Existing law requires all law enforcement agencies to maintain a use of force policy, as specified, and requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in the use of force.

This bill would require the commission, on or before January July 1, 2026, to develop guidelines, as specified, for the use of canines by law enforcement. The bill would authorize the commission to periodically update these guidelines. The bill would require law enforcement agencies with a canine unit, on or before July 1, 2027, to adopt a policy for the use of canines that, at a minimum, complies with the guidelines developed by the commission. Because the bill would impose additional requirements on local law enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

This bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon the enactment of AB 3241 of the 202324 Regular Session.

Existing law requires all law enforcement agencies to maintain a use of force policy, as specified, and requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in the use of force.

This bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop standards and training guidelines, as specified, for the use of canines by law enforcement. The bill would authorize the commission to periodically update these guidelines. The bill would require law enforcement agencies with a canine unit, on or before July 1, 2027, to adopt a policy for the use of canines that, at a minimum, complies with the guidelines developed by the commission. Because the bill would impose additional requirements on local law enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires all law enforcement agencies to maintain a use of force policy, as specified, and requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in the use of force.

This bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop standards and training guidelines, as specified, for the use of canines by law enforcement. The bill would require each law enforcement agency in California, on or before January 1, 2027, to adopt a policy for the use of canines that, at a minimum, complies with the standards developed by the commission, and to require regular and periodic training for all canines and canine handlers that covers, at a minimum, the training guidelines developed by the commission. Because the bill would impose additional requirements on local law enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the commission to periodically update these guidelines.

Existing law requires all law enforcement agencies to maintain a use of force policy, as specified, and requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in the use of force.

This bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop standards and training guidelines, as specified, for the use of canines by law enforcement. The bill would require each law enforcement agency in California, on or before January 1, 2027, to adopt a policy for the use of canines that, at a minimum, complies with the standards developed by the commission, and to require regular and periodic training for all canines and canine handlers that covers, at a minimum, the training guidelines developed by the commission. Because the bill would impose additional requirements on local law enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires all law enforcement agencies to maintain a use of force policy, as specified, and requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to implement courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in the use of force.

This bill would require the commission, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop standards and training guidelines, as specified, for the use of canines by law enforcement. The bill would require each law enforcement agency in California, on or before January 1, 2027, to adopt a policy for the use of canines that, at a minimum, complies with the standards developed by the commission, and to require regular and periodic training for all canines and canine handlers that covers, at a minimum, the training guidelines developed by the commission. Because the bill would impose additional requirements on local law enforcement agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2042 (Jackson) - Police canines: guidelines

Bill Summary:

AB 2024 would require the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), to develop guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement and require law enforcement agencies to adopt a policy for the use of canines, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• POST indicates significant one-time state costs (General Fund) to develop the guidelines required by this bill, from $250,000-$400,000. POST also indicates potential absorbable ongoing costs to occasionally update the guidelines.
• Unknown, potentially significant state costs (General Fund) to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) to implement this bill. CHP indicates that the department may have costs exceeding existing resources to comply with the requirements of this bill. However, those costs are contingent upon the POST guidelines to be released by July 1, 2026, at which point the department may request a BCP.
• Unknown, potentially significant state costs (General Fund) to the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) to implement this bill. State Parks indicates the department may have costs exceeding existing resources to comply with the requirements in these bills. However, those costs are contingent upon the POST guidelines to be released by July 1, 2026, at which point the department may request a BCP.
• Likely minor and absorbable costs to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to implement this bill.
• Possibly reimbursable costs (local funds, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to law enforcement agencies to adopt canine policies that meet POST standards. Notably, this requirement appears to apply to each law enforcement agency in the state, regardless of whether the agency has a canine unit. Taken together, one-time costs may be in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

Background:

Police canines used for apprehension are considered a less-than-lethal use of force option for law enforcement officers to deploy when trying to arrest or apprehend a suspect. However, police canines’ bites have resulted in serious injuries. In general, police use of force is disproportionately deployed against people of color. As pointed out in the analyses of this bill by the Senate Committee on Public Safety and the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, the lack of statewide data on use of police canines makes it difficult to analyze and evaluate outcomes from canine use.

