AB 2799: Evidence: admissibility of creative expressions.
- Session Year: 2021-2022
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2022-09-30
Existing law permits a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by specified factors, including the probability that its admission will create substantial danger of undue prejudice. Existing law permits a court to hear and determine the question of admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury.
This bill would require a court, in a criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, to consider specified factors when balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The bill would define creative expression as the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, as specified. The bill would require a court, in balancing the probative value of a creative expression against the substantial danger of undue prejudice, to first consider that the probative value of the creative expression for its literal truth is minimal unless that expression meets specified conditions. The bill would then require a court to consider that undue prejudice includes the possibility that the trier of fact will treat the creative expression as evidence of the defendants propensity for violence or criminal disposition, as well as the possibility that the evidence will inject racial bias into the proceedings. The bill would require the court to consider, if proffered and relevant to the issues in the case, credible testimony on the genre of creative expression as to the context of the expression, research demonstrating that the introduction of a particular type of expression introduces racial bias into the proceedings, and evidence to rebut such research or testimony. The bill would require a court to determine the admissibility of a form of creative expression in a hearing outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and state on the record the courts ruling and reasoning therefor.
The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.
Because this bill may exclude from a criminal action a form of creative expression that would otherwise be admissible, it requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.
Existing law permits a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by specified factors, including the probability that its admission will create substantial danger of undue prejudice. Existing law permits a court to hear and determine the question of admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury.
This bill would require a court, in a criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, to consider specified factors when balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The bill would define creative expression as the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, as specified. The bill would require a court, in balancing the probative value of a creative expression against the substantial danger of undue prejudice, to first consider that the probative value of the creative expression for its literal truth is minimal unless that expression meets specified conditions. The bill would then require a court to consider that undue prejudice includes the possibility that the trier of fact will treat the creative expression as evidence of the defendants propensity for violence or criminal disposition, as well as the possibility that the evidence will inject racial bias into the proceedings. The bill would require the court to consider, if proffered and relevant to the issues in the case, credible testimony on the genre of creative expression as to the context of the expression, research demonstrating that the introduction of a particular type of expression introduces racial bias into the proceedings, and evidence to rebut such research or testimony. The bill would require a court to determine the admissibility of a form of creative expression in a hearing outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and state on the record the courts ruling and reasoning therefor.
The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.
Because this bill may exclude from a criminal action a form of creative expression that would otherwise be admissible, it requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.
Existing law permits a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by specified factors, including the probability that its admission will create substantial danger of undue prejudice. Existing law permits a court to hear and determine the question of admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury.
This bill would require a court, in a criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, to consider specified factors when balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The bill would define creative expression as the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, as specified. The bill would require a court, in balancing the probative value of a creative expression against the substantial danger of undue prejudice, to first consider that the probative value of the creative expression for its literal truth is minimal unless that expression meets specified conditions. The bill would then require a court to consider that undue prejudice includes the possibility that the trier of fact will treat the creative expression as evidence of the defendants propensity for violence or criminal disposition, as well as the possibility that the evidence will inject racial bias into the proceedings. The bill would require the court to consider, if proffered, proffered and relevant to the issues in the case, credible testimony on the genre of creative expression as to the context of the expression, research demonstrating that the introduction of a particular type of expression introduces racial bias into the proceedings, and evidence to rebut such research or testimony. The bill would require a court to determine the admissibility of a form of creative expression in a hearing outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and state on the record the courts ruling and reasoning therefor.
The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.
Because this bill may exclude from a criminal action a form of creative expression that would otherwise be admissible, it requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.
Existing law permits a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by specified factors, including the probability that its admission will create substantial danger of undue prejudice. Existing law permits a court to hear and determine the question of admissibility of evidence out of the presence or hearing of the jury.
