Existing law defines a hate crime as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop guidelines for instruction and training of law enforcement officers addressing hate crimes. Existing law requires state law enforcement agencies to adopt a framework or other formal policy on hate crimes created by POST.

Existing law defines a hate crime as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to empower communities to safely reduce the number of hate crimes.

Date of Hearing: April 26, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1161

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:March 21, 2017

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires state law enforcement agencies to either adopt or review and revise policies for addressing hate crimes. If a state or local law enforcement agency adopts or revises its policy, the policy is required to include specified information. AB 1161 also requires:

1. The agency to consult with civil rights and community groups.
2. The agency to provide a copy of newly adopted or revised hate crime policy to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
3. DOJ, if funding is provided, to review and suggest revisions for the policy as well as make the policies available to academic and independent researchers, and civil rights groups.
4. The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to incorporate the provisions of bill if POST updates its current course instruction and training related to hate crimes.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Implementation costs in the $170,000 to $335,000 (GF) range to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to adopt regulations with input from community and civil rights groups. In addition, CDCR will incur training costs in the $1 million range to train the appropriate officers on the applicable aspects of the new policy.
2. If POST is required to update the existing Hate Crimes training DVD, last produced in 2008, POST will incur costs of $125,000 (GF), and an additional $125,000 to update the training and testing at the academy. Most state agencies have indicated they use the POST model as their policy. Therefore, there will be pressure on POST to update their model.
3. Non reimbursable local law enforcement agency costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to adopt and/or revise hate crime policies. There over 800 local law enforcement agencies, if each agency incurs $2,000 in costs to adopt/revise their policies after consulting with community groups and submitting the policy to DOJ for review, the aggregate cost will exceed $1.6 million. However, since the function is not mandatory, these costs are not reimbursable.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Current law requires POST to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training addressing hate crimes for law enforcement officers who are employed as peace officers, or who are not yet employed as a peace officer but are enrolled in a training academy.

According to data from the National Crime Victim Survey by the U.S. Justice Department, hate crimes are significantly underreported. This survey, in comparison to numbers reported to the FBI, suggests that hate crimes likely occur 24-28 times more than they are reported. This underreporting is due in part to a lack of formal training and reporting requirements for local police departments as well as the victim’s fear of insensitive treatment by law enforcement.

1. Purpose. According to the author, "Hate crimes are on the rise in California. The Attorney General’s 2015 Hate Crime in California report found that from 2014 to 2015, hate crime events increased by 10.4% and violent hate crime offenses increased by 11.3% in the same year. With the rise in hate and intolerant rhetoric coming from the federal government, we must prepare our law enforcement agencies to respond to the growing number of hate crimes. AB 1161 provides a framework on how law enforcement agencies should update their hate crime policy protocols, resources, and responsibilities, and help prevent future incidents.”
2. Support. According to Equality California, “While many law enforcement agencies do have policies on hate crimes in place, most of these policies are outdates, insufficient to ensure hate crimes are recognized as such when they occur, and sorely lacking in recommendations to help prevent hate crimes before they occur.”
3. Related Legislation.
   

AB 39 (Bocanegra), requires every local law enforcement agency to forward a summary of any hate crime reported within its jurisdiction to the human relations commission within that jurisdiction, if such an entity exists. This bill will be on next week’s agenda in this Committee.

AB 158 (Chu), requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to develop, on or before January 1, 2019, statewide hate crime reporting guidelines to be implemented by all law enforcement agencies. This bill will be on next week’s agenda in this Committee.

1. Prior Legislation.
   

AB 2799 (Saldana), of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session, would have allowed each county to either establish a hate crimes commission, or direct an existing board or committee to fulfill the duties of such a commission, for the purpose of reviewing the incidents of hate crime within the county and ensuring that local law enforcement agencies are responding to hate crimes and reporting these crimes to the Attorney General. AB 2799 was moved from the Senate Rules Committee without further action.

AB 1234 (Kuehl), Chapter 700, Statutes of 2004, required that POST include in their guidelines a framework and possible content of general order or other formal policy on hate crimes that all state law enforcement agencies adopt and local law enforcement agencies would be encouraged to adopt, as specified.

