islander Communities | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Equal Justice Society | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Equality California | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| FACTS Education Fund & Fair Chance Project | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| FACTS Education Fund and Faire Chance Project | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Filipino Migrant Center of Southern California | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Friends Committee of Legislation of California | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| GSA Network | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Immigrant Legal Resource Center | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Immigrant Youth Coalition | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Inner City Struggle | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at Central Connecticut State University | * Support | Jul 7, 2015 |
| Interfaith Center for Worker Justice | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Islamic Shura Council | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Japanese American Citizen's League | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Justice for Immigrants Coalition of Inland Southern California | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Justice Not Jails | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| K.W. Lee Center for Leadership | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| LA Progressive | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| LA Voice | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Legal Services for Prisoners with Children | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Long Beach Police Officers Association | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Los Angeles Black Worker Center | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Los Angeles LGBT Center | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Los Angeles Police Protective League | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Los Angeles Regional Reentry Project | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Los Angeles Urban League | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Lutheran Office of Public Policy | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Merced Organizing Project | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| National Center for Lesbian Rights | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| National Day Laborer Organizing Network | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| National Employment Law Project | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| National Lawyers Guild | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| New Covenant Church | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| New Way of Life Reentry Project | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| One private individual | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| PACT: People Acting in Community Together | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Page P | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Page Q | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Peace Officers Research Association Of California | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| PICO California | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Placer People of Faith Together | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| PolicyLink | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| PolicyLink, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color | * Support | Jul 7, 2015 |
| Priority Africa Network | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Private Individual | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Progressive Christians Uniting | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Public Advocates | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Reform California | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Root & Rebound | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Sacramento Area Congregations Together | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association | ** Against | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Sadler Healthcare | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| San Diego LGBT Community Center | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| San Francisco Organizing Project | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| San Francisco Public Defender | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| San Francisco Tenants Union | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Social Justice Learning Institute | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| South Asian Network | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Southeast Asia Resource Action Center | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Starting Over, Inc. | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Whittier Law School | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| The Greenlining Institute | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
| Transgender Law Center | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| True North Organizing Network | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| W. Haywood Burns Institute | ** Support | Jun 3, 2015 |
| Youth Justice Coalition | ** Support | Sep 9, 2015 |
AB 953
Page 6
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 953
(Weber)
As Amended August 31, 2015
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: |
45-27 |
(June 3, 2015) |
SENATE: |
26-13 |
(September 9, 2015) |
Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.
SUMMARY: Modifies the definition of "racial profiling;" requires local law enforcement agencies to report specified information on stops to the Attorney General's office; and establishes the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA).
The Senate amendments:
Delay implementation of reporting requirements by law enforcement agencies based on the size of the agency.
Delete the requirements that each state and local law enforcement agency publicly report its data on the Internet and retain that information for five years.
Delete the requirement that the Attorney General analyze the data submitted by law enforcement agencies.
Clarify that it is not racial profiling for an officer to consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description.
Delete the requirement that an officer who is the subject of a complaint of profiling participate in additional training.
Change the composition of the RIPA, as specified.
Impose additional regulations and limitations on RIPA, as specified.
EXISTING LAW:
Prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling.
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."
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.
Requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to present to the Governor, on or before July 1st, an annual report containing the criminal statistics of the preceding calendar year.
Mandates that the annual report contain statistics showing all of the following:
The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities;
The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents;
The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents;
The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court; and,
The number of citizens' complaints received by law enforcement agencies, as specified. The statistics must indicate the total number of these complaints, the number alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor, and the number sustained in each category. The report shall not contain a reference to any individual agency but shall be by gross numbers only.
Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report statistical data to the DOJ at those times and in the manner that the Attorney General prescribes.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill:
Required, beginning March 1, 2018, each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General's office data on all stops, as specified, conducted by that agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year.
Required the reporting to include the following information for each stop:
The reason for the stop;
The result of the stop, such as no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest;
If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited;
If an arrest was made, the offense charged;
The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped. The identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop. For auto stops, this requirement applies only to the driver unless actions taken by the officer apply in relation to a passenger, in which case his or her characteristics shall also be reported.
Actions taken by the officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
Whether the officer asked for consent to search the person, and if so, whether consent was provided;
Whether the officer searched the person or any property, and if so, the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any; and
Whether the officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, and the basis for seizing the property.
Provided that if more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer is required to collect and report the necessary information.
Prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from reporting the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure.
Stated that, notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be made available to the public to the extent which release is permissible under state law, with the exception of badge number, or other unique identifying information of the officer involved.
Required the Attorney General, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of the required data by January 1, 2017. The Attorney General should consult with specified stakeholders in issuing the regulations.
Mandated that the regulations specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices. To the extent possible, the regulations should also be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
Required each state and local law enforcement agency to publicly report the data on an annual basis beginning on July 1, 2018. The report should be posted on the law enforcement agency's Web site, and in the event the agency does not have a Web site, it shall be posted on the DOJ Web site.
Required retention of the reported data for at least five years.
Mandated that the Attorney General annually analyze the data collected and report its findings from the first analysis by January 1, 2019. Reports are to be posted on the DOJ Web site.
Specified that all data and reports made under these provisions are public records, as specified, and are open to public inspection.
Limited the definition of a "peace officer" for purposes of this section to "members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency, except probation officers and officers in a custodial setting, and California state or university educational institutions."
Defined "stop" for purposes of this section, as "any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person's body or property in the person's possession or control."
Revised the content of the DOJ annual report on criminal statistics to report the total number of each of the following citizen complaints:
Citizen complaints against law enforcement personnel;
Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor;
Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged.
Specified that the statistics on citizen complaints must identify their dispositions as being sustained, exonerated, not sustained, unfounded, as specified.
Revised legislative findings and declarations regarding racial and identity profiling.
Renamed "racial profiling" as "racial or identity profiling" and redefines it as "consideration of or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following a stop. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as, asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest."
Required any peace officer who has a sustained complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years.
Mandated the Attorney General establish RIPA beginning July 1, 2016, for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in law enforcement.
Provided that RIPA shall include the following members:
The Attorney General, or a designee;
The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or a designee;
The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or a designee;
The President of the California State Sheriffs' Association, or a designee;
The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or a designee;
The President of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, or a designee;
The Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legislative Caucus, or designee;
A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity;
Two representatives of civil or human rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil and human rights and criminal justice;
Two representatives of community organizations specializing in civil or human rights and criminal justice and who work with victims of racial and identity profiling;
Two clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups or practices; and,
Up to two other members that the Attorney General may prescribe.
Tasked RIPA with the following:
Analyzing data reported, as specified;
Analyzing law enforcement training on racial and identity profiling;
Work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices;
Issuing an annual report the first of which shall be issued by January 1, 2018, and posting the reports on its Internet Web site; and,
Holding at least three annual public meetings to discuss racial and identity profiling and potential reforms, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Data collection, reporting, retention, and training: Major future one-time and ongoing costs, potentially in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually, once fully phased in, to local law enforcement agencies for data collection, reporting, and retention requirements specified in the bill. Additional costs for training on the process would likely be required. There are currently 482 cities and 58 counties in California. To the extent local agency expenditures qualify as a reimbursable state mandate, agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). While costs could vary widely, for context, the Commission on State Mandates’ statewide cost estimate for Crime Statistics Reports for the DOJ reflects eligible reimbursement of over $13.6 million per year for slightly over 50 percent of local agencies reporting.
DOJ impact: Major one-time and ongoing costs of $2.6 million in 2015-16, $5.9 million in 2016-17, and $5.1 million (General Fund) annually thereafter, for resources to create the database to collect and retain the data, complete data collection and reporting requirements. Minor, absorbable impact to aggregate and post annual reports received to its website.
RIPA: One-time costs of $1.7 million in 2015-16, and $3 million (General Fund) in 2016-17 and 2017-18 to establish and oversee activities of the Board. Ongoing costs of $1.5 million annually (General Fund) for activities including analyzing data, issuing annual reports, reviewing policies and procedures, and holding at least three annual public meetings.
CHP impact: Potentially significant one-time costs of about $1 million (Motor Vehicle Account) to modify its existing database, create the program to generate the report, and train personnel. Ongoing increase in workload costs potentially in the range of $250,000 to $500,000 (Motor Vehicle Account) for data collection and reporting activities. Data for 2013-14 from the CHP indicates approximately 3.1 million enforcement actions potentially subject to the data collection and reporting provisions of this bill.
CSU/UC police impact: Potentially significant ongoing non-reimbursable costs to California State University police and University of California police officers – the CSM has determined CSU and UC use of campus police is a discretionary act, and therefore any mandated costs are not subject to state reimbursement.
COMMENTS: According to the author, "AB 953 will help eliminate the harmful and unjust practice of racial and identity profiling, and improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. AB 953 promotes equal protection and prevents unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Peace officers risk their lives every day, and the people of California greatly appreciate their hard work and dedication to public safety. At the same time, a recent poll shows that 55% of Californians and 85% of African-Americans in California believe that 'blacks and other minorities do not receive equal treatment in the criminal justice system.' Racial and identity profiling significantly contributes to this lack of confidence in our justice system.
"Racial and identity profiling occurs when law enforcement personnel stop, search, seize property from, or interrogate a person without evidence of criminal activity. Studies show that profiling often occurs due to unconscious biases about particular demographic identities.
"AB 953 would prevent profiling by, among other things, clarifying and modernizing California's current prohibition against profiling to better account for the ways in which profiling occurs, establishing a uniform system for collecting and analyzing data on law enforcement-community interactions, and establishing an advisory board that investigates profiling patterns and practices and provides recommendations on how to curb its harmful impact."
Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001810
AB 953
Page 10
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 953
Amended: 8/31/15 in Senate
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-1, 7/7/15
AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Stone
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/27/15
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, Leyva, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 45-27, 6/3/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Law enforcement: racial profiling
SOURCE: American Civil Liberties Union of California
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Sacramento
California State Conference of the NAACP
Dignity & Power Now
PICO California
Reform California
Youth Justice Coalition
DIGEST: This bill 1) modifies the definition of “racial profiling;” 2) requires local law enforcement agencies to report specified information on stops to the Attorney General's office; and, 3) establishes the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA).
Existing law:
Prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling. (Penal Code § 13519.4(f).)
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.” (Penal Code § 13519.4(e).)
Requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to present to the Governor, on or before July 1st, an annual report containing the criminal statistics of the preceding calendar year. (Penal Code § 13010(g).)
Mandates that the annual report contain specified information (Penal Code § 13012.)
Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report statistical data to the DOJ at those times and in the manner that the Attorney General prescribes. (Penal Code § 13020.)
This bill:
Requires each state and local agency that employs peace officers to report, at least annually, to the Attorney General's office data on stops, as specified, conducted by that agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year.
Phases-in the mandated data reporting requirement on law enforcement agencies, as follows:
Each agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2019.
Each agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2020.
Each agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2022.
Each agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2023.
Requires the reporting to include the following information for each stop:
The reason for the stop;
The result of the stop, such as no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest;
If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited;
If an arrest was made, the offense charged;
The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped. The identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop. For auto stops, this requirement applies only to the driver unless actions taken by the officer apply in relation to a passenger, in which case his or her characteristics shall also be reported; and
Actions taken by the officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
Whether the officer asked for consent to search the person, and if so, whether consent was provided;
Whether the officer searched the person or any property, and if so, the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any; and,
Whether the officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, and the basis for seizing the property.
Requires the Attorney General, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting, as specified.
Mandates that the Attorney General annually analyze the data collected and report its findings, as specified. Reports are to be posted on the DOJ Web site.
Revises the content of the DOJ annual report on criminal statistics to report the total number of citizen complaints, as specified.
Renames “racial profiling” as “racial or identity profiling” and redefines it as “consideration of or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as, asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.”
Mandates the Attorney General establish RIPA beginning July 1, 2016, for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in law enforcement.
Provides that RIPA shall include a number of members, a specified.
Tasks RIPA with the following:
Analyzing data reported, as specified;
Analyzing law enforcement training on racial and identity profiling;
Working in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices across geographic areas in California;
Conducting, and consulting available, evidenced-based research on intentional and implicit biases, and law enforcement stop, search, and seizure tactics;
Issuing an annual report the first of which shall be issued by January 1, 2018, and posting the reports on its Internet Web site; and,
Holding at least three annual public meetings to discuss racial and identity profiling and potential reforms, as specified.
Comments
Although racial profiling is prohibited, studies show that racial profiling by law enforcement does occur. For example, according to a report by the Oakland Police Department, African-Americans, who compose 28 percent of Oakland’s population, accounted for 62 percent of police stops from last April to November. The figures also showed that stops of African-Americans were more likely to result in felony arrests. And, while African-Americans were more likely to be searched after being stopped, police were no more likely to find contraband from searching African-Americans than members of other racial groups.
(http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25410009/report-blacks-comprise-62-percent-oakland-police-stops.)
NOTE: See Senate Public Safety Committee analysis for a complete discussion of this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Data collection, reporting, retention, and training: Major future one-time and ongoing costs, potentially in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually, once fully phased in, to local law enforcement agencies for data collection, reporting, and retention requirements specified in this bill. Additional costs for training on the process would likely be required. There are currently 482 cities and 58 counties in California. To the extent local agency expenditures qualify as a reimbursable state mandate, agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). While costs could vary widely, for context, the Commission on State Mandates’ statewide cost estimate for Crime Statistics Reports for the DOJ reflects eligible reimbursement of over $13.6 million per year for slightly over 50 percent of local agencies reporting.
DOJ impact: Major one-time and ongoing costs of $2.6 million in 2015-16, $5.9 million in 2016-17, and $5.1 million (General Fund) annually thereafter, for resources to create the database to collect and retain the data, complete data collection and reporting requirements. Minor, absorbable impact to aggregate and post annual reports received to its website.
RIPA: One-time costs of $1.7 million in 2015-16, and $3 million (General Fund) in 2016-17 and 2017-18 to establish and oversee activities of the Board. Ongoing costs of $1.5 million annually (General Fund) for activities including analyzing data, issuing annual reports, reviewing policies and procedures, and holding at least three annual public meetings.
CHP impact: Potentially significant one-time costs of about $1 million (Motor Vehicle Account) to modify its existing database, create the program to generate the report, and train personnel. Ongoing increase in workload costs potentially in the range of $250,000 to $500,000 (Motor Vehicle Account) for data collection and reporting activities. Data for 2013-14 from the CHP indicates approximately 3.1 million enforcement actions potentially subject to the data collection and reporting provisions of this bill.
CSU/UC police impact: Potentially significant ongoing non-reimbursable costs to California State University police and University of California police officers – the CSM has determined CSU and UC use of campus police is a discretionary act, and therefore any mandated costs are not subject to state reimbursement.
American Civil Liberties Union of California (co-source)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Sacramento (co-source)
California State Conference of the NAACP (co-source)
Dignity & Power Now (co-source)
PICO California (co-source)
Reform California (co-source)
Youth Justice Coalition (co-source)
A New Path
Advancement Project
Advancing Justice
AIDS Project Los Angeles
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
API Equality-LA
Asian Law Alliance
Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
Bay Area Youth Summit
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
Brown Boi Project
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Black Health Network
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Nurses Association
California Partnership
California State Council of Service Employees International
Children’s Defense Fund—California
City of West Hollywood
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Community Coalition
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Courage Campaign
Dignity & Power Now
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
Equal Justice Society
FACTS Education Fund and Faire Chance Project
Friends Committee of Legislation of California
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Immigrant Youth Coalition
Interfaith Center for Worker Justice
Islamic Shura Council
Japanese American Citizens League
Justice for Immigrants Coalition of Inland Southern California
LA Progressive
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Black Worker Center
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Project
Los Angeles Urban League
Lutheran Office of Public Policy
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Lawyers Guild
PACT: People Acting in Community Together
PolicyLink
Priority Africa Network
Progressive Christians Uniting
San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium
San Diego LGBT Community Center
San Francisco Public Defender
South Asian Network
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
The Greenlining Institute
The K.W. Lee Center for Leadership
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/15)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
California State Sheriffs’ Association
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Advancement Project:
People throughout California have long been plagued by the humiliating and frightening act of racial and identity profiling. In 2000, for example, the Legislature found that “racial profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of a democratic society,” and declared that “it is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.” [Footnote omitted.] Subsequently, the Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that California’s current prohibition against such acts is over-vague and that law enforcement agencies have resisted following it. [Footnote omitted.]
As one of numerous examples, a 2015 report by a police department in California found that blacks were stopped twice as often as their driving age demographic representation, and that blacks and Latinos were respectively searched at three and two times the rate of whites. To add, those searches showed that blacks and Latinos were less likely to be arrested. [Footnote omitted.]
The persistence of profiling in our state violates the U.S. and California Constitutions by betraying the fundamental promise of equal protection, and infringing upon the guarantee that all people shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also misdirects limited resources away from evidenced-based policing and the efficient pursuit of individuals who actually pose a threat to public safety, thus making all Californians less safe.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the California State Sheriffs’ Association:
AB 953 significantly expands the definition of racial profiling such that it prevents an officer from relying on identifying characteristics in any way in terms of deciding how to conduct police work. Specifically, by prohibiting an officer from considering or relying on, to any degree, a person’s actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, this bill would prevent an officer from using the fact that a person appears to be a Caucasian female in deciding how to respond to a “be on the lookout” order that indicates that a white woman is suspected to have committed a crime. If such a person were stopped because of a traffic violation, the perceived race and gender characteristics could not be considered in deciding whether to escalate enforcement activities.
Additionally, AB 953 would require every law enforcement agency to annually report to the Attorney General (AG) data on all stops. Some of the data points that must be collected at every stop include: the reason for, and result of, the stop; if an arrest was made, the offense charged; whether the subject was searched; and the perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. In essence, and counterintuitively, the bill seeks to combat racial profiling by requiring peace officers to pay very close attention to the race of the people with whom they interact.
Respectfully, AB 953 will hamstring peace officers and prevent them from doing their jobs effectively. The bill is overly broad and will result in negative impacts on public safety and local budgets. For these reasons, CSSA must oppose AB 953.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 45-27, 6/3/15
AYES: Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto, Grove, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chu, Cooper, Hadley, Irwin, Maienschein, O'Donnell, Rodriguez, Wood
Prepared by: Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /
8/30/15 19:42:25
**** END ****
AB 953 (Weber) Page 2 of 2
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 953 (Weber) - Law enforcement: racial profiling
|
|
Version: June 30, 2015 |
Policy Vote: PUB. S. 5 - 1 |
Urgency: No |
Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: August 27, 2015 |
Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on August 27, 2015
Bill Summary:
AB 953 would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, which would do the following:
Pursuant to a specified phased-in schedule based on the number of peace officers employed by an agency, require each state and local agency that employs peace officers to collect and annually report data to the Attorney General (AG) on all “stops,” as defined, for the preceding calendar year.
Modify the definition of “racial profiling,” as specified.
Commencing July 1, 2016, require the AG to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA), to conduct specified activities and issue a report annually on its analysis of specified reported data, training, and racial and identity profiling policies/practices.
Fiscal Impact:
Data collection, reporting, retention, and training: Major future one-time and ongoing costs, potentially in the millions to tens of millions of dollars annually, once fully phased in, to local law enforcement agencies for data collection, reporting, and retention requirements specified in the bill. Additional costs for training on the process would likely be required. There are currently 482 cities and 58 counties in California. To the extent local agency expenditures qualify as a reimbursable state mandate, agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). While costs could vary widely, for context, the Commission on State Mandates’ statewide cost estimate for Crime Statistics Reports for the DOJ reflects eligible reimbursement of over $13.6 million per year for slightly over 50 percent of local agencies reporting.
DOJ impact: Major one-time and ongoing costs of $2.6 million in 2015-16, $5.9 million in 2016-17, and $5.1 million (General Fund) annually thereafter, for resources to create the database to collect and retain the data, complete data collection and reporting requirements. Minor, absorbable impact to aggregate and post annual reports received to its website.
RIPA: One-time costs of $1.7 million in 2015-16, and $3 million (General Fund) in 2016-17 and 2017-18 to establish and oversee activities of the Board. Ongoing costs of $1.5 million annually (General Fund) for activities including analyzing data, issuing annual reports, reviewing policies and procedures, and holding at least three annual public meetings.
CHP impact: Potentially significant one-time costs of about $1 million (Motor Vehicle Account) to modify its existing database, create the program to generate the report, and train personnel. Ongoing increase in workload costs potentially in the range of $250,000 to $500,000 (Motor Vehicle Account) for data collection and reporting activities. Data for 2013-14 from the CHP indicates approximately 3.1 million enforcement actions potentially subject to the data collection and reporting provisions of this bill.
CSU/UC police impact: Potentially significant ongoing non-reimbursable costs to California State University police and University of California police officers – the CSM has determined CSU and UC use of campus police is a discretionary act, and therefore any mandated costs are not subject to state reimbursement.
Author Amendments:
Phase-in the mandated data reporting requirement on law enforcement agencies, as follows:
Each agency that employs 1,000 or more peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2019.
Each agency that employs 667 or more but less than 1,000 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2020.
Each agency that employs 334 or more but less than 667 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2022.
Each agency that employs one or more but less than 334 peace officers shall issue its first round of reports on or before April 1, 2023.
Delete the provision requiring any peace officer who has a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years.
Delete the provision requiring reporting agencies to retain data records for a minimum of five years.
Delete the overlapping requirement of data analysis by both the AG and the RIPA to specify the RIPA will retain this responsibility.
Revise the RIPA membership, as specified, specify a term of four years for RIPA members, and specify that members of RIPA shall not receive compensation, nor per diem expenses, for their services as RIPA members.
Specify that no action of RIPA shall be valid unless agreed to by a majority of its members.
Make other technical and clarifying changes.
-- END --
AB 953 (Weber) Page 7 of 7
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 953 (Weber) - Law enforcement: racial profiling
|
|
Version: June 30, 2015 |
Policy Vote: PUB. S. 5 - 1 |
Urgency: No |
Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |
Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary:
AB 953 would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, which would do the following:
Require each state and local agency that employs peace officers to collect and annually report data to the Attorney General (AG) on all “stops,” as defined, for the preceding calendar year.
Require any peace officer who has a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years.
Modify the definition of “racial profiling,” as specified.
Commencing July 1, 2016, require the AG to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA), to conduct specified activities and issue a report annually on its analysis of specified reported data, training, and racial and identity profiling policies/practices.
Fiscal Impact:
Data collection, reporting, retention, and training: Major one-time and ongoing costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually to local law enforcement agencies for data collection, reporting, and retention requirements specified in the bill. Additional costs for training on the process would likely be required. There are currently 482 cities and 58 counties in California. To the extent local agency expenditures qualify as a reimbursable state mandate, agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). While costs could vary widely, for context, the Commission on State Mandates’ statewide cost estimate for Crime Statistics Reports for the DOJ reflects eligible reimbursement of over $13.6 million per year for slightly over 50 percent of local agencies reporting.
Racial profiling training: Unknown, potentially significant state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) for mandated training periodically over two years for peace officers with sustained complaints of racial or identity profiling.
DOJ impact: Major one-time and ongoing costs of $2.6 million in 2015-16, $5.9 million in 2016-17, and $5.1 million (General Fund) annually thereafter, for resources to create the database to collect and retain the data, complete data collection, reporting, and analysis requirements. Minor, absorbable impact to aggregate and post annual reports received to its website.
RIPA: One-time costs of $1.7 million in 2015-16, and $3 million (General Fund) in 2016-17 and 2017-18 to establish and oversee activities of the Board. Ongoing costs of $1.5 million annually (General Fund) for activities including analyzing data, issuing annual reports, reviewing policies and procedures, and holding at least three annual public meetings.
CHP impact: Potentially significant one-time costs of about $1 million (Motor Vehicle Account) to modify its existing database, create the program to generate the report, and train personnel. Ongoing increase in workload costs potentially in the range of $250,000 to $500,000 (Motor Vehicle Account) for data collection and reporting activities. Data for 2013-14 from the CHP indicates approximately 3.1 million enforcement actions potentially subject to the data collection and reporting provisions of this bill.
CSU/UC police impact: Potentially significant ongoing non-reimbursable costs to California State University police and University of California police officers – the CSM has determined CSU and UC use of campus police is a discretionary act, and therefore any mandated costs are not subject to state reimbursement.
Background:
Existing law prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling and provides that the course of basic training for law enforcement officers must 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. Existing law additionally requires every officer to participate in expanded training provided by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training that examines the patterns, practices, and protocols that prevent racial profiling.
Under existing law, “racial profiling” is defined 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. (Penal Code § 13519.4.)
This bill seeks to facilitate the development of evidence-based policing by establishing a system of collecting and reporting information on law enforcement stops. As noted in the federal Department of Justice publication, A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection Systems: Promising Practices and Lessons Learned (2000), “
By providing information about the nature, characteristics, and demographics of police enforcement patterns, these data collection efforts have the potential for shifting the rhetoric surrounding racial profiling from accusations, anecdotal stories, and stereotypes to a more rational discussion about the appropriate allocation of police resources. Well-planned and comprehensive data collection efforts can serve as a catalyst for nurturing and shaping this type of community and police discussion.
Proposed Law:
This bill would enact the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015, as follows:
Requires, beginning March 1, 2018, each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the AG data on all “stops,” as defined, conducted by that agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year.
Requires the reporting to include the following information for each stop:
The time, date, and location of the stop.
The reason for the stop.
The result of the stop, such as no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest.
If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited.
If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped. The identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop. For motor vehicle stops, this requirement applies only to the driver unless actions taken by the officer apply in relation to a passenger, in which case his or her characteristics shall also be reported.
Actions taken by the officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
Whether the officer asked for consent to search the person, and if so, whether consent was provided.
Whether the officer searched the person or any property, and if so, the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any.
Whether the officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, and the basis for seizing the property.
Provides that if more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer is required to collect and report the necessary information.
Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from reporting the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure.
States that, notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be made available to the public to the extent which release is permissible under state law, with the exception of badge number, or other unique identifying information of the officer involved.
Requires the AG, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of the required data by January 1, 2017. States the AG should consult with specified stakeholders in issuing the regulations.
Mandates that the regulations specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices. To the extent possible, the regulations should also be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
Requires each state and local law enforcement agency to publicly report the data on an annual basis beginning on July 1, 2018. The report should be posted on the law enforcement agency's website. In the event the agency does not have a website, it is to be posted on the DOJ website.
Requires retention of the reported data for at least five years.
Mandates that the AG annually analyze the data collected and report its findings from the first analysis by January 1, 2019. Reports are to be posted on the DOJ website.
Specifies that all data and reports made under these provisions are public records, as specified, and are open to public inspection.
Limits the definition of a “peace officer” for purposes of this section to “members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency and California state or university educational institutions.” And, the definition explicitly states that peace officer, as used in this section, does not include probation officers and officers in a custodial setting.
Defines "stop" for purposes of this section, as "any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person's body or property in the person's possession or control."
Revises and expands the content of the DOJ annual report on criminal statistics to report the total number of each of the following citizen complaints, to be made available to the public and disaggregated for each law enforcement agency:
Citizen complaints against law enforcement personnel;
Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor;
Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged.
Specifies that the statistics on citizen complaints must identify their dispositions as being sustained, exonerated, not sustained, or unfounded, as specified.
Renames “racial profiling” as “racial or identity profiling” and redefines it as “consideration of or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as, asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.”
Requires any peace officer who has a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years.
Mandates the AG establish the RIPA beginning July 1, 2016, to include the Attorney General or a designee, and 18 other members, as specified.
Tasks RIPA with the following:
Analyzing data reported both under this Act and other data, as specified;
Analyzing law enforcement training on racial and identity profiling;
Working in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices;
Issuing an annual report the first of which shall be issued by January 1, 2018, and posting the reports on its website; and,
Holding at least three annual public meetings to discuss racial and identity profiling and potential reforms, as specified.
Prior Legislation: AB 2133 (Torrico) 2006 would have created a state policy of prohibiting racial profiling and provided for required information to be gathered and tracked regarding the specifics of traffic stops. This bill was not provided a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.
AB 788 (Firebaugh) 2001 would have required the CHP and specified law enforcement agencies to report to the DOJ statistical data regarding traffic stops until January 1, 2008. This bill died on the Assembly Floor.
SB 1102 (Murray) Chapter 684/2000 states findings and declarations of the Legislature regarding racial profiling and requires law enforcement officers to participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by POST.
SB 78 (Murray) 1999 would have required the Commissioner of the CHP to gather data on traffic stops conducted by the CHP and law enforcement agencies of specified counties, and provide a report to the Legislature and the Governor. This bill was vetoed by the Governor.
AB 1264 (Murray) 1998 would have required the DOJ until January 1, 2003, in its annual report on criminal justice statistics to include specified statistics regarding all motorists stopped by law enforcement officers. This bill was vetoed by the Governor whose message stated in part:
This bill would require California law enforcement officers to collect information, including race or ethnicity and approximate age and gender, about all motorists subject to traffic stops during a three year reporting period. In addition, the DOJ would be required to collect and report statistical reports in its annual crime statistics report… Nonetheless, some officers, like members of every profession, may fail to fulfill their duties and indulge in biases. This bill would seek to record such incidents over a period of three years at a cost of tens of millions of dollars. The bill, however, ensures that neither officers nor motorists would be identified by name, only in the aggregate. Accordingly, it would be impossible to take meaningful corrective action.
This bill offers no certain or useful conclusion, assuredly nothing that would justify the major commitment of time, money, and manpower that this bill requires. The investment contemplated by AB 1264 could be more immediately and productively employed by enhancing officer training, encouraging dialogue between enforcement agencies and racially diverse community groups, and taking forceful action against those officers who abuse the privilege of serving all of California's citizens.
Staff Comments:
Data collection, reporting, retention, and training
This bill requires each state and local agency that employs peace officers to make an annual report including specified data on all “stops” conducted by that agency’s peace officers to the DOJ. The bill defines peace officers to include members of the CHP, city or county law enforcement agencies, and the CSU and UC who would be subject to the data collection, reporting, and retention requirements of this bill. There are currently 482 cities and 58 counties in the State. While statewide costs cannot be estimated with certainty, given the large number of local agencies and the numerous types of data required to be collected, reported, and retained, these activities could result in major one-time and ongoing costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually. To the extent local agency expenditures qualify as a reimbursable state mandate, agencies could claim reimbursement of those costs (General Fund). As an example, the Commission on State Mandates’ statewide cost estimate for Crime Statistics Reports for the DOJ reflects eligible reimbursement of over $13.6 million per year for slightly over 50 percent of local agencies reporting.
The costs to individual agencies would vary widely and depend on various factors, including but not limited to the size of the agency, the volume of stops to be reported by the agency, the method of collecting the data (which is not specified in the bill), the workload involved to collect the data elements required to be reported, the extent of training conducted by each agency, and storage requirements for each agency (whether electronic or paper). For example, while the workload involved to report the number of stops for an agency that already has an electronic data collection process in place may only require revisions to its existing process and minor training to its officers on the changes, the workload required for an agency that has no existing process in place would not only potentially incur the costs of development of a new system to collect and report the information, the costs of which would be dependent on how the agency decides to collect the data (whether manually or electronically), but would also incur substantial costs to test the system and train its officers. Whether through manual or electronic collection, agencies at a minimum would likely require the development of a central database and other system enhancements to aggregate the data, report to the DOJ, and retain the information for a minimum of five years as required by the bill.
Mandated racial profiling training
This bill requires law enforcement officers who have a complaint of racial or identity profiling that has been sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years. By mandating additional training on local law enforcement agencies, this bill could result in increased state-reimbursable costs to local agencies to provide training to officers and backfill behind these officers during the training period. Costs would be dependent on the number of officers with sustained complaints, the cost of the training course, and the frequency of the training attended (whether every six months or more frequently).
RIPA and mandated activities
The DOJ has indicated costs of $1.7 million in 2015-16, and $3 million in each of 2016-17 and 2017-18 to establish the 19-member RIPA and oversee/conduct its start-up activities. Ongoing costs are estimated at $1.5 million for activities including but not limited to analyzing data and statistics, issuing annual reports, reviewing and analyzing racial profiling policies and procedures, and holding at least three annual public meetings, which would include costs for travel and overtime.
Amendments for consideration: To reduce the potential costs of this measure, the author may wish to consider reducing the scope of the bill to a pilot program narrowed to specified counties or agencies and/or include a sunset date for the bill’s provisions. Narrowing the collection of data to vehicle stops would also reduce the potential costs of this bill.
Alternatively, revising the structure of the bill’s language to require the DOJ to include data on stops in its annual report reflecting information from law enforcement agencies reporting this information would potentially remove the mandate on local law enforcement agencies, however, data received would be limited to those agencies voluntarily collecting and reporting this information and would preclude uniformity and the ability to analyze data on a statewide basis.
Additional amendments that could reduce the potential costs of the bill include 1) eliminating the mandated five-year data retention period, 2) eliminating the mandated training provision on specified peace officers, and 3) limiting the analysis of the stop data to either the AG or the RIPA, instead of requiring this analysis and separate annual reports by both entities.
-- END --
AB 953 (Weber ) Page 9 of 9
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 953 Hearing Date: July 7, 2015
Author: |
Weber |
||
Version: |
June 30, 2015 |
||
Urgency: |
No |
Fiscal: |
Yes |
Consultant: |
JRD |
||
Subject: Law Enforcement: Racial Profiling
HISTORY
Source: American Civil Liberties Union of California; California State Conference of the NAACP; Youth Justice Coalition; Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Sacramento; PICO California; Reform California; Dignity & Power Now
Prior Legislation: AB 2133 (Torrico) – died Assembly Public Safety, 2006
AB 788 (Firebaugh) – died in Assembly, 2001
SB 1102 (Murray) – Chapter 684, Statutes of 2000
SB 78 (Murray) – vetoed, 1999
AB 1264 (Murray) – vetoed, 1998
Support: Advancing Justice; Advancement Project; AIDS Project Los Angeles; Alliance for Boys and Men of Color; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; API Equality-LA; Asian Law Alliance; Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach; Bay Area Youth Summit; Board of Rabbis of Southern California; Brown Boi Project; California Black Health Network; California Immigrant Policy Center; California Nurses Association; California Partnership; California State Council of Service Employees International; City of West Hollywood; Children’s Defense Fund—California; Community Coalition; Council on American-Islamic Relations; Courage Campaign; Dignity & Power Now; Drug Policy Alliance; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Empowering Pacific Islander Communities; Equal Justice Society; FACTS Education Fund and Faire Chance Project; Friends Committee of Legislation of California; The Greenlining Institute; Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Immigrant Youth Coalition; Islamic Shura Council; Interfaith Center for Worker Justice; Japanese American Citizens League; Justice for Immigrants Coalition of Inland Southern California; the K.W. Lee Center for Leadership; LA Progressive; Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; Los Angeles Black Worker Center; Los Angeles LGBT Center; Los Angeles Regional Reentry Project; Los Angeles Urban League; Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF); National Center for Lesbian Rights; National Lawyers Guild; National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum; A New Path; PACT: People Acting in Community Together; PolicyLink; Progressive Christians Uniting; San Francisco Public Defender; San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium; San Diego LGBT Community Center; South Asian Network; Priority Africa Network; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Opposition: California State Sheriffs’ Association; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California College and University Police Chiefs Association; California Correctional Supervisors Organization; California Narcotic Officers Association; California Police Chiefs Association; California Association of Highway Patrolmen; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Riverside Sheriffs Association
Assembly Floor Vote: 45 - 27
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to: 1) modify the definition of “racial profiling;” 2) require local law enforcement agencies to report specified information on stops to the Attorney General's office; and, 3) establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA).
Existing
law prohibits a law
enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling. (Penal Code §
13519.4(f).)
Existing
law 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.” (Penal Code § 13519.4(e).)
Existing
law 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. (Penal Code §
13519.4(b).)
Existing
law requires the DOJ
to present to the Governor, on or before July 1st, an annual report
containing the criminal statistics of the preceding calendar year.
(Penal Code § 13010(g).)
Existing
law mandates that the
annual report contain statistics showing all of the following:
The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities;
The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents;
The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents;
The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court; and,
The number of citizens' complaints received by law enforcement agencies, as specified. The statistics must indicate the total number of these complaints, the number alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor, and the number sustained in each category. The report shall not contain a reference to any individual agency but shall be by gross numbers only.
(Penal
Code § 13012.)
Existing law requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report statistical data to the DOJ at those times and in the manner that the Attorney General prescribes. (Penal Code § 13020.)
This bill requires, beginning March 1, 2018, each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General's office data on all stops, as specified, conducted by that agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year.
This bill requires the reporting to include the following information for each stop:
The reason for the stop;
The result of the stop, such as no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest;
If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited;
If an arrest was made, the offense charged;
The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped. The identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop. For auto stops, this requirement applies only to the driver unless actions taken by the officer apply in relation to a passenger, in which case his or her characteristics shall also be reported.
Actions taken by the officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
Whether the officer asked for consent to search the person, and if so, whether consent was provided;
Whether the officer searched the person or any property, and if so, the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any; and
Whether the officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, and the basis for seizing the property.
This bill provides that if more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer is required to collect and report the necessary information.
This bill prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from reporting the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure.
This bill states that, notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be made available to the public to the extent which release is permissible under state law, with the exception of badge number, or other unique identifying information of the officer involved.
This bill requires the Attorney General, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of the required data by January 1, 2017. The Attorney General should consult with specified stakeholders in issuing the regulations.
This bill mandates that the regulations specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices. To the extent possible, the regulations should also be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
This bill requires each state and local law enforcement agency to publicly report the data on an annual basis beginning on July 1, 2018. The report should be posted on the law enforcement agency's Web site, and in the event the agency does not have a Web site, it shall be posted on the Department of Justice (DOJ) Web site.
This bill requires retention of the reported data for at least five years.
This bill mandates that the Attorney General annually analyze the data collected and report its findings from the first analysis by January 1, 2019. Reports are to be posted on the DOJ Web site.
This bill specifies that all data and reports made under these provisions are public records, as specified, and are open to public inspection.
This bill limits the definition of a “peace officer” for purposes of this section to “members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency and California state or university educational institutions.” And, the definition explicitly states that peace officer, as used in this section, do not include probation officers and officers in a custodial setting.
This bill defines "stop" for purposes of this section, as "any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person's body or property in the person's possession or control."
This bill revises the content of the DOJ annual report on criminal statistics to report the total number of each of the following citizen complaints:
Citizen complaints against law enforcement personnel;
Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor;
Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged.
This bill specifies that the statistics on citizen complaints must identify their dispositions as being sustained, exonerated, not sustained, unfounded, as specified.
This bill revises legislative findings and declarations regarding racial and identity profiling.
This bill renames “racial profiling” as “racial or identity profiling” and redefines it as “consideration of or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as, asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.”
This bill requires any peace officer who has a complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years.
This bill mandates the Attorney General establish RIPA beginning July 1, 2016, for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in law enforcement.
This bill provides that RIPA shall include the following members:
The Attorney General, or a designee;
The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or a designee;
The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or a designee;
The President of the California State Sheriffs' Association, or a designee;
The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or a designee;
The Commissioner of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, or a designee;
The Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legislative Caucus, or designee;
A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity;
Two representatives of civil or human rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil and human rights and criminal justice;
Two representatives of community organizations specializing in civil or human rights and criminal justice and who work with victims of racial and identity profiling;
Two clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups or practices; and,
Up to two other members that the Attorney General may prescribe.
This bill tasks RIPA with the following:
Analyzing data reported, as specified;
Analyzing law enforcement training on racial and identity profiling;
Work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices;
Issuing an annual report the first of which shall be issued by January 1, 2018, and posting the reports on its Internet Web site; and,
Holding at least three annual public meetings to discuss racial and identity profiling and potential reforms, as specified.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In February of this year the administration reported that as “of February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. This current population is now below the court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity.” ( Defendants’ February 2015 Status Report In Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state now must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for Legislation
According to the author:
AB 953 will help eliminate the
harmful and unjust practice of racial and identity profiling, and
improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities
they serve. AB 953 promotes equal protection and prevents
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Peace officers risk
their lives every day, and the people of California greatly
appreciate their hard work and dedication to public safety. At the
same time, a recent poll shows that 55% of Californians and 85% of
African-Americans in California believe that “blacks and other
minorities do not receive equal treatment in the criminal justice
system.”1
Racial and identity profiling significantly contributes to this lack
of confidence in our justice system.
Racial and identity
profiling occurs when law enforcement personnel stop, search, seize
property from, or interrogate a person without evidence of criminal
activity. Studies show that profiling often occurs due to
unconscious biases about particular demographic identities.2
AB 953 would prevent profiling by, among other things,
clarifying and modernizing California's current prohibition against
profiling to better account for the ways in which profiling occurs,
establishing a uniform system for collecting and analyzing data on
law enforcement-community interactions, and establishing an advisory
board that investigates profiling patterns and practices and provides
recommendations on how to curb its harmful impact.
2. Effect of Legislation
Law
enforcement officers are prohibited from engaging in racial
profiling. (Penal Code § 13519.4(f).) “Racial profiling” is
currently defined 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. (Penal Code § 13519.4(e).)
Although
racial profiling is prohibited, studies show that racial profiling by
law enforcement does occur. For example, according to a report by
the Oakland Police Department, African-Americans, who compose 28
percent of Oakland’s population, accounted for 62 percent of police
stops from last April to November. The figures also showed that
stops of African-Americans were more likely to result in felony
arrests. And, while African-Americans were more likely to be
searched after being stopped, police were no more likely to find
contraband from searching African-Americans than members of other
racial groups. (http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-
courts/ci_25410009/report-blacks-comprise-62-percent-oakland-police-stops.)
Likewise,
in 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported that “The U.S. Department
of Justice has warned the Los Angeles Police Department that its
investigations into racial profiling by officers are inadequate and
that some cops still tolerate the practice.”… “The Justice
Department's concerns, which were conveyed in a recent letter
obtained by The Times, are a setback for the LAPD, which remains
under federal oversight on the issue.” The article noted,
“Profiling complaints typically occur after a traffic or pedestrian
stop, when the officer is accused of targeting a person solely
because of his or her race, ethnicity, religious garb or some other
form of outward appearance. About 250 such cases arise each year,
but more damaging is the widely held belief, especially among black
and Latino men, that the practice is commonplace.”
(http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/14/local/la-me-lapd-bias-20101114.)
3. Argument in Support
The American Civil Liberties Union of California states, in part:
. . . AB 953 Would Facilitate the Development of Evidenced-Based Policing by Establishing a Uniform System for Collecting and Reporting Information on Stops, Searches and Property Seizures
In A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection Systems: Promising Practices and Lessons Learned, the federal DOJ explains that having a system for collecting and reporting data on law enforcement stops, searches and property seizures facilitates the development of evidenced-based solutions to profiling, and builds public confidence in law enforcement:
[I]n the long run the systemic collection of statistics and information regarding law enforcement activities support community policing by building trust and respect for the police in the community. The only way to move the discussion from rhetoric and accusation to a more rational dialogue about appropriate enforcement strategies is to collect the information that will either allay community concerns about the activities of the police or help communities ascertain the scope and magnitude of the problem.3
The federal DOJ’s Resource Guide also highlights that agencies collecting such data now have computerized and radio-dispatch systems that alleviate the need for outdated written forms, and allow officers to report stops, searches and seizures in mere seconds.4
. . . AB 953 Would Facilitate the Development of Solutions that Improve Law Enforcement-Community Relations by Creating a Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board
In light of recommendations from the Police Executive Research Forum (“PERF”) and the federal DOJ’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”), AB 953 would create a diverse, multi-stakeholder advisory committee, called the “Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board,” composed of social scientists and policing experts, as well as representatives of law enforcement, civil rights groups, clergy, and the Legislature. The Advisory Board would be tasked with the duty of analyzing data, training programs, and policies and practices on profiling, and making recommendations on how to prevent profiling. According to PERF and COPS, this approach not only provides the benefit of facilitating “buy in” by law enforcement officers who collect data, but also helps enhance the credibility of research efforts, and increases the likelihood that communities view data reporting and recommended reforms as legitimate.5
In sum, the persistence of profiling in our state violates the U.S. and California Constitutions by betraying the fundamental promise of equal protection, and infringing upon the guarantee that all people shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also misdirects limited resources away from evidenced-based policing and the efficient pursuit of individuals who actually pose a threat to public safety, thus making all Californians less safe. To improve public safety, protect the fundamental rights of all Californians, and advance police-community relations, the ACLU of California strongly supports the enactment of AB 953.
4. Argument in Opposition
According to the California State Sheriffs’ Association:
The California State Sheriffs’ Association (CSSA) remains opposed to Assembly Bill 953, which would hinder important police work and enact costly requirements on law enforcement agencies regarding racial profiling.
AB 953 significantly expands the definition of racial profiling such that it prevents an officer from relying on identifying characteristics in any way in terms of deciding how to conduct police work. Specifically, by prohibiting an officer from considering or relying on, to any degree, a person’s actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, this bill would prevent an officer from using the fact that a person appears to be a Caucasian female in deciding how to respond to a “be on the lookout” order that indicates that a white woman is suspected to have committed a crime. If such a person were stopped because of a traffic violation, the perceived race and gender characteristics could not be considered in deciding whether to escalate enforcement activities.
Additionally, AB 953 would require every law enforcement agency to annually report to the Attorney General (AG) data on all stops. Some of the data points that must be collected at every stop include: the reason for, and result of, the stop; if an arrest was made, the offense charged; whether the subject was searched; and the perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. In essence, and counterintuitively, the bill seeks to combat racial profiling by requiring peace officers to pay very close attention to the race of the people with whom they interact.
Respectfully, AB 953 will hamstring peace officers and prevent them from doing their jobs effectively. The bill is overly broad and will result in negative impacts on public safety and local budgets. For these reasons, CSSA must oppose AB 953.
-- END –
1 Mark Aaldassare et al., Californians & their government, (PPIC Jan. 2015).
2 Tracey G. Gove, Implicit Bias and Law Enforcement, Police Chief Magazine (Oct. 2011), <http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2499&issue_id=102011>.)
3 A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection System: Promising Practices and Lessons Learned at 5 (2000), available at http://justice.utah.gov/Documents/Research/Race/DOJResourceGuide.pdf.
4 A Resource Guide on Racial Profiling Data Collection System: Promising Practices and Lessons Learned at 5 (2000), available at http://justice.utah.gov/Documents/Research/Race/DOJResourceGuide.pdf.
“The additional time an officer needs to clear a call is less than three seconds.” Id. at 20.
“It is estimated that it will take officers an additional 20 to 30 seconds to enter the data by making choices on the computer pulldown menus.” Id. at 26.
5 Lori A. Fridell, By the Numbers: A Guide for Analyzing Race Data from Vehicle Stops, 38-41 (PERF & COPS 2004); Lori Fridell et al., Racial Biased Policing: A Principled Response, 102-104 (PERF & COPS 2001).
AB 953
Page 6
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 953
(Weber)
As Amended June 1, 2015
Majority vote
Committee |
Votes |
Ayes |
Noes |
Public Safety |
5-2 |
Quirk, Jones-Sawyer, Low, Santiago, Thurmond |
Melendez, Lackey |
Appropriations |
12-5 |
Gomez, Bonta, Calderon, Daly, Eggman, Eduardo Garcia, Gordon, Holden, Quirk, Rendon, Weber, Wood |
Bigelow, Chang, Gallagher, Jones, Wagner |
SUMMARY:
Modifies the definition of "racial profiling;" requires local law enforcement agencies to report specified information on stops to the Attorney General's office; and establishes the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA). Specifically, this bill:
Requires, beginning March 1, 2018, each state and local agency that employs peace officers to annually report to the Attorney General's office data on all stops, as specified, conducted by that agency's peace officers for the preceding calendar year.
Requires the reporting to include the following information for each stop:
The reason for the stop;
The result of the stop, such as no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest;
If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited;
If an arrest was made, the offense charged;
The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped. The identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop. For auto stops, this requirement applies only to the driver unless actions taken by the officer apply in relation to a passenger, in which case his or her characteristics shall also be reported.
Actions taken by the officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
Whether the officer asked for consent to search the person, and if so, whether consent was provided;
Whether the officer searched the person or any property, and if so, the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any; and
Whether the officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, and the basis for seizing the property.
Provides that if more than one peace officer performs a stop, only one officer is required to collect and report the necessary information.
Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from reporting the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure.
States that, notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be made available to the public to the extent which release is permissible under state law, with the exception of badge number, or other unique identifying information of the officer involved.
Requires the Attorney General, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of the required data by January 1, 2017. The Attorney General should consult with specified stakeholders in issuing the regulations.
Mandates that the regulations specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices. To the extent possible, the regulations should also be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
Requires each state and local law enforcement agency to publicly report the data on an annual basis beginning on July 1, 2018. The report should be posted on the law enforcement agency's Web site, and in the event the agency does not have a Web site, it shall be posted on the Department of Justice (DOJ) Web site.
Requires retention of the reported data for at least five years.
Mandates that the Attorney General annually analyze the data collected and report its findings from the first analysis by January 1, 2019. Reports are to be posted on the DOJ Web site.
Specifies that all data and reports made under these provisions are public records, as specified, and are open to public inspection.
Limits the definition of a "peace officer" for purposes of this section to "members of the California Highway Patrol, a city or county law enforcement agency, except probation officers and officers in a custodial setting, and California state or university educational institutions."
Defines "stop" for purposes of this section, as "any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person's body or property in the person's possession or control."
Revises the content of the DOJ annual report on criminal statistics to report the total number of each of the following citizen complaints:
Citizen complaints against law enforcement personnel;
Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor;
Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged.
Specifies that the statistics on citizen complaints must identify their dispositions as being sustained, exonerated, not sustained, unfounded, as specified.
Revises legislative findings and declarations regarding racial and identity profiling.
Renames "racial profiling" as "racial or identity profiling" and redefines it as "consideration of or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following a stop. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as, asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest."
Requires any peace officer who has a sustained complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years.
Mandates the Attorney General establish RIPA beginning July 1, 2016, for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in law enforcement.
Provides that RIPA shall include the following members:
The Attorney General, or a designee;
The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or a designee;
The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or a designee;
The President of the California State Sheriffs' Association, or a designee;
The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or a designee;
The President of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, or a designee;
The Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legislative Caucus, or designee;
A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity;
Two representatives of civil or human rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil and human rights and criminal justice;
Two representatives of community organizations specializing in civil or human rights and criminal justice and who work with victims of racial and identity profiling;
Two clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups or practices; and,
Up to two other members that the Attorney General may prescribe.
Tasks RIPA with the following:
Analyzing data reported, as specified;
Analyzing law enforcement training on racial and identity profiling;
Work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices;
Issuing an annual report the first of which shall be issued by January 1, 2018, and posting the reports on its Internet Web site; and,
Holding at least three annual public meetings to discuss racial and identity profiling and potential reforms, as specified.
EXISTING LAW:
Prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling.
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."
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.
Requires the DOJ to present to the Governor, on or before July 1st, an annual report containing the criminal statistics of the preceding calendar year.
Mandates that the annual report contain statistics showing all of the following:
The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities;
The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents;
The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents;
The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court; and,
The number of citizens' complaints received by law enforcement agencies, as specified. The statistics must indicate the total number of these complaints, the number alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor, and the number sustained in each category. The report shall not contain a reference to any individual agency but shall be by gross numbers only.
Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report statistical data to the DOJ at those times and in the manner that the Attorney General prescribes.
FISCAL EFFECT:
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
Significant reimbursable mandated costs (GF), in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, by requiring the collection of very specific additional information by local law enforcement personnel, and the reporting of this information by local law enforcement agencies to the DOJ.
Significant costs to the California Highway Patrol to update their California Automated Reporting System, in the $1 million range (Motor Vehicle Account). In addition, the additional time required to document the additional data points will result in the need for additional officers, or the current service provided will be reduced. CHP made over four million public contacts in 2013-14.
Significant cost to the DOJ in the range of $2 million in 2015-16, $10 million in 2016-17, and $9 million every year thereafter.
Cost to the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) is absorbable if POST can update this definition the next time it updates its racial profiling curriculum.
COMMENTS:
According to the author, "AB 953 will help eliminate the harmful and unjust practice of racial and identity profiling, and improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. AB 953 promotes equal protection and prevents unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Peace officers risk their lives every day, and the people of California greatly appreciate their hard work and dedication to public safety. At the same time, a recent poll shows that 55% of Californians and 85% of African-Americans in California believe that 'blacks and other minorities do not receive equal treatment in the criminal justice system. Racial and identity profiling significantly contributes to this lack of confidence in our justice system.
"Racial and identity profiling occurs when law enforcement personnel stop, search, seize property from, or interrogate a person without evidence of criminal activity. Studies show that profiling often occurs due to unconscious biases about particular demographic identities.
"AB 953 would prevent profiling by, among other things, clarifying and modernizing California's current prohibition against profiling to better account for the ways in which profiling occurs, establishing a uniform system for collecting and analyzing data on law enforcement-community interactions, and establishing an advisory board that investigates profiling patterns and practices and provides recommendations on how to curb its harmful impact."
Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000738
AB 953
Page 3
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB 953
(Weber) – As Amended April 16, 2015
Policy Committee: |
Public Safety |
Vote: |
5 - 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill modifies the definition of "racial profiling"; requires, beginning January 1, 2017, state and local law enforcement agencies to report specified information on traffic, public transit, and pedestrian stops, searches, or seizures to the Attorney General’s Office (AG), and post this information on the law enforcement agency's website; requires the AG to issue regulations on the collection and reporting of the information specified; and requires the AG to establish the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA) for specified purposes.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Significant reimbursable mandated costs (GF), in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, by requiring the collection of very specific additional information by local law enforcement personnel, and the reporting of this information by local law enforcement agencies in a format yet to be determined by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Significant costs to the California Highway Patrol to update their California Automated Reporting System, in the $1 million range Motor Vehicle Account. In addition, the additional time required to document the additional data points will result in the need for additional officers, or the current service provided will be reduced. CHP made over four million public contacts in 2013-14.
Moderate one-time cost to the DOJ in the range of $175,000 (GF), a) $100,000 to develop the required regulations in consultation with specified parties by January 1, 2017, and b) $75,000 for information technology costs associated with the programming required to collect and publish the required reports.
Moderate ongoing costs to the DOJ in the range of $300,000 (GF) to staff the proposed RIPA and for RIPA to conduct the required investigations and analysis.
Cost to the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) is absorbable if POST can update this definition the next time it updates its racial profiling curriculum.
COMMENTS:
Author's Statement: According to the author, "AB 953 will help eliminate the harmful and unjust practice of racial and identity profiling, and improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. AB 953 promotes equal protection and prevents unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Peace officers risk their lives every day, and the people of California greatly appreciate their hard work and dedication to public safety. At the same time, a recent poll shows that 55% of Californians and 85% of African-Americans in California believe that 'blacks and other minorities do not receive equal treatment in the criminal justice system.' Racial and identity profiling significantly contributes to this lack of confidence in our justice system.
"Racial and identity profiling occurs when law enforcement personnel stop, search, seize property from, or interrogate a person without evidence of criminal activity. Studies show that profiling often occurs due to unconscious biases about particular demographic identities.
"AB 953 would prevent profiling by, among other things, clarifying and modernizing California's current prohibition against profiling to better account for the ways in which profiling occurs, establishing a uniform system for collecting and analyzing data on law enforcement-community interactions, and establishing an advisory board that investigates profiling patterns and practices and provides recommendations on how to curb its harmful impact."
This will requires law enforcement agencies to collect the following information for each stop, search, or seizure:
The time, date, and location of the stop, search, or seizure;
The characteristics of each peace officer involved in the stop, including, but not limited to, his or her badge or identification number, race or ethnicity, gender, age, assignment, division or station, and shift, and whether he or she was in uniform;
The basis for the stop, including, but not limited to, the offense suspected, and whether the action was initiated in response to a call for service, and, if the action was initiated in response to a call for services, the incident identifier;
The result of the stop, such as no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest;
If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited;
If an arrest was made, the offense charged;
A description of all persons detained during the stop. The description shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped, unless otherwise required by law. The description shall include, but not be limited to:
The number of people stopped;
The race or ethnicity, gender, and age of all people stopped;
The sexual orientation and religious affiliation, if any was perceived;
Whether the person stopped had limited English proficiency;
Any mental or physical disability of a person stopped;
Whether the officer previously stopped the person;
Specifically as to traffic stops, whether the person was a driver or passenger;
Actions taken by the officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
Whether the officer asked for consent to frisk or search any person, and if so, whether consent was provided;
Whether the officer searched any person or property, and if so, which persons were searched and what property was searched, the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any;
Whether the officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, the person from whom the property was seized, and the basis for seizing the property; and,
Whether the officer used force during the encounter, and if so, the type of force used and reason for using the force.
A description of any person upon whom force was used. The description must be based on the officer's observations and perceptions, and cannot be obtained by asking the person, unless otherwise required by law. The description shall include, but not be limited to:
The person's race or ethnicity, gender, and age;
The person's sexual orientation and religious affiliation, if any was perceived;
Whether the person had limited English proficiency;
Any perceived mental or physical disability or preexisting injury or medical condition of the person; and,
Whether the person was homeless.
Whether any other governmental or nongovernmental agency or service provider was called to respond to the scene, and if so, what agency or service provider, and the reason the agency or service provider was called to respond; and
Whether any person sustained any injuries during the encounter, and if so, which person, and the nature of the injuries and medical treatment provided, if any.
Background. Current law prohibits law enforcement officers from engaging in racial profiling, "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."
Current law requires the DOJ to present to the Governor, on or before July 1st, an annual report containing the criminal statistics of the preceding calendar year, and requires local law enforcement agencies to report specified information to the DOJ.
CHP is currently collecting and reporting specific data, beyond what is required of other law enforcement agencies, on their contact with the public.
Argument in Support: According to the Youth Justice Coalition, a co-sponsor of this bill, "Racial and identity profiling – the practice of law enforcement stops, searches, property seizures, and/or interrogations in absence of evidence of criminal activity – have eroded public trust, led to humiliation and false detentions of thousands of Californians, and contribute to an increase in law enforcement use of force resulting in serious injury and death.
"In March 2015, the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended that profiling based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability, and other demographic characteristics, be prohibited."
Analysis Prepared by: Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 953
Page 11
Date of Hearing: April 21 2015
Counsel: Sandra Uribe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Bill Quirk, Chair
AB 953
(Weber) – As Amended April 16, 2015
SUMMARY:
Modifies the definition of "racial profiling;" requires
local law enforcement agencies to report specified information on
traffic, public transit, and pedestrian stops to the Attorney
General’s office; and establishes the Racial and Identity Profiling
Advisory Board (RIPA). Specifically, this bill:
Requires, beginning July 1, 2017, each state and local agency that employs peace officers to report to the Attorney General's Office, at least on a quarterly basis, data on all traffic, public transportation, and pedestrian stops conducted by that agency's peace officers.
Requires the data collected to include the following information for each stop, search, or seizure:
The time, date, and location of the stop, search, or seizure;
The characteristics of each peace officer involved in the stop, including, but not limited to, his or her badge or identification number, race or ethnicity, gender, age, assignment, division or station, and shift, and whether he or she was in uniform;
The basis for the stop, including, but not limited to, the offense suspected, and whether the action was initiated in response to a call for service, and, if the action was initiated in response to a call for services, the incident identifier;
The result of the stop, such as no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest;
If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited;
If an arrest was made, the offense charged;
A description of all persons detained during the stop. The description shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped, unless otherwise required by law. The description shall include, but not be limited to:
The number of people stopped;
The race or ethnicity, gender, and age of all people stopped;
The sexual orientation and religious affiliation, if any was perceived;
Whether the person stopped had limited English proficiency;
Any mental or physical disability of a person stopped;
Whether the officer previously stopped the person;
Specifically as to traffic stops, whether the person was a driver or passenger;
Actions taken by the officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
Whether the officer asked for consent to frisk or search any person, and if so, whether consent was provided;
Whether the officer searched any person or property, and if so, which persons were searched and what property was searched, the basis for the search, and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any;
Whether the officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized, the person from whom the property was seized, and the basis for seizing the property; and,
Whether the officer used force during the encounter, and if so, the type of force used and reason for using the force.
A description of any person upon whom force was used. The description must be based on the officer's observations and perceptions, and cannot be obtained by asking the person, unless otherwise required by law. The description shall include, but not be limited to:
The person's race or ethnicity, gender, and age;
The person's sexual orientation and religious affiliation, if any was perceived;
Whether the person had limited English proficiency;
Any perceived mental or physical disability or preexisting injury or medical condition of the person; and,
Whether the person was homeless.
Whether any other governmental or nongovernmental agency or service provider was called to respond to the scene, and if so, what agency or service provider, and the reason the agency or service provider was called to respond; and
Whether any person sustained any injuries during the encounter, and if so, which person, and the nature of the injuries and medical treatment provided, if any.
Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from reporting the name, address, social security number, or other unique personal identifying information of persons stopped, searched, or subjected to a property seizure.
States that, notwithstanding any other law, the data reported shall be made available to the public to the extent which release is permissible under state law, with the exception of badge number, or other unique identifying information of the officer involved.
Requires the Attorney General, to issue regulations for the collection and reporting of the required data by January 1, 2017. The Attorney General should consult with specified stakeholders in issuing the regulations.
Mandates that the regulations specify all data to be reported, and provide standards, definitions, and technical specifications to ensure uniform reporting practices. To the extent possible, the regulations should also be compatible with any similar federal data collection or reporting program.
Requires each state and local law enforcement agency to publicly report the data on an annual basis beginning on July 1, 2018. The report should be posted on the law enforcement agency's Website, and in the event the agency does not have a Website, it shall be posted on the Department of Justice (DOJ) Website.
Requires retention of the reported data for at least five years.
Mandates that the Attorney General annually analyze the data collected and report its findings from the first analysis by July 1, 2018. Reports are to be posted on the DOJ Website.
Specifies that all data and reports made under these provisions are public records, as specified, and are open to public inspection.
Revises the content of the DOJ annual report on criminal statistics to report the total number of each of the following citizen complaints:
Citizen complaints against law enforcement personnel;
Citizen complaints alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor;
Citizen complaints alleging racial or identity profiling, disaggregated by the specific type of racial or identity profiling alleged.
Specifies that the statistics on citizen complaints must identify their dispositions as being sustained, exonerated, not sustained, unfounded, as specified.
Mandates the Attorney General establish RIPA beginning July 1, 2016 for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in law enforcement.
Provides that RIPA shall include the following members:
the Attorney General, or a designee;
The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or a designee;
The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or a designee;
The President of the California State Sheriffs' Association, or a designee;
The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or a designee;
The President of the Chief Probation Officers of California, or a designee;
The Chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Latino Legislative Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Asian and Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, or designee;
The Chair of the California Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legislative Caucus, or designee;
A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity;
Two representatives of civil or human rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil and human rights and criminal justice;
Two representatives of community organizations specializing in civil or human rights and criminal justice and who work with victims of racial and identity profiling;
Two clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing bias toward individuals and groups based on religious beliefs or practices; and,
Up to two other members that the Attorney General may prescribe.
Renames "racial profiling" as "racial or identity profiling" and redefines it as "consideration of or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to routine or spontaneous law enforcement activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activities following an initial contact. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as, asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest."
Revises legislative findings and declarations regarding racial and identity profiling.
Requires any peace officer who has a sustained complaint of racial or identity profiling that is sustained to participate in training to correct racial and identity profiling at least every six months for two years.
Tasks RIPA with the following:
Analyzing data reported, as specified;
Analyzing law enforcement training on racial and identity profiling;
Investigating and analyzing law enforcement agencies' racial and identity profiling policies and practices;
Issuing an annual report; and,
Holding at least three annual public meetings to discuss racial and identity profiling and potential reforms, as specified.
EXISTING LAW:
Prohibits a law enforcement officer from engaging in racial profiling. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (f).)
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).)
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).)
Requires the DOJ to present to the Governor, on or before July 1st, an annual report containing the criminal statistics of the preceding calendar year. (Pen. Code, § 13010, subd. (g).)
Mandates that the annual report contain statistics showing all of the following:
The amount and the types of offenses known to the public authorities;
The personal and social characteristics of criminals and delinquents;
The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies or institutions, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with criminals or delinquents;
The administrative actions taken by law enforcement, prosecutorial, judicial, penal, and correctional agencies, including those in the juvenile justice system, in dealing with minors who are the subject of a petition or hearing in the juvenile court to transfer their case to the jurisdiction of an adult criminal court or whose cases are directly filed or otherwise initiated in an adult criminal court; and,
The number of citizens' complaints received by law enforcement agencies, as specified. The statistics must indicate the total number of these complaints, the number alleging criminal conduct of either a felony or misdemeanor, and the number sustained in each category. The report shall not contain a reference to any individual agency but shall be by gross numbers only. (Pen. Code, § 13012.)
Requires state and local law enforcement agencies to report statistical data to the DOJ at those times and in the manner that the Attorney General prescribes. (Pen. Code, § 13020.)
FISCAL EFFECT:
Unknown
COMMENTS:
Author's Statement: According to the author, "AB 953 will help eliminate the harmful and unjust practice of racial and identity profiling, and improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. AB 953 promotes equal protection and prevents unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Peace officers risk their lives every day, and the people of California greatly appreciate their hard work and dedication to public safety. At the same time, a recent poll shows that 55% of Californians and 85% of African-Americans in California believe that 'blacks and other minorities do not receive equal treatment in the criminal justice system.'1 Racial and identity profiling significantly contributes to this lack of confidence in our justice system.
"Racial and identity profiling occurs when law enforcement personnel stop, search, seize property from, or interrogate a person without evidence of criminal activity. Studies show that profiling often occurs due to unconscious biases about particular demographic identities.2
"AB 953 would prevent profiling by, among other things, clarifying and modernizing California's current prohibition against profiling to better account for the ways in which profiling occurs, establishing a uniform system for collecting and analyzing data on law enforcement-community interactions, and establishing an advisory board that investigates profiling patterns and practices and provides recommendations on how to curb its harmful impact."
Racial Profiling: Racial profiling is a violation of our constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and equal protection. Existing state and federal law prohibits law enforcement officers from engaging in racial profiling. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (f).) "Racial profiling" is currently defined 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).)
Although racial profiling is prohibited, studies show that racial profiling by law enforcement does occur. For example, according to a report by the Oakland Police Department released last week, African-Americans, who compose 28 percent of Oakland's population, accounted for 62 percent of police stops from last April to November. The figures also showed that stops of African-Americans were more likely to result in felony arrests. And, while African-Americans were more likely to be searched after being stopped, police were no more likely to find contraband from searching African-Americans than members of other racial groups.
(<http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_25410009/report-blacks-comprise-62-percent-oakland-police-stops>.)
Likewise, in 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported that "The U.S. Department of Justice has warned the Los Angeles Police Department that its investigations into racial profiling by officers are inadequate and that some cops still tolerate the practice."…"The Justice Department's concerns, which were conveyed in a recent letter obtained by The Times, are a setback for the LAPD, which remains under federal oversight on the issue." The article noted, "Profiling complaints typically occur after a traffic or pedestrian stop, when the officer is accused of targeting a person solely because of his or her race, ethnicity, religious garb or some other form of outward appearance. About 250 such cases arise each year, but more damaging is the widely held belief, especially among black and Latino men, that the practice is commonplace." (<http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/14/local/la-me-lapd-bias-20101114>.)
Argument in Support: According to the Youth Justice Coalition, a co-sponsor of this bill, "Racial and identity profiling – the practice of law enforcement stops, searches, property seizures, and/or interrogations in absence of evidence of criminal activity – have eroded public trust, led to humiliation and false detentions of thousands of Californians, and contribute to an increase in law enforcement use of force resulting in serious injury and death.
"In March 2015, the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended that profiling based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion gender, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability, and other demographic characteristics, be prohibited.3
"Here in California, people throughout our state have long been plagues by the humiliating and frightening act of racial and identity profiling. In 2000, the Legislature found that 'racial profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of a democratic society,' and declared that 'it is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.'4 Subsequently, the Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that California's current prohibition against such acts is overvague (sic) and that law enforcement agencies have resisted following it.5
As one of numerous examples, a 2015 report by a police department in California found that blacks were stopped twice as often as their driving age demographic representation, and that blacks and Latinos were less likely to be arrested.6
"The persistence of profiling in our state violates the U.S. and
California Constitutions by betraying the fundamental promise of
equal protection, and infringing upon the guarantee that all people
shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also
misdirects limited resources away from evidence-based policing and
the efficient pursuit of individuals who actually pose a threat to
public safety, thus making all Californians less safe."
Arguments in Opposition:
The Peace Officers Research Association of California writes, "Our officers pride themselves on the fact that all stops are made justly and for probable cause. They are rigorously trained by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), which includes thorough training on racial profiling.
"In addition, our officers have already compiled, for many years now, a lot of the information set forth in your bill, including race, ethnicity, gender, age, reason for stop, result of stop, whether the vehicle was searched, and if so, why, whether a warrant was issued, etc. We believe the additional information required will take much more of the officer's time and result in less service to the public."
The California Police Chiefs Association states, "The burden created by this mandate will result in significant officer time spent writing reports, thereby diminishing the time an officer is able to spend interacting with members of the community.
"Law enforcement agencies strive every day to maintain legitimacy within their communities. Currently, officers are trained to interact and engage with members of the communities in which they police whether an officer pulls someone over for a traffic stop or stops someone while out patrolling the streets on foot.
"Unfortunately, we believe that AB 953 would weaken the aforementioned relations. While we support legislation that would encourage, support, and strengthen law enforcement-community relations, we do not believe that AB 953 represents a productive or efficient means to this goal."
Related Legislation:
AB 334 (Cooley) requires training for law enforcement officers on the profiling of motorcycle riders. AB 334 is pending hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 619 (Weber) requires the Attorney General to provide the Legislature an annual report on use-of-force incidents involving law enforcement and to make the information available on its Website. AB 619 is being heard in this Committee today.
Prior Legislation:
AB 2133 (Torrico), of the 2005-2006 Legislative session, would have created a state policy of prohibiting racial profiling and provided for required information to be gathered and tracked regarding the specifics of traffic stops. AB 2133 was never heard by this Committee.
AB 788 (Firebaugh), of the 2001-2002 Legislative session, would have clarified the definition of racial profiling and required data collection by specified law enforcement agencies. AB 788 died on the Assembly Inactive File.
SB 1102 (Murray), Chapter 684, Statutes of 2000, states findings and declarations of the Legislature regarding racial profiling and requires law enforcement officers to participate in expanded training as prescribed and certified by POST.
SB 78 (Murray) of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session, would have required the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Commissioner to gather specified data regarding traffic stops conducted by CHP officers, and would have required POST to present to the Legislature a report containing the information. SB 78 was vetoed.
AB 1264 (Murray), of the 1997-98 Legislative session, would have required the Attorney General's office to annually report specified statistics regarding all motorists stopped by law enforcement officers. AB 1264 was vetoed.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American
Civil Liberties Union of California (Co-Sponsor)
Youth Justice
Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Alliance
San Diego
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
Asian Law Alliance
Black Women for Wellness
Brown Boi Project
California Federation of
Teachers
California Immigrant Policy Center
California
Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a
Responsible Budget
Center
on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Central American Resource
Center, Los Angeles
Community Coalition
Council on
American-Islamic Relations
Courage Campaign
Dignity and
Power Now
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human
Rights
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
Equality
California
FACTS Education Fund & Fair Chance
Project
Filipino Migrant Center of Southern California
Friends
Committee on Legislation of California
GSA Network
Greenlining
Institute
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Immigrant Youth
Coalition
Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition
Inner
City Struggle
Japanese
American Citizens League
Justice for Immigrants Coalition of
Inland Southern California
Justice Not Jails
K.W. Lee
Center for Leadership
LA Voice
Long Beach Immigrant Rights
Coalition
Los Angeles Black Worker Center
Los Angeles LGBT
Center
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
Merced
Organizing Project
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National
Day Laborer Organizing Network
National Employment Law
Project
New Covenant Church
New PATH, Parents for Addiction
Treatment & Healing
New Way of Life Reentry Project
Pilipino
Workers Center of Southern California
Placer People of Faith
Together
Private Individual
Progressive Christians
Uniting
Public Advocates
Reform California
Riverside
Coalition for Police Accountability
Root &
Rebound
Sacramento Area Congregations Together
Sadler
Healthcare
San Francisco Organizing Project
San Francisco
Tenants Union
Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network
Social Justice Learning Institute
Southeast Asia Resource
Action Center
Starting Over, Inc.
Students for Sensible
Drug Policy, Whittier Law School
Transgender Law Center
True
North Organizing Network
W. Haywood Burns Institute
One
Private Individual
Opposition
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California
Association of Highway Patrolmen
California College and
University Police Chiefs Association
California Correctional
Supervisors Organization
California Police Chiefs
Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Los
Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research
Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Analysis Prepared by:
Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
1 Mark Aaldassare et al., Californians & their government, (PPIC Jan. 2015).
2 Tracey G. Gove, Implicit Bias and Law Enforcement, Police Chief Magazine (Oct. 2011), <http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2499&issue_id=102011>.)
3 http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Interim_TF_Report.pdf
4 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_1101-1150/sb_1102_bill_20000926_chaptered.html
5 http://www.lao.ca.gov/2002/racial_profiling/8-02_racial_profiling.pdf
6 http://www.utsandiego.com/documents/2015/feb/25/san-diego-police-traffic-stops-report/
Bill Author