This bill would require a court, in a criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, to consider specified factors when balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice. The bill would define creative expression as the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, as specified. The bill would require a court, in balancing the probative value of a creative expression against the substantial danger of undue prejudice, to first consider that the probative value of the creative expression for its literal truth is minimal unless that expression meets specified conditions. The bill would then require a court to consider that undue prejudice includes the possibility that the trier of fact will treat the creative expression as evidence of the defendants propensity for violence or criminal disposition, as well as the possibility that the evidence will inject racial bias into the proceedings. The bill would require the court to consider, if proffered, credible testimony on the genre of creative expression as to the context of the expression, research demonstrating that the introduction of a particular type of expression introduces racial bias into the proceedings, and evidence to rebut such research or testimony. The bill would require a court to determine the admissibility of a form of creative expression in a hearing outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and state on the record the courts ruling and reasoning therefor.
The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-in-Evidence, which requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.
Because this bill may exclude from a criminal action a form of creative expression that would otherwise be admissible, it requires a 2/3 vote of the Legislature.
Existing law governs the proceedings of criminal trials. When the evidence and closing arguments are concluded, existing law authorizes the judge to charge the jury, and to do so on any points of law pertinent to the issue, if requested by either party. Existing law authorizes the judge to state the testimony, comment on the evidence, testimony, and credibility of any witness as is necessary for the proper determination of the case, and declare the law. Existing law authorizes a trial judge, at the beginning of or during the trial, and without any request from either party, to give the jury such instructions on the law applicable to the case as they may deem necessary for the jurys guidance on hearing the case. Upon the jury retiring for deliberation, existing law requires the court to advise the jury of the availability of a written copy of the jury instructions.This bill would create a new jury instruction for a judge, upon the request of a party, to use in a criminal trial where a form of creative expression, as defined, is admitted into evidence as evidence of guilt.Existing law governs the proceedings of criminal trials. When the evidence and closing arguments are concluded, existing law authorizes the judge to charge the jury, and to do so on any points of law pertinent to the issue, if requested by either party. Existing law authorizes the judge to state the testimony, comment on the evidence, testimony, and credibility of any witness as is necessary for the proper determination of the case, and declare the law. Existing law authorizes a trial judge, at the beginning of or during the trial, and without any request from either party, to give the jury such instructions on the law applicable to the case as they may deem necessary for the jurys guidance on hearing the case. Upon the jury retiring for deliberation, existing law requires the court to advise the jury of the availability of a written copy of the jury instructions.
This bill would create a new jury instruction for a judge, upon the request of a party, to use in a criminal trial where a form of creative expression, as defined, is admitted into evidence as evidence of guilt.
Existing law establishes the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training (CPOST) within the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and requires the commission to develop and approve standards for the selection and training of state correctional peace officer apprentices.This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.Existing law establishes the Commission on Correctional Peace Officer Standards and Training (CPOST) within the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and requires the commission to develop and approve standards for the selection and training of state correctional peace officer apprentices.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Existing precedent allows artists creative expression to be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings without a sufficiently robust inquiry into whether such evidence introduces bias or prejudice into the proceedings. In particular, a substantial body of research shows a significant risk of unfair prejudice when rap lyrics are introduced into evidence. Stuart P. Fischoff, Gangsta Rap and a Murder in Bakersfield, 29 J. Applied Soc. Psych. 795, 803 (1999); Carrie B. Fried, Whos Afraid of Rap? Differential Reactions to Music Lyrics. J. Applied Soc. Psych. 29:705721 (1999); Adam Dunbar and Charis E. Kubrin, Imagining Violent Criminals: An Experimental Investigation of Music Stereotypes and Character Judgments, Journal of Experimental Criminology 14:507-528 (2018).
(b)It is the intent of this Legislature to provide a framework by which courts can ensure that the use of an accused persons creative expression will not be used to introduce stereotypes or activate bias against the defendant, nor as character or propensity evidence; and to recognize that the use of rap lyrics and other creative expression as circumstantial evidence of motive or intent is not a sufficient justification to overcome substantial evidence that the introduction of rap lyrics creates a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.
SEC. 2.Section 352.2 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:352.2.(a)In any criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, the court, while balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice under Section 352, shall consider, in addition to the factors listed in Section 352, that: (1) the probative value of such expression for its literal truth or as a truthful narrative is minimal unless that expression is created near in time to the charged crime or crimes, bears a sufficient level of similarity to the charged crime or crimes, or includes factual detail not otherwise publicly available; and (2) undue prejudice includes, but is not limited to, the possibility that the trier of fact will, in violation of Section 1101, treat the expression as evidence of the defendants propensity for violence or general criminal disposition as well as the possibility that the evidence will explicitly or implicitly inject racial bias into the proceedings.
(b)If proffered and relevant to the issues in the case, the court shall consider the following as well as any additional relevant evidence offered by either party:
(1)Credible testimony on the genre of creative expression as to the social or cultural context, rules, conventions, and artistic techniques of the expression.
(2)Experimental or social science research demonstrating that the introduction of a particular type of expression explicitly or implicitly introduces racial bias into the proceedings.
(3)Evidence to rebut such research or testimony.
(c)For purposes of this section, creative expression means the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, including, but not limited to, music, dance, performance art, visual art, poetry, literature, film, and other such objects or media.
(d)The question of the admissibility of a form of creative expression shall be heard in limine and determined by the court, outside the presence and hearing of the jury, pursuant to Section 402. The court shall state on the record its ruling and its reasons therefor.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Existing precedent allows artists creative expression to be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings without a sufficiently robust inquiry into whether such evidence introduces bias or prejudice into the proceedings. In particular, a substantial body of research shows a significant risk of unfair prejudice when rap lyrics are introduced into evidence. Stuart P. Fischoff, Gangsta Rap and a Murder in Bakersfield, 29 J. Applied Soc. Psych. 795, 803 (1999); Carrie B. Fried, Whos Afraid of Rap? Differential Reactions to Music Lyrics. J. Applied Soc. Psych. 29:705721 (1999); Adam Dunbar and Charis E. Kubrin, Imagining Violent Criminals: An Experimental Investigation of Music Stereotypes and Character Judgments, Journal of Experimental Criminology 14:507-528 (2018).
(b)It is the intent of this Legislature to provide a framework by which courts can ensure that the use of an accused persons creative expression will not be used to introduce stereotypes or activate bias against the defendant, nor as character or propensity evidence; and to recognize that the use of rap lyrics and other creative expression as circumstantial evidence of motive or intent is not a sufficient justification to overcome substantial evidence that the introduction of rap lyrics creates a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.
SEC. 2.Section 352.2 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:352.2.(a)In any criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, the court, while balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice under Section 352, shall consider, in addition to the factors listed in Section 352, that: (1) the probative value of such expression for its literal truth or as a truthful narrative is minimal unless that expression is created near in time to the charged crime or crimes, bears a sufficient level of similarity to the charged crime or crimes, or includes factual detail not otherwise publicly available; and (2) undue prejudice includes, but is not limited to, the possibility that the trier of fact will, in violation of Section 1101, treat the expression as evidence of the defendants propensity for violence or general criminal disposition as well as the possibility that the evidence will explicitly or implicitly inject racial bias into the proceedings.
(b)If proffered and relevant to the issues in the case, the court shall consider the following as well as any additional relevant evidence offered by either party:
(1)Credible testimony on the genre of creative expression as to the social or cultural context, rules, conventions, and artistic techniques of the expression.
(2)Experimental or social science research demonstrating that the introduction of a particular type of expression explicitly or implicitly introduces racial bias into the proceedings.
(3)Evidence to rebut such research or testimony.
(c)For purposes of this section, creative expression means the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, including, but not limited to, music, dance, performance art, visual art, poetry, literature, film, and other such objects or media.
(d)The question of the admissibility of a form of creative expression shall be heard in limine and determined by the court, outside the presence and hearing of the jury, pursuant to Section 402. The court shall state on the record its ruling and its reasons therefor.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Existing precedent allows artists creative expression to be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings without a sufficiently robust inquiry into whether such evidence introduces bias or prejudice into the proceedings. In particular, a substantial body of research shows a significant risk of unfair prejudice when rap lyrics are introduced into evidence. Stuart P. Fischoff, Gangsta Rap and a Murder in Bakersfield, 29 J. Applied Soc. Psych. 795, 803 (1999); Carrie B. Fried, Whos Afraid of Rap? Differential Reactions to Music Lyrics. J. Applied Soc. Psych. 29:705721 (1999); Adam Dunbar and Charis E. Kubrin, Imagining Violent Criminals: An Experimental Investigation of Music Stereotypes and Character Judgments, Journal of Experimental Criminology 14:507-528 (2018).
(b)It is the intent of this Legislature to provide a framework by which courts can ensure that the use of an accused persons creative expression will not be used to introduce stereotypes or activate bias against the defendant, nor as character or propensity evidence; and to recognize that the use of rap lyrics and other creative expression as circumstantial evidence of motive or intent is not a sufficient justification to overcome substantial evidence that the introduction of rap lyrics creates a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.
SEC. 2.Section 352.2 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:352.2.(a)In any criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, the court, while balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice under Section 352, shall consider, in addition to the factors listed in Section 352, that: (1) the probative value of such expression for its literal truth or as a truthful narrative is minimal unless that expression is created near in time to the charged crime or crimes, bears a sufficient level of similarity to the charged crime or crimes, or includes factual detail not otherwise publicly available; and (2) undue prejudice includes, but is not limited to, the possibility that the trier of fact will, in violation of Section 1101, treat the expression as evidence of the defendants propensity for violence or general criminal disposition as well as the possibility that the evidence will explicitly or implicitly inject racial bias into the proceedings.
(b)If proffered, proffered and relevant to the issues in the case, the court shall consider all of the following: the following as well as any additional relevant evidence offered by either party:
(1)Credible testimony on the genre of creative expression as to the social or cultural context, rules, conventions, and artistic techniques of the expression.
(2)Experimental or social science research demonstrating that the introduction of a particular type of expression explicitly or implicitly introduces racial bias into the proceedings.
(3)Evidence to rebut such research or testimony.
(c)For purposes of this section, creative expression means the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, including, but not limited to, music, dance, performance art, visual art, poetry, literature, film, and other such objects or media.
(d)The question of the admissibility of a form of creative expression shall be heard in limine and determined by the court, outside the presence and hearing of the jury, pursuant to Section 402. The court shall state on the record its ruling and its reasons therefor.
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)Existing precedent allows artists creative expression to be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings without a sufficiently robust inquiry into whether such evidence introduces bias or prejudice into the proceedings. In particular, a substantial body of research shows a significant risk of unfair prejudice when rap lyrics are introduced into evidence. Stuart P. Fischoff, Gangsta Rap and a Murder in Bakersfield, 29 J. Applied Soc. Psych. 795, 803 (1999); Carrie B. Fried, Whos Afraid of Rap? Differential Reactions to Music Lyrics. J. Applied Soc. Psych. 29:705721 (1999); Adam Dunbar and Charis E. Kubrin, Imagining Violent Criminals: An Experimental Investigation of Music Stereotypes and Character Judgments, Journal of Experimental Criminology 14:507-528 (2018).
(b)It is the intent of this Legislature to provide a framework by which courts can ensure that the use of an accused persons creative expression will not be used to introduce stereotypes or activate bias against the defendant, nor as character or propensity evidence; and to recognize that the use of rap lyrics and other creative expression as circumstantial evidence of motive or intent is not a sufficient justification to overcome substantial evidence that the introduction of rap lyrics creates a substantial risk of unfair prejudice.
SEC. 2.Section 352.2 is added to the Evidence Code, to read:352.2.(a)In any criminal proceeding where a party seeks to admit as evidence a form of creative expression, the court, while balancing the probative value of that evidence against the substantial danger of undue prejudice under Section 352, shall consider, in addition to the factors listed in Section 352, that: (1) the probative value of such expression for its literal truth or as a truthful narrative is minimal unless that expression is created near in time to the charged crime or crimes, bears a sufficient level of similarity to the charged crime or crimes, or includes factual detail not otherwise publicly available; and (2) undue prejudice includes, but is not limited to, the possibility that the trier of fact will, in violation of Section 1101, treat the expression as evidence of the defendants propensity for violence or general criminal disposition as well as the possibility that the evidence will explicitly or implicitly inject racial bias into the proceedings.
(b)If proffered, the court shall consider all of the following:
(1)Credible testimony on the genre of creative expression as to the social or cultural context, rules, conventions, and artistic techniques of the expression.
(2)Experimental or social science research demonstrating that the introduction of a particular type of expression explicitly or implicitly introduces racial bias into the proceedings.
(3)Evidence to rebut such research or testimony.
(c)For purposes of this section, creative expression means the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, including, but not limited to, music, dance, performance art, visual art, poetry, literature, film, and other such objects or media.
(d)The question of the admissibility of a form of creative expression shall be heard in limine and determined by the court, outside the presence and hearing of the jury, pursuant to Section 402. The court shall state on the record its ruling and its reasons therefor.
SECTION 1.Section 1127i is added to the Penal Code, to read:1127i.(a)In a criminal trial or proceeding where a form of creative expression is admitted into evidence as evidence of guilt, upon the request of a party, the court shall instruct the jury as follows or admonish the jury with a substantially similar instruction:In evaluating the evidence of creative expression that has been introduced, this evidence should be viewed with caution and close scrutiny. You should not use the evidence to support a finding that the defendant has the propensity to commit a crime or as character evidence.(b)As used in this section, a creative expression means the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, including, but not limited to, music, dance, performance art, visual art, poetry, literature, film, and other such objects or media.(c)In addition to the jury instruction required under subdivision (a), the court may provide the jury with any additional instructions it may deem necessary.(a)In a criminal trial or proceeding where a form of creative expression is admitted into evidence as evidence of guilt, upon the request of a party, the court shall instruct the jury as follows or admonish the jury with a substantially similar instruction:
In evaluating the evidence of creative expression that has been introduced, this evidence should be viewed with caution and close scrutiny. You should not use the evidence to support a finding that the defendant has the propensity to commit a crime or as character evidence.
(b)As used in this section, a creative expression means the expression or application of creativity or imagination in the production or arrangement of forms, sounds, words, movements, or symbols, including, but not limited to, music, dance, performance art, visual art, poetry, literature, film, and other such objects or media.
(c)In addition to the jury instruction required under subdivision (a), the court may provide the jury with any additional instructions it may deem necessary.
SECTION 1.Section 13601 of the Penal Code is amended to read:13601.(a)(1)The CPOST shall develop, approve, and monitor standards for the selection and training of state correctional peace officer apprentices.(2)Any standard for selection established under this subdivision shall be subject to approval by the Department of Human Resources. Using the psychological and screening standards approved by the Department of Human Resources, the Department of Human Resources or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall ensure that, prior to training, each applicant who has otherwise qualified in all physical and other testing requirements to be a peace officer the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is determined to be free from emotional or mental conditions that might adversely affect the exercise of the applicants duties and powers as a peace officer pursuant to the standards developed by CPOST.(3)When developing, approving, and monitoring the standards for training of state correctional peace officer apprentices, the CPOST shall consider including additional training in the areas of mental health and rehabilitation, as well as coursework on the theory and history of corrections.(b)The CPOST may approve standards for a course in the carrying and use of firearms for correctional peace officers that is different from that prescribed pursuant to Section 832. The standards shall take into consideration the different circumstances presented within the institutional setting from that presented to other law enforcement agencies outside the correctional setting.(c)Notwithstanding Section 3078 of the Labor Code, the length of the probationary period for correctional peace officer apprentices shall be determined by the CPOST subject to approval by the State Personnel Board, pursuant to Section 19170 of the Government Code.(d)The CPOST shall develop, approve, and monitor standards for advanced rank-and-file and supervisory state correctional peace officer and training programs for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. When a correctional peace officer is promoted within the department, the officer shall be provided with and be required to complete these secondary training experiences.(e)The CPOST shall develop, approve, and monitor standards for the training of state correctional peace officers in the department in the handling of stress associated with their duties.(f)Toward the accomplishment of the objectives of this section, the CPOST may confer with, and may avail itself of the assistance and recommendations of, other state and local agencies, boards, or commissions.(g)Notwithstanding the authority of the CPOST, the department shall design and deliver training programs, shall conduct validation studies, and shall provide program support. The CPOST shall monitor program compliance by the department.(h)The CPOST may disapprove any training courses created by the department pursuant to the standards developed by CPOST if it determines that the courses do not meet the prescribed standards. Training may continue with existing curriculum pending resolution.(i)The CPOST shall annually submit an estimate of costs to conduct those inquiries and audits as may be necessary to determine whether the department and each of its institutions and parole regions are adhering to the standards developed by the CPOST, and shall conduct those inquiries and audits consistent with the annual Budget Act.(j)The CPOST shall establish and implement procedures for reviewing and issuing decisions concerning complaints or recommendations from interested parties regarding the CPOST rules, regulations, standards, or decisions.(a)(1)The CPOST shall develop, approve, and monitor standards for the selection and training of state correctional peace officer apprentices.