AB 1673 (Chu), of the 2003-2004 Legislative Session, would have expressed the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to require local law enforcement agencies to track and report hate crimes and hate incidences to the Attorney General. AB 1673 died at the Desk.

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

Date of Hearing: April 4, 2017

Consultant: Adam Smith

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:March 21, 2017

SUMMARY:

Requires state law enforcement agencies to either adopt or review and revise policies for addressing hate crimes. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires that each state law enforcement agency adopt a hate crime policy.
   
2. Requires a state or local law enforcement agency, if it adopts or revises a hate crime policy, to include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
   
   1. Specified definitions related to hate crimes;
      
   2. The content of the model policy framework that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training developed, as specified;
      
   3. Information regarding bias motivation;
      
   4. Information regarding the general underreporting of disability bias, gender bias, nationality and ethnic bias, and religion bias hate crimes and a plan for the agency to remedy underreporting;
      
   5. The protocol for reporting suspected hate crimes to the Department of Justice;
      
   6. A checklist for first responder responsibilities, including, but not limited to, giving the possible victims and any interested persons the agency’s hate crimes brochure;
      
   7. A specific procedure for transmitting and periodically retransmitting the policy and any related orders to all officers, including a simple and immediate way for officers to access the policy in the field when needed;
      
   8. The designation of an officer to distribute multiple copies of the hate crime brochure and ensure that all officers are trained to distribute the brochure to suspected hate crime victims and other interested persons; and
      
   9. A requirement that all officers be familiar with the policy and carry out the policy at all times unless directed otherwise by a specified authority.
      
3. Defines “bias motivation” as “a preexisting negative attitude toward actual or perceived characteristics. Depending on the circumstances of each case, bias motivation may include, but is not limited to, hatred, animosity, resentment, revulsion, contempt, unreasonable fear, paranoia, callousness, thrill-seeking, desire for social dominance, desire for social bonding with those of one’s ‘own kind,’ or a perception of the vulnerability of the victim due to the victim being perceived as having a negative characteristic such as being weak, worthless, or fair game because of a protected characteristic, including gender and disability.”
   
4. Requires a state or local law enforcement agency to consult civil rights groups and affected community groups, as specified, if the agency adopts or revises a hate crime policy.
   
5. Requires a state or local law enforcement agency with an existing hate crime policy to review and revise the policy, as specified, and prohibits an agency from repealing the agency’s policy.
   
6. Requires a state or local law enforcement agency to provide a copy of newly adopted or revised hate crime policy to the Department of Justice. The department, if provided with adequate funding, shall review and suggest revisions for the policy as well as make the policy public, as specified.
   

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines “hate crime” as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:
   
   1. Disability;
      
   2. Gender;
      
   3. Nationality;
      
   4. Race or ethnicity;
      
   5. Religion;
      
   6. Sexual orientation; and
      
   7. Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. (Pen. Code, § 422.55, subd. (a).)
      
2. States that, in regard to hate crimes, the following definitions shall apply:
   
   1. “Association with a person or group with these actual or perceived characteristics” includes advocacy for, identification with, or being on the ground owned or rented by, or adjacent to, any of the following: a community center, educational facility, family, individual, office, meeting hall, place of worship, private institution, public agency, library, or other entity, group, or person that has, or is identified with people who have, one or more of those characteristics listed in the definition of “hate crime” under paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 422.55;
      
   2. “Disability” includes mental disability and physical disability as specified;
      
   3. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth;
      
   4. “In whole or in part because of” means that the bias motivation must be a cause in fact of the offense, whether or not other causes also exist. When multiple concurrent motives exist, the prohibited bias must be a substantial factor in bringing about the particular result. There is no requirement that the bias be a main factor, or that the crime would not have been committed but for the actual or perceived characteristic. This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law under In re M.S. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 698 and People v. Superior Court (Aishman) (1995) 10 Cal.4th 735;
      
   5. “Nationality” includes citizenship, country of origin, and national origin;
      
   6. “Race or ethnicity” includes ancestry, color, and ethnic background;
      
   7. “Religion” includes all aspects of religious belief, observance, and practice and includes agnosticism and atheism;
      
   8. “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality; and
      
   9. “Victim” includes, but is not limited to, a community center, educational facility, entity, family, group, individual, office, meeting hall, person, place of worship, private institution, public agency, library, or other victim or intended victim of the offense. (Pen. Code, § 422.56).
      
3. Requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers who are employed as peace officers, or who are not yet employed as a peace officer but are enrolled in a training academy for law enforcement officers, addressing hate crimes. (Pen. Code § 13519.6, subd. (a).)
   
4. Requires the course to make maximum use of audio and video communication and other simulation methods and include instruction in each of the following:
   
   1. Indicators of hate crimes;
      
   2. The impact of these crimes on the victim, the victim’s family, and the community, and the assistance and compensation available to victims;
      
   3. Knowledge of the laws dealing with hate crimes and the legal rights of, and the remedies available to, victims of hate crimes;
      
   4. Law enforcement procedures, reporting, and documentation of hate crimes;
      
   5. Techniques and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes in a noncombative manner;
      
   6. Multimission criminal extremism, which means the nexus of certain hate crimes, antigovernment extremist crimes, anti-reproductive-rights crimes, and crimes committed in whole or in part because of the victims’ actual or perceived homelessness;
      
   7. The special problems inherent in some categories of hate crimes, including gender-bias crimes, disability-bias crimes, including those committed against homeless persons with disabilities, anti-immigrant crimes, and anti-Arab and anti-Islamic crimes, and techniques and methods to handle these special problems; and
      
   8. Preparation for, and response to, possible future anti-Arab/Middle Eastern and anti-Islamic hate crime waves, and any other future hate crime waves that the Attorney General determines are likely. (Pen. Code § 13519.6, subd. (b).)
      
5. Provides that the guidelines developed by the commission shall incorporate certain procedures and techniques, as specified, and shall include a framework and possible content of a general order or other formal policy on hate crimes that all state law enforcement agencies shall adopt and the commission shall encourage all local law enforcement agencies to adopt. The elements of the framework shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
   
   1. A message from the law enforcement agency’s chief executive officer to the agency’s officers and staff concerning the importance of hate crime laws and the agency’s commitment to enforcement;
      
   2. The definition of “hate crime”, as specified;
      
   3. References to hate crime statutes as specified; and
      
   4. A title-by-title specific protocol that agency personnel are required to follow, including, but not limited to, the following:
      
      1. Preventing and preparing for likely hate crimes by, among other things, establishing contact with persons and communities who are likely targets, and forming and cooperating with community hate crime prevention and response networks.
         
      2. Responding to reports of hate crimes, including reports of hate crimes committed under the color of authority.
         
      3. Accessing assistance, by, among other things, activating the Department of Justice hate crime rapid response protocol when necessary.
         
      4. Providing victim assistance and follow-up, including community follow-up.
         
      5. Reporting. (Pen. Code § 13519.6, subd. (c).)
         

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Hate crimes are on the rise in California. The Attorney General’s 2015 Hate Crime in California report the found that from 2014 to 2015, hate crime events increased by 10.4% and violent hate crime offenses increased by 11.3% in the same year. With the rise in hate and intolerant rhetoric coming from the federal government, we must prepare our law enforcement agencies to respond to the growing number of hate crimes. AB 1161 provides a framework on how law enforcement agencies should update their hate crime policy protocols, resources, and responsibilities, and help prevent future incidents.”
   
