Date of Hearing: April 3, 2019

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 837

Author:(Holden) – As Amended Ver:March 21, 2019

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop guidelines and establish standards regarding the frequency of periodic training in the investigation of hate crimes, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time costs (Peace Officer Training Fund/GF), in excess of $150,000, for POST to develop and implement guidelines on the frequency of hate crimes investigation training.
2. Significant annual costs (Peace Officers Training Fund/GF), potentially in the low millions of dollars, for POST to reimburse law enforcement agencies for the overtime costs necessary to backfill law enforcement officers to attend additional trainings on hate crimes investigations, depending on the guidelines developed by POST pursuant to this bill.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

California prides itself on being a progressive powerhouse, yet a state audit of four law enforcement agencies revealed that 14% of hate crimes in the state were misreported. To have an accurate representation of how many hate crimes occur within California, it is necessary to guarantee that local law enforcement agencies have the tools necessary to accurately identify and report hate crimes and hate incidents. Considering that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) provides training materials to POST-certified law enforcement agencies for free, a refresher training based on these materials will create a statewide standard and will facilitate the data collection on hate crimes across the state.

1. Background. The POST-certified Regular Basic Training Course is standard for police officers, deputy sheriffs, school district police officers and district attorney investigators, as well as other classifications of peace officers. The basic training includes a minimum of 664 hours of POST-developed training and testing in 42 separate “learning domains.” Most POST-certified basic training academies exceed the 664 hour minimum by 200 or more hours with some academies presenting over 1000 hours of training and testing. Peace officers are also required to undergo periodic continuing education courses. POST is partially funded through penalties, fees and assessments for traffic violations and the POST Training Fund balance has been steadily decreasing over the past several years. The Governor’s Budget 2019-2020 proposes allocating $14.9 million in General Fund dollars to restore POST training funding to its historic levels. POST’s basic training includes a learning domain on investigating hate crimes.
   
2. Related Legislation: AB 1052 (Chu) requires POST to develop a peace officer in-service hate crimes refresher course to be taken every three years. AB 1052 is pending in this committee.
   
3. Prior Legislation. AB 1985 (Ting), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2018, requires a local law enforcement agency to include specified requirements and definitions in a hate crimes policy manual if the agency decides to adopt or update a hate crimes policy manual.
   

Analysis Prepared by: Kimberly Horiuchi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 26, 2019

Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 837

Author:(Holden) – As Amended Ver:March 21, 2019

SUMMARY:

Requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to establish guidelines for the frequency of periodic training in the investigation of hate crimes, as specified.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires POST 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 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).)
   
2. States that the POST hate crimes course of instruction shall make the maximum use of audio and video communication and other simulation methods and shall include instruction in each of the following:
   
   1. Indicators of hate crime;
      
   2. The impact of these crimes on the victim, the victim’s family and the community, and the assistance and compensation available to the victims;
      
   3. Knowledge of 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 non-combative manner;|
      
   6. Multi-mission criminal extremism, which means the nexus of certain hate crimes, antigovernment extremist crimes, anti-reproductive-rights crimes, and crimes in whole or in part because of the victim’s 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 future anti-Arab/middle Eastern and anti-Islamic hate crime waves that the Attorney General determines is likely. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subd, (b).)
      
3. Provides that the guidelines developed by POST 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).)
         
4. Defines “hate crime” as ‘a criminal act committed, in part or in whole, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including: disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of the previously listed actual or perceived characteristics.” (Pen. Code, § 422.55, subd. (a).)
   
5. Requires all state and local agencies to use the above definition when using the term “hate crime.” (Pen. Code, § 422.9.)
   
6. Specifies that “hate crime” includes a violation of statute prohibiting interference with a person’s exercise of civil rights because of actual or perceived characteristics, as listed above. (Pen. Code, § 422.55, subd. (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "California prides itself on being a progressive powerhouse, yet a state audit of four law enforcement agencies revealed that 14% of hate crimes in the state were misreported. To have an accurate representation of how many hate crimes occur within California, it is necessary to guarantee that local law enforcement agencies have the tools necessary to accurately identify and report hate crimes and hate incidents. Considering that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) provides training materials to POST-certified law enforcement agencies for free, a refresher training based on these materials will create a statewide standard and will facilitate the data collection on hate crimes across the state.”
   
2. POST Training Requirements: POST was created by the legislature in 1959 to set minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement. (Pen. Code, § 13500, subd. (a).) Their mandate includes establishing minimum standards for training of peace officers in California. (Pen. Code § 13510, subd. (a).) As of 1989, all peace officers in California are required to complete an introductory course of training prescribed by POST, and demonstrate completion of that course by passing an examination. (Pen. Code, § 832, subd. (a).)

According to the POST Web site, the Regular Basic Course Training includes 42 separate topics, ranging from juvenile law and procedure to search and seizure. [POST, Regular Basic Course Training Specifications; <http://post.ca.gov/regular-basic-course-training-specifications.aspx>.] These topics are taught during a minimum of 664 hours of training. [POST, Regular Basic Course, Course Formats, available at: [<http://post.ca.gov/regular-basic-course.aspx.] Over the course of the training, individuals are trained not only on policing skills such as crowd control, evidence collection and patrol techniques, they are also required to recall the basic definition of a crime and know the elements of major crimes. This requires knowledge of the California Penal code specifically.

1. 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)@
   
2. Hate Crime Reporting in California: According to the DOJ’s 2016 report, Hate Crimes in California, the total number of hate crime events (an occurrence when a hate crime is involved) decreased 34.7 percent from 2007 to 2016. Filed hate crime complaints decreased 30.5 percent from 2006 to 2015. That being said, hate crime events in California have been on the rise; there was a 10.4 percent rise from 2014 to 2015, and then another 11.2 percent rise from 2015 to 2016. The total number of hate crime events, offenses, victims, and suspects had all increased in 2016.
   
   According to its 2015 report, “The DOJ requested that each law enforcement agency establish procedures incorporating a two-tier review (decision-making) process. The first level is done by the initial officer who responds to the suspected hate crime incident. At the second level, each report is reviewed by at least one other officer to confirm that the event was, in fact, a hate crime.” Even with the two-tiered system in place, the DOJ still lists the policies of law enforcement agencies as one of four factors possibly influencing the volume of hate crimes reported.
   (<https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/resources/publications> [Feb. 9, 2018].)
   
   Areas having the greatest concentrations of hate groups—Sacramento, San Francisco Bay, and Los Angeles—the only policy language covering procedures for hate crimes that this Committee was able to locate online, was a General Order (524.04) posted by the Sacramento Police Department (SPD). The General Order details the department’s protocol for identifying and dealing with bias motivated crimes. It also, among other things, defines what a bias motivated crime is, clarifies that a determination of whether the crime was bias motivated need not be made at the scene, orders officers to not argue with the victim if the victim is of the belief that the crime was bias motivated, gives a list of factors to include when assessing possible motivations, requires officers to notify a field supervisor if they believe the crime was bias motivated, and it orders that the station commander be informed before the follow-up investigation is delegated to the Felony Assaults Unit in accordance with the DOJ’s two-tiered analysis mandate. (<https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/GO-52404-Bias-Motivated-Crimes.pdf?la=en> [Feb. 9, 2018].)
   
   The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) website posted its manual (Volume 1, Section 522), which states its general policy, but does not discuss specific procedures. Among other things, it states, “When any act motivated by hatred or prejudice occurs, the Department will ensure that it is dealt with on a priority basis and use every necessary legal resource to rapidly and decisively identify the suspects and bring them to justice.” (<http://www.lapdonline.org/lapd_manual/volume_1.htm#522> [Feb. 9, 2018].)
   
3. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 1985 (Ting), Chapter 26, Statutes of 2018, required local law enforcement agencies to include specified requirements and definitions into a hate crimes policy manual if they decide to adopt or update a hate crimes policy manual.
      
   2. AB 158 (Chu), of the 2017-18 Legislative Session, required POST to develop, on or before January 1, 2019, statewide hate crime reporting guidelines to be implemented by all law enforcement agencies. AB 158 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
      
      
      
      
      
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
The Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration 

Oppose

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Analysis Prepared by:

Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744