(2)Any standard for selection established under this subdivision shall be subject to approval by the Department of Human Resources. Using the psychological and screening standards approved by the Department of Human Resources, the Department of Human Resources or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall ensure that, prior to training, each applicant who has otherwise qualified in all physical and other testing requirements to be a peace officer the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is determined to be free from emotional or mental conditions that might adversely affect the exercise of his or her the applicants duties and powers as a peace officer pursuant to the standards developed by CPOST.
(3)When developing, approving, and monitoring the standards for training of state correctional peace officer apprentices, the CPOST shall consider including additional training in the areas of mental health and rehabilitation, as well as coursework on the theory and history of corrections.
(b)The CPOST may approve standards for a course in the carrying and use of firearms for correctional peace officers that is different from that prescribed pursuant to Section 832. The standards shall take into consideration the different circumstances presented within the institutional setting from that presented to other law enforcement agencies outside the correctional setting.
(c)Notwithstanding Section 3078 of the Labor Code, the length of the probationary period for correctional peace officer apprentices shall be determined by the CPOST subject to approval by the State Personnel Board, pursuant to Section 19170 of the Government Code.
(d)The CPOST shall develop, approve, and monitor standards for advanced rank-and-file and supervisory state correctional peace officer and training programs for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. When a correctional peace officer is promoted within the department, he or she the officer shall be provided with and be required to complete these secondary training experiences.
(e)The CPOST shall develop, approve, and monitor standards for the training of state correctional peace officers in the department in the handling of stress associated with their duties.
(f)Toward the accomplishment of the objectives of this section, the CPOST may confer with, and may avail itself of the assistance and recommendations of, other state and local agencies, boards, or commissions.
(g)Notwithstanding the authority of the CPOST, the department shall design and deliver training programs, shall conduct validation studies, and shall provide program support. The CPOST shall monitor program compliance by the department.
(h)The CPOST may disapprove any training courses created by the department pursuant to the standards developed by CPOST if it determines that the courses do not meet the prescribed standards. Training may continue with existing curriculum pending resolution.
(i)The CPOST shall annually submit an estimate of costs to conduct those inquiries and audits as may be necessary to determine whether the department and each of its institutions and parole regions are adhering to the standards developed by the CPOST, and shall conduct those inquiries and audits consistent with the annual Budget Act.
(j)The CPOST shall establish and implement procedures for reviewing and issuing decisions concerning complaints or recommendations from interested parties regarding the CPOST rules, regulations, standards, or decisions.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 30, 2022 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 973, Statutes of 2022. |
| Sep 30, 2022 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Aug 29, 2022 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:30 p.m. |
| Aug 22, 2022 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 76. Noes 0.). |
| Aug 18, 2022 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 20 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Aug 18, 2022 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 4907.). |
| Aug 10, 2022 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 9, 2022 | Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading. |
| Aug 8, 2022 | From Special Consent Calendar. |
| Aug 3, 2022 | Ordered to special consent calendar. |
| Jun 15, 2022 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jun 14, 2022 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 14). |
| Jun 6, 2022 | 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. |
| May 18, 2022 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| May 5, 2022 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 5, 2022 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 61. Noes 0. Page 4576.) |
| Apr 28, 2022 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| Apr 27, 2022 | From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 26). |
| Mar 14, 2022 | Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Mar 10, 2022 | Referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Feb 19, 2022 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 21. |
| Feb 18, 2022 | Introduced. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2022 | AB 2799 Jones-Sawyer Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 18, 2022 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB2799 Jones-Sawyer By Bradford | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 5, 2022 | AB 2799 Jones-Sawyer Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session | Assembly Floor |
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.
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):