2. Need for Revision of Hate Crime Policy: According to data from the National Crime Victim Survey by the U.S. Justice Department, hate crimes are significantly underreported. This survey, in comparison to numbers reported to the FBI, suggests that hate crimes likely occur 24-28 times more than they are reported. This underreporting is due in part to a lack of formal training and reporting requirements for local police departments as well as the victim’s fear of insensitive treatment by law enforcement. <http://www.lahumanrelations.org/hatecrime/reports/2013_hateCrimeReport.pdf> (as of March 29, 2017)

California law currently requires POST to develop training and guidelines for reporting and responding to hate crimes. However, there is no legal requirement that local police departments adopt these guidelines. Due to the lack of mandatory minimum standards, there are inconsistent protocols for addressing hate crime incidents. AB 1161 will create consistency by establishing minimum standards for hate crime policy that align with the POST framework, which in turn is likely to decrease the underreporting of hate crimes. Correcting this underreporting will provide accurate and valuable data for combatting California’s recent increase in hate crimes. Furthermore, AB 1161 requires law enforcement agencies to consult with civil rights groups and local community groups during the development of hate crime policy, which will likely improve relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

1. Argument in Support: According to Equality California, “Unfortunately, hate crimes are on the rise in California and across the United States. The Attorney General’s 2015 Hate Crime in California report found that from 2014 to 2015, hate crime events increased by 10.4% and violent hate crime offenses increased by 11.3% in the same year. In the first month after the 2016 election, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a hate watch group, cataloged 1,094 bias-related incidents nationwide, based on local news reports. California had the most reported incidents in the country, 125, followed by New York with 94, and Texas with 71.
   
   “The impact of hate crimes on the LGBT community specifically is made apparent by the data in the Attorney General’s report as well. For example, hate crimes with a sexual orientation bias have been the second most common type of hate crime in California over the past 10 years, and accounted for nearly a quarter of all hate crimes reported in 2015.
   
   “Hate crimes have unique repercussions, extending beyond the individual targeted to others in their community, creating a sense of isolation and vulnerability to harm among people with shared core characteristics. California’s hate crime laws provide protection based on a person’s actual or perceived race or ethnicity, nationality, religion, disability, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation. Enumerating each of these groups raises awareness of the impact of hate crimes on each of these communities, and on the broader communities of which they are a part.
   
   “Under current law, only statewide law enforcement agencies are required to adopt the Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) Model Policy Framework on hate crimes. The state does not require local law enforcement agencies to have policies on hate crimes.
   
   “In 2008, POST released their Model Policy Framework, which includes updates definitions, response and reporting responsibilities, training resources, and planning and prevention methods. While many law enforcement agencies do have policies on hate crimes in place, most of these policies are outdates, insufficient to ensure hate crimes are recognized as such when they occur, and sorely lacking in recommendations to help prevent hate crimes before they occur.
   

“AB 1161 provides a framework that law enforcement agencies across the state can use to update their hate crime policy protocols, resources, and responsibilities, and take a more proactive role in helping to prevent future hate crimes.”

1. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 39 (Bocanegra), would require every local law enforcement agency to forward a summary of any hate crime reported within its jurisdiction to the human relations commission within that jurisdiction, if such an entity exists.
      
   2. AB 158 (Chu), would require the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to develop, on or before January 1, 2019, statewide hate crime reporting guidelines to be implemented by all law enforcement agencies.
      
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2799 (Saldana), of the 2007-2008 Legislative Session would have allowed each county to either establish a hate crimes commission, or direct an existing board or committee to fulfill the duties of such a commission, for the purpose of reviewing the incidents of hate crime within the county and ensuring that local law enforcement agencies are responding to hate crimes and reporting these crimes to the Attorney General. AB 2799 was moved from the Senate Rules Committee without further action.
      
   2. AB 1234 (Kuehl), Chapter 700, Statutes of 2004, required that POST include in their guidelines a framework and possible content of general order or other formal policy on hate crimes that all state law enforcement agencies adopt and local law enforcement agencies would be encouraged to adopt, as specified.
      
   3. AB 1673 (Chu), of the 2003-2004 Legislative Session, would have expressed the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to require local law enforcement agencies to track and report hate crimes and hate incidences to the Attorney General. AB 1673 died at the Desk.
      
   4. SB 1734 (Murray), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session, would have stated the intent of the Legislature to enact laws to deter hate-motivated behavior, train teachers, school administrators, and law enforcement personnel regarding hate groups and hate-motivated behavior. Moved from the Senate Rules Committee without further action.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino

Equality California
The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by: