(1)Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training within the Department of Justice. Existing law requires the commission to carry out various duties related to the education and training of peace officers, as defined.

Existing law provides that animal control officers are not peace officers but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer and the power to serve warrants, as specified, during the course and within the scope of their employment, if those officers successfully complete a course in the exercise of those powers.

This bill would require every person appointed as an animal control officer prior to July 1, 2016, to complete a course in the exercise of the powers of arrest and to serve warrants no later than July 1, 2017. This bill would require every person appointed as an animal control officer, and every person appointed as a director, manager, or supervisor, or any person in direct control of an animal control agency, on or after July 1, 2016, to complete a course in the exercise of the powers of arrest and to serve warrants within one year of his or her appointment, as specified. This bill would require every animal control officer, prior to the exercise of the powers of arrest and to serve warrants, to have satisfactorily completed the required course of training.

This bill would also require every animal control officer appointed prior to July 1, 2016, to satisfactorily complete at least 40 hours of continuing education and training relating to the powers and duties of an animal control officer, no later than July 1, 2019, and every 3 years thereafter, as specified. The bill would require every animal control officer appointed on or after July 1, 2016, to comply with those requirements within 3 years of the date of his or her appointment, and every 3 years thereafter.

The bill would specify that the above training and continuing training requirements do not apply to an animal control officer who is a peace officer.

By imposing new training requirements on local employees, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law provides for the regulation and licensing of dogs, including the issuance of dog license tags. Existing law requires that fees for the issuance of dog license tags and fines collected for a violation of the provisions regulating and licensing dogs be paid into the county, city, or city and county treasury and that they be used for specified purposes, including to pay costs and expenses for the enforcement of those provisions.

This bill would expand the list of purposes for which those fees and fines shall be used to include paying for initial and in-service training for persons charged with enforcing animal control laws, including animal control officers.

(3)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.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

SB 237 (Anderson) - Animal control officers: training

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 237 would require animal control officers (ACOs) and ACO supervisory personnel, as specified, to complete a training course in the exercise of the powers of arrest and to serve warrants. This bill would also mandate minimum continuing education (CE) and training requirements, as specified, for ACOs and the maintenance of training records by local agencies employing ACOs.

Fiscal Impact:

• Initial training: Potentially significant state-reimbursable costs in excess of $150,000 (General Fund) to local agencies employing ACOs for the initial 40-hour training course and costs to backfill for missed work hours, both initial and ongoing. For every 10 percent (147 ACOs) of currently employed ACOs, initial training costs would be about $145,000 for training and staff time. Training costs for ACO supervisory staff would be dependent on the number of applicable personnel, which is unknown at this time, but would potentially be significant.

• Continuing education/training: Potentially significant state-reimbursable costs to local agencies, estimated at a minimum of $130,000 to $326,000 (General Fund) over three years in staff time alone for every 10 to 25 percent of ACOs required to complete a minimum of 40 hours of CE. This estimate assumes local agencies utilize training courses that are available at no cost, and includes only the costs to backfill for staff time. To the extent local agencies incur additional costs for training, the estimated costs incurred triennially would increase accordingly. Also, to the extent the minimum CE standard is set above 40 hours (as allowable under the provisions of this measure), costs would increase accordingly.

• Mandated records retention: One-time and ongoing state-reimbursable costs (General Fund) to local agencies for the mandated maintenance of training records by the ACO employing agency. Costs would be dependent on the media utilized to maintain the records, the retention period, and volume of records to be maintained.

• Local funds impact: Training costs could potentially be offset in part by dog license tag fee and fine revenues to the extent funds are allowable for this use and available after all other existing payment obligations as prioritized are satisfied. Additional revenue decreases (Local) in county and city funds could be incurred to the extent reimbursement for the costs of training are extended beyond ACOs to include humane officers.

Background:

Existing law under Penal Code (PC) § 830.9 provides that ACOs are not peace officers but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer and the power to serve warrants, as specified, during the course and within the scope of their employment if those officers successfully complete a training course pursuant to PC § 832. Existing law provides that the part of the training course pertaining to the carrying and use of firearms is not required for any ACO whose employing agency prohibits the use of firearms.

The PC 832 Arrest and Firearms Course, certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), is the minimum training standard for California peace officers. The course consists of two components, which total a minimum of 64 hours. The Arrest component has a 40-hour requirement, and the Firearms component has a 24-hour requirement. These components are divided into 14 individual topics which contain the minimum required foundational information for given subjects.

ACOs enforce state and local laws pertaining to animal care and control as well as public safety. While they are not peace officers, ACOs may exercise the same powers of arrest and serving warrants within the scope of their duties if the PC § 832 course is successfully completed. Unlike peace officers and humane officers, ACOs are not mandated to attend any in-service training or education in order to maintain their proficiency in their law enforcement duties. This bill will require minimum ACO training standards and seeks to not only standardize training on the powers of arrest and serving warrants, but also requires continuing education and the maintenance of training records by local agencies.

Proposed Law:

This bill places new initial and ongoing training requirements on ACOs and ACO supervisory staff, as follows:

• Requires every person appointed as an ACO prior to July 1, 2016, to complete a course in the exercise of the powers of arrest and to serve warrants no later than July 1, 2017. Every ACO appointed on or after July 1, 2016, is required to complete the course within one year of his or her appointment.

• Specifies that the training component pertaining to the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required for ACOs whose employing agency prohibits the use of firearms.

• Provides that an ACO who completed the basic training course prior to January 1, 2016, is deemed to have satisfied the aforementioned training requirements.

• Requires every person appointed as a director, manager, supervisor, or any person in direct control of an animal control agency on or after July 1, 2016, to complete the PC 832 training course within one year of his or her appointment.

• Requires that during each three-year period following the date of appointment for ACOs appointed after July 1, 2016, every ACO shall satisfactorily complete at least 40 hours of CE and training relating to the powers and duties of an ACO, as specified. For ACOs appointed prior to July 1, 2016, the CE requirements must be completed by July 1, 2019, and every three years thereafter.

• Provides that the California Animal Control Directors Association may determine the minimum hours and required topics of CE and training.

• Requires CE and training to include at least four hours of course work in the exercise of the powers of arrest and to serve warrants taught by a POST-certified instructor.

• Provides that ACO employing agencies may provide training utilizing instructors or curriculum from within the agency or from an allied agency, provided the topic and length of instruction otherwise comply with the provisions of the subdivision.

• Requires records of training to be maintained by the ACO’s employing agency.

• Specifies that the training and records retention requirements do not apply to an ACO who is a peace officer pursuant to PC § 830.1.

• Adds, as a fifth priority, the cost of initial and in-service training for persons charged with enforcing animal control laws, including ACOs, to the list of expenses authorized to be paid with from fees collected for the issuance of dog license tags and fines collected from the regulation of the licensing of dogs (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 30652).

Related Legislation:

SB 1278 (Leno) 2014 was substantially similar to this measure. This bill was held on the Suspense File of this Committee.

SB 655 (Presley) Chapter 82/1990 required ACOs to successfully complete the training course on the powers of arrest and to serve warrants, rather than simply receive that course of training in order to exercise those powers during the course and within the scope of their employment.

Staff Comments:

By imposing new training and continuing education requirements on local employees, as well as records retention requirements on local agencies, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program, the costs of which could potentially be reimbursable by the state, subject to an affirmative decision by the Commission on State Mandates (CSM). It is estimated that both the direct costs to provide training to ACOs, as well as the indirect costs to local agencies to backfill the ACO time spent at training with other officers, could potentially be eligible for reimbursement.

Government Code § 17556(e) states that the CSM shall not find costs mandated by the state if offsetting savings or additional revenue that was specifically intended to fund the costs of the state mandate in an amount sufficient to fund the cost of the state mandate exists. Of note, in its Parameters and Guidelines of the approved test claim for Animal Adoption (CSM 98-TC-11), the CSM deducted offsetting savings and other reimbursements, including the fees from dog license tags issued and fines collected pursuant to FAC § 30652, from the total costs claimed.

While this bill specifically amends FAC § 30652 to authorize the use of dog license tag fees and fines collected to fund the training of persons charged with enforcement of animal control laws, including ACOs, it is unknown if the existing fee and fine revenues collected are appropriate and/or sufficient to cover the initial and ongoing increased training costs of this measure, as the authorized use of funds are prioritized from rank 1 to 5, with the expenses imposed under this measure to be paid last. Additionally, staff notes the spending authority provided for in this measure extends not only to the training costs of ACOs, but to the training costs for all persons charged with enforcing animal control laws, which could include humane officers.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates 13,450 ACOs were employed nationwide as of May 2014. Of the 12,080 ACOs employed by local agencies, 1,470 ACOs are estimated to be employed in California. It is assumed a large percentage of employed ACOs would be exempt from the initial training due to the prior completion of the course or existing peace officer status. There would, however, be costs associated with a small percentage of currently employed ACOs, as well as costs for prospectively appointed ACOs and ACO supervisory staff required to complete the initial training course. Additional local costs would also be incurred to backfill for staff time spent at training. For every 10 percent (147 officers) of currently employed ACOs who would be required to complete the initial PC § 832 training course at a cost of $102 for the 40-hour basic training course (without firearms component), costs would be about $145,000. This estimate includes the cost to backfill for staff time utilizing the BLS hourly mean wage for ACOs in California of $22.15.

Training costs for every director, manager, supervisor, and any person in direct control of an ACO would be dependent on the number of applicable personnel, which is unknown at this time, but would potentially be significant. Supervisory personnel would not be exempt unless he or she was an ACO who previously completed the training or held peace officer status.

The mandated CE and training requirements of at least 40 hours to be completed every three years as determined by the California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA) would result in potentially significant ongoing state-reimbursable costs (General Fund). The magnitude of costs would be dependent on the CE requirements determined by the CACDA, the availability and utilization of no-cost training courses, and the number of ACOs exempt from the CE requirements due to peace officer status. For every 10 to 25 percent of ACOs statewide subject to a 40-hour CE requirement, costs over three years are estimated at a minimum of $130,000 to $326,000 (General Fund) in staff time alone. This estimate assumes local agencies utilize training courses that are available at no cost, and includes only the costs to backfill for staff time. To the extent local agencies incur additional costs for training (as the bill does not mandate that local agencies utilize no-cost training courses to fulfill training requirements), the estimated costs incurred triennially would increase accordingly. In addition, to the extent the minimum CE standard is set above 40 hours, as allowable under the provisions of this measure, costs would increase accordingly.

Recommended Amendments:

1. On page 4, in lines 12-13, due to the inclusion of several dates described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of PC § 830.9, as drafted, the language “following the date described in paragraph (2)” is unclear. For clarity, staff recommends the following technical amendment:

(f) (1) During each three-year period following the date described in paragraph (2), Pursuant to paragraph (2), every animal control officer shall satisfactorily complete at least 40 hours of continuing education and training related to the powers of arrest and duties of an animal control officer,…

On page 4, in lines 31-39, to ensure the four hours of required training on the powers of arrest are taught by a POST-certified instructor, staff recommends the following technical amendments:

On page 4, in line 34, delete “This” and delete lines 35-39.

And add: Nothing in this section shall restrict the ability of an agency employing animal control officers from using instructors or curriculum within the agency, or from an allied agency, to provide the training required by this section, provided that four hours of course work in the exercise of the powers of arrest and to serve warrants is taught by a Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training certified instructor.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: SB 237 Hearing Date: March 24, 2015

Subject: Animal Control Officers

HISTORY

Source: Roy Curtis Marcum Foundation and Humane Society of the United States

Prior Legislation: SB 1278 (Leno) – 2014, held in Senate Appropriations

SB l655 (Presley) – Ch. 82, Stats. 1990

AB 2209 (Vicencia) – Ch. 1575, Stats. 1985

Support: California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; LIUNA Locals 777 and 792

Opposition: None known

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to expand current training requirements for animal control personnel by requiring: (1) all animal control officers to complete a course in the exercise of powers of arrest and to serve warrants, as specified; (2) each person appointed as a director, manager, supervisor, or any person in control of an animal control agency on or after July 1, 2016 complete a course in the exercise of powers of arrest and to serve warrants within one year of appointment; and, (3) all animal control officers have 40 hours of continuing training every three years, as specified.

Existing law provides that animal control officers are not peace officers but may exercise the powers of arrest of a peace officer, as specified, and the power to serve warrants, as specified, during the course and within the scope of their employment, if those officers successfully complete a course in the exercise of those powers pursuant to Section 832. That part of the training course specified in Section 832 pertaining to the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required for any animal control officer whose employing agency prohibits the use of firearms. (Penal Code § 830.9.)

Existing law further provides:

• An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law and that an arrest may be made by a peace officer or a private person. (Penal Code § 834.)

• An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by submission to the custody of an officer. The person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for his or her arrest and detention. (Penal Code § 835.)

• A private person may arrest another person for a public offense committed or attempted in his or her presence, when the person arrested has committed a felony regardless of whether it was committed in his or her presence, and when a felony has been committed and he or she has reasonable cause for believing the person to be arrested has committed it. (Penal Code § 837.)

• With limited exceptions, a peace officer may arrest a person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed a public offense in the officer's presence, when the person arrested has committed a felony regardless of whether it was committed in the officer's presence, and when the officer has reasonable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed a felony. (Penal Code § 836.)

Existing law requires peace officers, and specified other public officers “not a peace officer,” to complete training prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and to pass an appropriate POST examination. (Penal Code § 832.)

Existing law requires that fees for the issuance of dog license tags and fines collected for a violation of the provisions regulating and licensing dogs be paid into the county, city or city and county treasury and that they be used for specified purposes, including to pay costs and expenses related to: (1) the issuance of dog license tags, (2) to pay fees, salaries, costs, expenses, or any or all of them for the enforcement of the dog licensing provisions, (3) to pay damages to owners of livestock which are killed by dogs, and (4) to pays costs of any hospitalization or emergency care of an abandoned and neglected animals. (Food and Agriculture Code § 30652.)

This bill would require all animal control officers to complete a course in the exercise of powers of arrest and to serve warrants, administered by POST. Specially, the bill would require every person appointed as an animal control officer prior to July 1, 2016, to complete a course in the exercise of the powers of arrest and to serve warrants no later than July 2, 2017. And, every Animal Control Officer, appointed after July 1, 2016, to complete the course within one year of beginning employment.

This bill would require each person appointed as a director, manager, supervisor, or any person in control of an animal control agency on or after July 1, 2016 complete a course in the exercise of powers of arrest and to serve warrants, administered by POST, within one year of appointment, as specified.

This bill would require that during each three-year period following the date of appointment as an animal control officer, every animal control officer shall satisfactorily complete at least 40 hours of continuing education and training relating to the powers and duties of an animal control officer as determined by the California Animal Control Directors Association.

This bill would expand the list of purposes for which dog license fees can be used to include paying for initial and in-service training for persons charged with enforcement animal control laws, including animal control officers.

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 its most recent status report to the court (February 2015), 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 This Bill

The author states:

Animal control officers (ACOs) enforce state and local laws pertaining to animal care and control as well as public safety. ACOs are not peace officers, but they may exercise the same powers of arrest and serving warrants within the scope of their duties. They can investigate felony crimes and make felony arrests, ACOs also routinely enter private property to seize animals when there is evidence of animal cruelty, neglect or the need for quarantine. This is often done over the angry and sometimes violent objections of owners that put ACOs in dangerous situations.

Humane officers, who work on behalf of non-profit humane societies issuing citations for violations, have clear and strict training requirements. Humane officers are required to complete basic training and must complete 40 hours of continuing education every three years. Despite ACOs having greater authority to enforce animal welfare and other laws, humane officers are subject to stricter and more standardized training than ACOs.

2. Effect of This Legislation

The impetus behind this legislation is the 2012 death of Animal Control Officer Roy Marcum. In November 2012:

An unarmed animal control officer was shot and killed in Sacramento County . . . while trying to retrieve pets from a home whose owner was evicted the previous day.

The officer had gone to the home to rescue dogs and cats authorities thought had been left behind, a day after Joseph Francis Corey was served an eviction notice and a sheriff’s deputy changed the locks.

The officer — Roy Curtis Marcum, 45, of Elk Grove — and a bank employee knocked on the door when Corey fired a shotgun through the door, striking the officer in the torso, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Sgt. Jason Ramos said.

(Calif. animal control officer killed in eviction, The Daily Republic, November 30, 2012.)

According to the Humane Society and the Roy Curtis Marcum Foundation, who are co-sponsoring this legislation:

Despite the duties of enforcing state and local laws, including felonies, there is no standardized training or in-service training for ACOs. In fact, humane officers and security guards have stricter training requirements than ACOs. The lack of officer training can contribute to tragic results. In 2012, Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation Officer Roy C. Marcum was fatally shot through the front door by an irate animal owner. Despite Officer Marcum’s years of experience, he lacked the necessary and ongoing training to safely address the hazards he faced.

Given this, the legislation seeks to not only standardize training on the powers of arrest and serving warrants, but also requires continuing education and training.

3. Argument in Support

LIUNA Locals 777 and 792, representing animal control officers, state:

SB 237 seeks to institute standardized training for animal control officers in order to provide better officer safety, to protect the rights of animal owners and to ensure animal welfare. The bill brings animal control officers on par to similar training standards required of humane officers.

Animal control officers (ACOs) enforce state and local law pertaining to animal control and care as well as public safety. ACOs are not peace officers, but they may exercise the same powers of arrest and serving warrants within the scope of their duties. The can investigate felony crimes and make felony arrests pertaining to state animal welfare laws. ACOs also routinely enter private property to seize animals when there is evidence of animal cruelty, neglect or need for quarantine. This is often done over the angry and sometimes violent objections of the owners that put ACOs in dangerous situations.

Despite the duties of enforcing felony animal welfare laws, there is not standardized training for ACOs in the powers of arrest and serving warrants. In fact, security guards have stricter training requirements in these powers than ACOs do. All ACOs should have basic training in approaching potentially dangerous situations, be better prepared to address combatant animal owners and know the boundaries of their duties.

-- END --