Unlike other types of use of force by peace officers, there are no uniform, statewide standards that govern use of police canines. POST has developed guidelines for minimum training and performance standards for police canine patrol and detection, but the guidelines are voluntary and were specifically designed to accommodate the varying operational policies of law enforcement agencies. Individual law enforcement agencies may develop their own policies to govern use of police canines and related training. As a result, police canine policies may vary among agencies, and are not subject to statewide standards or oversight.

Proposed Law:

• Requires POST, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement.
• Provides that the guidelines shall be comprehensive and shall establish specified requirements.
• Specifies that POST may periodically amend the guidelines.
• Requires, on or before July 1, 2027, each law enforcement agency with a canine unit to adopt a policy for the use of canines by the agency that, at a minimum, complies with the guidelines developed by POST.
• Contains a contingent enactment provision, specifying that the bill shall only become operative if AB 3241 is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2025.

Related Legislation:

• AB 3241 (Pacheco) also requires POST to develop guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement and requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a policy for the use of canines, as specified. AB 3241 is pending in this Committee.
• AB 742 (Jackson), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have prohibited the use of canines by peace officers for arrest and apprehension, or in any circumstances to bite a person, but permits their use of canines for search and rescue, explosives detection, and narcotics detection. AB 742 was ordered to the inactive file in the Assembly.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2042 Hearing Date: July 2, 2024

Subject: Police canines: guidelines

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 742 (Jackson, 2023), died on Assembly Inactive File

Support: Unknown

Opposition: ACLU California Action (unless amended); All of Us or None Los Angeles (unless amended); Asian Law Alliance (unless amended); California Public Defenders Association; Californians United for a Responsible Budget (unless amended); Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice (unless amended); Initiate Justice (unless amended); Legal Services for Prisoners with Children (unless amended); National Police Accountability Project (unless amended); San Francisco Public Defender (unless amended)

Assembly Floor Vote: 49 - 6

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to require the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement, and to require law enforcement agencies with a canine unit to adopt a canine use policy by July 1, 2027.

Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature that the authority to use physical force, conferred on peace officers by existing law, is a serious responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life, and that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law. (Pen. Code, §835a, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law includes a legislative finding and declaration that the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated carefully and thoroughly, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by peace officers, in order to ensure that officers use force consistent with law and agency policies. (Pen. Code, §835a, subd. (a)(3).)

Existing law authorizes a peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person to be arrested has committed a public offense to use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. (Pen. Code, § 835a, subd. (b).)

Existing law authorizes a peace officer to use deadly force when the officer believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:

• • To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person; or
    
  • To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts. (Pen. Code, § 835a, subd. (c)(1)(A) & (B).)
    

Existing law prohibits a peace officer from using deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person. (Pen. Code, § 835a, subd. (c)(2).)

Existing law defines “deadly force” as any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 835a, subd. (e)(1).)

Existing law permits a peace officer who is authorized to make an arrest and who has stated their intention to do so, to use all necessary means to effect the arrest if the person to be arrested either flees or forcibly resists. (Pen. Code, § 843.)

Existing law establishes the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to set minimum standards for the recruitment and training of peace officers, develop training courses and curriculum, and establish a professional certificate program that awards different levels of certification based on training, education, experience, and other relevant prerequisites. Authorizes POST to cancel a certificate that was awarded in error or fraudulently obtained; however, POST is prohibited from canceling a properly-issued certificate. (Penal Code, §§ 830-832.10 and 13500 et seq.)

Existing law provides that POST has, among others, the power to develop and implement programs to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement and, when those programs involve training and education courses, to cooperate with and secure the cooperation of state-level peace officers, agencies, and bodies having jurisdiction over systems of public higher education in continuing the development of college-level training and education programs. (Pen. Code, § 13500.3, subd. (e).)

Existing law requires POST to submit annually a report to the Legislature on the overall effectiveness of any additional funding for improving peace officer training, including the number of peace officers trained by law enforcement agency, by course, and by how the training was delivered, as well as the training provided and the descriptions of the training. (Pen. Code, § 13500.5, subd. (a) & (b).)

Existing law requires POST to develop and deliver training courses for peace officers on a wide array of topics, including, the use of tear gas, SWAT operations, elder abuse, persons with disabilities, behavioral health, technology crimes, sexual assault, first aid, missing persons, gang and drug enforcement, use of force and human trafficking, among others. (Pen. Code §§13514 – 13519.15.)

Existing law requires POST to implement a course or courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in the use of force and to develop uniform, minimum guidelines for adoption by law enforcement agencies regarding use of force, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 13519.10.)

Existing law requires POST to post on its internet website all current standards, policies, practices, operating procedures and education and training materials, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 13650.)

Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to provide to the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, a report of all instances when a peace officer that is employed by the agency is involved in shootings and use of force incidents, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 12525.2(a).)

This bill requires POST, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement.

This bill provides that the guidelines shall be comprehensive and shall establish all of the following:

• A requirement that an officer may deploy a canine only if the officer reasonably believes it is proportional to the seriousness of the suspected offense or the reasonably perceived level of actual or physical threat of resistance.
• Requirements for the use of an unleashed police canine to arrest or apprehend a person.
• Requirements for the use of a police canine for crowd control at an assembly, protest, or demonstration.
• Procedures to minimize harm to innocent bystanders by an unleashed police canine.

This bill specifies that POST may periodically amend the guidelines required above.

This bill, on or before July 1, 2027, requires each law enforcement agency with a canine unit to adopt a policy for the use of canines by the agency that, at a minimum, complies with the guidelines developed by POST.

This bill contains a contingent enactment provision, specifying that the bill shall only become operative if AB 3241 is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2025.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the Author:

There currently isn't a statewide policy that governs the use of police dogs. This bill seeks to require the Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Trainings to develop, provide and require POST certified law enforcement agencies, with police canines programs, to adopt this guidance.

1. Background on Use of Police Canines

Brief History of Police Canines

While the use of canines in connection with personal and civil security can be traced back centuries, the practice of utilizing canines in the modern law enforcement context dates to roughly the late-19^th Century. In the 1890s, police departments in France and Germany began deploying police dogs to control rampant gang activity, and in 1899, the first police canine training facility was established in the city of Ghent, Belgium in 1899, where the Malinois breed became the industry standard due to its intelligence and agility.^[1] Word of the practice spread and in 1907, New York City Police Commissioner Theodore Bingham implemented a police canine program in that city, but was met with only moderate success.^[2] Consequently, dogs were used only sporadically in American police work until the early 1950’s, when the successful use of canines during World War 2 and by the London police inspired renewed efforts in this county. Between 1958 and 1958, over roughly 40 new police canine programs were established in the United States, including the ‘preeminent’ St. Louis program. By the 1960s, police canine units had become ubiquitous, with hundreds of such units having been established across the county.^[3]

This dramatic increase in police canine units coincided with America’s racial, political and cultural upheaval in the 1960s. Supporters of the practice lionized the use of police dogs as crime-fighters and riot controllers – one Baltimore canine officer at the time concluded that “the dog is the most potent, versatile weapon ever invented,” and noted that a gun couldn’t shoot around a corner, but a dog could.^[4] However, a surge of police canine programs were discontinued in 1965 after the brutal use of dogs against civil rights and anti-war protestors. As one scholar on the topic notes:

Iconic images of German shepherds attacking students appeared in newspapers across the country. The photographs, like the protests themselves, evoked disparate meaning depending on the racial positionality of the viewer, [but] depictions of the police response to protests in the white mainstream press often failed to capture the full brutality of police dogs.^[5]

Despite a brief reduction in police canine units during the Civil Rights era of the late 1960s, the mid-1970s saw a resurgence of implementation nationwide. As incarceration and police agency budgets increased into the 1980s, “the white cultural memory of police dog terror faded quickly, giving way to dogs’ role as furry police mascots.”^[6] During this period, the role of police dogs expanded significantly, encompassing an array of functions including detection (primarily of narcotics and explosives), search and rescue, apprehension, and patrol, operating in scenarios where it is either too dangerous or too difficult for a human officer to accomplish an objective.

Critics of the use of police canines, including several groups in opposition to this bill, argue that the unnecessary and disparate harms that characterized the use of police dogs throughout history persist today. In particular, they argue that police use attack dogs to inflict serious injuries on people who do not in fact pose a threat to officers or the public, that canines are too often used to perpetrate racialized violence and threaten individuals experiencing behavioral health crises, that police are often unable to control canines leading to attacks on bystanders, and that state law and police canine policies fail to prevent unnecessary violence or hold operators accountable.^[7]

Existing Statewide and Local Agency Canine Policies

California law enforcement agencies view the use of police canines as indispensable to protecting the both the public and law enforcement personnel in the discharge of their duties. According to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department:

The prompt and proper utilization of a trained canine team has proven to be a valuable use of a unique resource in law enforcement. When properly used, a canine team greatly increases the degree of safety to citizens within a contained search area, enhances individual officer safety, significantly increases the likelihood of suspect apprehension, and dramatically reduces the amount of time necessary to conduct a search.^[8]

In 1992, POST approved a set of voluntary guidelines designed to assist agencies with minimum training and performance standards for two primary canine uses: patrol and detection. In January 2014, POST updated these guidelines keeping in mind the more specialized canine team functions that had developed in the two decades since initial publication, and noted that the guidelines “are sufficiently general to accommodate differing agencies’ policies regarding operational deployment of K-9 teams.”^[9] The “patrol” guidelines set forth minimum performance standards for four competencies: obedience, search, apprehension, and handler protection. Regarding “apprehension,” the guidelines provide:

Under the direction of the handler and while off leash, the K-9 will pursue and apprehend a person acting as a “suspect” (agitator/decoy). The K-9 team will demonstrate a pursuit and call off prior to apprehension. On command from the handler, the K-9 will pursue and apprehend the agitator/decoy. From a reasonable distance and on verbal command only, the K-9 will cease the apprehension.^[10]

As these guidelines are limited and provide only minimum standards, law enforcement agencies across the state have developed their own policies and practices related to canines. These policies often include standards and definitions that, while not inconsistent, are certainly not uniform, and may be amended completely at the discretion of the agency. For instance, the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) canine policy sets forth the following:

The SPD’s primary use of canines is to safely locate suspects in areas that are difficult or dangerous to search, while preserving the handler’s option to use minimal force or avoid force altogether, to apprehend and place the suspect in custody. […] The SPD primarily deploys canines using voice commands from the handler as a method of control. Repeated notice on the presence of a canine and request to surrender are given during a deployment when possible. The canines are deployed for suspects wanted for violent felonies, specific felonies provided in the policy, other crimes where a suspect is fleeing and officers believe the suspect is armed with a weapon, or when a suspect is actively resisting arrest.^[11]

By contrast, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department provides for police canine deployment for ““[s]earches for felony suspects, or armed misdemeanor suspects, who are wanted for serious crimes and the circumstances of the situation presents a clear danger to deputy personnel who would otherwise conduct a search without a canine.”^[12] Further, while the San Diego Police Department canine policy defines “dog bite” as ‘any gripping of a person’s body or clothing by the dog’s mouth, irrespective of injury or damage,” the Orange County Sherriff’s Office defines “canine bite” as “when there is a break in the skin, however slight.”^[13]

This bill seeks to standardize police canine use policies by requiring POST to develop guidelines on the use of police canines by local agencies and requiring those agencies to adopt a canine policy consistent with those guidelines.

1. Relevant Existing Law Regarding POST and Use of Force

POST was established by the Legislature in 1959 to develop minimum recruitment and training standards for California peace officers. 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. According to the POST Web site, the Regular Basic Course Training includes 43 separate topics, ranging from juvenile law and procedure to search and seizure, taught over the course of a minimum of 664 hours of training.^[14] Over the course of the training, individuals are trained not only in policing skills such as crowd control, evidence collection and patrol techniques, they are also given instruction in criminal law, requiring specific knowledge of various Penal Code and constitutional provisions. In addition to developing training courses, POST develops guidelines on an array of police topics for use by state and local law enforcement agencies, such as child abuse and domestic violence investigations, hate crimes, high speed pursuits, and noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a diverse racial, identity and cultural environment.^[15] Currently, POST offers 16 courses related to the use of police canines, but at the time this analysis was finalized, only two were available for enrollment: canine service support, and canine team evaluator’s course.^[16]

In 1989 the United States Supreme Court set the standard for reasonable use of force in law enforcement. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the general rule for how much force a law enforcement officer can use in response to a given situation is determined by a reasonableness test, requiring the careful balancing of the force against the countervailing government interest at stake.^[17] The central question of this legal inquiry is whether the amount and type of force applied was reasonably necessary in light of the police need to prevent the subject from engaging in whatever conduct it was that they were engaging in at the time the force was used. Three important factors to that test are 1) the severity of the crime at issue, 2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and 3) whether the person is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Courts have not held that the use of a police dog is considered deadly force, although the Ninth Circuit did leave open a possibility that under certain circumstances, the use of a canine may be deadly force, and at the least, it is a severe or intermediate use of force.^[18]

Several years ago, California refined its use of force statutes in order to apply clearer guidance to law enforcement and the public regarding the when the use of deadly force is appropriate. Specifically, AB 392 (Weber, Chapter 170, Statutes of 2019), provided that an officer may use deadly force in order to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person, or to apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. AB 392 further specified situations in which deadly force would not be appropriate. In addition, the Legislature also passed SB 230 (Caballero, Chapter 285, Statutes of 2019), which required law enforcement agencies to update their training and policies with specific requirements regarding use of force.

Use of Force Data on Police Canines

Effective January 1, 2016, AB 71 (Rodriguez, Ch. 462, Stats. of 2015) required all law enforcement agencies in California to begin collecting specified data regarding use of force incidents and report that data to the DOJ beginning January 1, 2017. Pursuant to AB 71, law enforcement agencies have collected and reported various data elements related to the use of police canines.

In 2020, law enforcement used a police canine in a use of force incident that resulted in serious bodily injury or death 76 times in 2020, accounting for 10.2% of the total such use of force incidents by law enforcement.^[19] Of those 76 incidents, 49 were against persons of color—9 Black individuals, 33 Hispanic individuals, 3 Asian/Pacific Islander individuals, and 2 multi-race individuals. In 29 of the 76 incidents, the officer did not perceive that the civilian was armed. The civilian was later confirmed armed in 24 of the 76 of incidents. In two incidents, the civilian did not resist. According to the raw data on use of force incidents in 2020, 14 use of force incidents involving canine contact also involved the discharge of a firearm by the officer, six of which resulted in fatalities and three of which resulted in critical or serious injuries. Of those 14 incidents involving the use of both a canine and a firearm, eight were against people of color.^[20]

In 2021, law enforcement used a canine in a use of force incident that resulted in serious bodily injury or death 77 times, or 11.7% of the total use of force incidents by law enforcement against a civilian. Of those 77 incidents, 50 were against persons of color—13 Black individuals, 36 Hispanic individuals, and 1 American Indian individual. In 37 of the 77 incidents, the officer did not perceive that the civilian was armed. The civilian was later confirmed armed in 27 of the 77 incidents. In five of those incidents the civilian did not resist.^[21]

In 2022, the most recent year for which there is data, there were 63 use of force incidents involving a canine reported to DOJ in 2022, which amounted to 10.3% of the total use of force incidents. Arrests were made in 62 of the 63 incidents, and 49 of the 63 incidents were against people of color—11 Black individuals, 36 Hispanic individuals, and 2 Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. The officer did not perceive the individual to be armed in 22 of the 63 incidents. The civilian was later confirmed to be armed in 26 of the 63 incidents.^[22]

1. Effect of This Bill

This bill requires POST, on or before January 1, 2026 to develop guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement, which must: include a requirement that an officer deploy a canine only if a specified legal standard is met, include requirements for the use of an unleashed police canine to arrest or apprehend a person, or for crowd control purposes, and include procedures to minimize harm to innocent bystanders. Additionally, this bill requires each law enforcement agency with a canine unit, by July 1, 2027, to adopt a policy for the use of canines by that agency that complies with the guidelines developed by POST.

1. Related Legislation

AB 3241 (Pacheco), which is being heard on the same day as this bill, also requires POST to develop guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement and requires law enforcement to adopt a policy of the use of canines, among other requirements. However, that bill includes 10 enumerated guidelines, whereas this bill include 4. Crucially, AB 3241 creates a new legal standard for the use of police canines, which provides that “the release of a canine to search for or apprehend a suspect shall be based upon the handler’s reasonable belief that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is threatening to commit a serious offense” under any of three specified conditions. This appears to impose an entirely different legal standard than the one required to be included in the POST guidelines under this bill. Further, although they may not otherwise be in conflict, the fact that both bills require POST to develop guidelines and agencies to adopt canine use policies seems a less than sensible approach, especially in light of the fact that the bills contain contingent enactment clauses. That is, this bill only becomes operative if AB 3241 is enacted and becomes effective, and vice versa. Disentangling the fates of these two bills may ultimately better serve the policy goals they seek to advance.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to ACLU California Action, which has an oppose unless amended position:

Instead of setting clear and strict restrictions on the use of police dogs, AB 2042 grants the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) nearly unfettered power to develop regulations for the use of police dogs even in situations where Californian law enforcement agencies, and Californians, believe police dogs should not be used – i.e., for any form of crowd control. For example, in a letter opposing AB 742 (Jackson, 2023), Los Angeles Sheriff Robert G. Luna stated agreement with AB 742’s section “prohibit[ing] the use of canines for crowd control at an assembly, protest, or demonstration.” Similarly, other law enforcement agencies acknowledged that the use of police dogs is not an efficient or appropriate tool for crowd control purposes. As such, AB 2042 should clearly prohibit the use of police dogs for any form of crowd control.

AB 2042 fails to outline clear and strict limitations that POST must follow when drafting “new guidelines” for the use of potentially-lethal dogs by law enforcement agencies. Historically, we have seen that when the Legislature does not offer explicit and strict statutory instructions, POST implements the bare minimum as the new standard. Without clear and strict limitations, AB 2042’s provisions maintain the status quo of this dangerous practice that results in life-altering injuries. For example, in Richmond, police dogs caused 60% of all use of force incidents resulting in great bodily injury or death over a six-year period. The Legislature must provide specific guardrails to limit the use of police dogs rather than expecting the police, through POST, to police themselves.

Another key issue with AB 2042 is its vague statement that POST guidelines should require that an officer only deploy a police dog when such deployment is “proportional to the seriousness of the suspected offense.” This language purports to close off the practice of siccing police dogs on people suspected only of minor crimes or no crime at all, but the current phrasing is ambiguous. This opens the door to POST creating a weak definition of proportionality that is too subjective and maintains the unjustifiable status quo of most police departments authorizing the use of police dogs even when a person does not present an imminent threat to public safety. Instead, to effectively curb abusive uses of police dogs, AB 2042 should limit the deployment of police dogs to instances involving a suspect who poses an imminent threat to public safety by committing a “serious felony” as defined by Penal Code Section 1192.7(c).

Additionally, the bill seemingly directs POST to create procedures to minimize harm to innocent bystanders. Yet, its language is hollow and should instead be more precise. For example, the bill should explicitly direct POST to require police to provide audible warnings to bystanders before the deployment of police dogs and to allow the bystanders a reasonable amount of time to react to those warnings. This level of specificity is necessary to address the fact that police dogs seriously injure innocent bystanders with inexcusable regularity.

-- END –

1. Handy, William et al. “The K-9 Corps: The Use of Dogs in Police Work.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 52; Issue 3. Fall 1961, at p. 328. The K-9 Corps: The Use of Dogs in Police Work (northwestern.edu); Wasilczuk, Madalyn. “The Racialized Violence of Police Canine Force.” 11 Georgetown Law Journal. 1125, 1130, 1156-57 (2023). The Racialized Violence of Police Canine Force (georgetown.edu) ↑

2. Handy, supra, p. 329. ↑

3. Wasilczuk, supra, pp. 1140-1141 ↑

4. Wills, Matthew. “The Police Dog As Weapon of Racial Terror.” JSTOR Daily. 9 February 2023. The Police Dog As Weapon of Racial Terror - JSTOR Daily ↑

5. Wasilczuk, supra, pp. 1141-1142. ↑

6. Ibid. Scruff McGruff, the anthropomorphic police crime dog, created in 1980 by the National Crime Prevention Council, is emblematic of this shift. McGruff History - National Crime Prevention Council (ncpc.org) ↑

7. “Weaponizing Dogs: The Brutal and Outdated Practice of Police Attack Dogs.” American Civil Liberties Union. January 2024. At p. 3. ACLUReport_Weaponizing-Dogs_1.10.2024.pdf (aclucalaction.org) ↑

8. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Field Operations Direction (FOD): 86-037 Canine Deployment, Search and Force Policy. 86-037 Canine Deployment, Search and Force Policy - PARS Public Viewer (lasd.org) ↑

9. “POST Law Enforcement K-9 Guidelines.” Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. January 2014. POST Law Enforcement K-9 Guidelines (ca.gov) ↑

10. Ibid. These guidelines total roughly 15 pages of instructive content and have not been updated since January 2014. ↑

11. Sacramento Police Department General Orders: 580.14, “Use of Canines.” 27 June 2022. GO-58014--Use-of-Canines.pdf (cityofsacramento.gov) ↑

12. FOD 86-037, supra. ↑

13. “San Diego Police Department Canine Unite Operations Manual.” Revised August 2019, at p. 31. canineopsmanualaugust2019-redacted.pdf (sandiego.gov) ; Orange County Sherriff-Coroner Department: SD Policy Manual. Policy 318, p. 1. Policy 318 Canine Program.pdf (ocsheriff.gov) ↑

14. http://post.ca.gov/regular-basic-course-training-specifications.aspx ↑

15. Many of these guidelines are published on POST’s website, available at POST Publications and Guidelines. ; POST requirements related to training and guidelines development can be found in Penal Code §§ 13510 et. seq. ↑

16. These results were obtained by searching POST’s course catalog, available at: California POST Course Catalog ↑

17. Graham v. Connor (1989) 490 U.S. 386, 396. ↑

18. Smith v. City of Hemet (2005) 394 F.3d 689. ↑

19. The DOJ’s Use of Force Incident Reporting contains only incidents where use of force resulted in serious bodily injury or death – thus it does not reflect all canine deployments, or even all canine deployments where a canine made contact with an individual. ↑

20. DOJ, Use of Force Incident Reporting (2020), pp. 30-40. USE OF FORCE 2020.pdf (ca.gov) ↑

21. DOJ, Use of Force Incident Reporting (2021) pp. 30-40. Use of Force Incident Reporting 2021 (ca.gov) ↑

22. DOJ, Use of Force Incident Reporting (2022) pp. 30-40. USE OF FORCE 2022f.pdf (ca.gov) ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2042

Author:(Jackson)

As Amended Ver:May 16, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop guidelines and standardized training courses for use of canines by law enforcement.

Major Provisions

1. Requires POST, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop uniform, minimum guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement.
   1. An explanation of the legal standards on the use of force with a canine, as specified;
   2. An explicitly stated requirement that officers carry out duties, including use of force with respect to canines, in a manner that is fair and unbiased;
   3. Minimum patrol performance standards, including competencies in obedience, search, apprehension, and handler protection;
   4. Minimum detection performance standards, including competencies in control, alert, and odor detection;
   5. A requirement that an officer may deploy a canine only if they reasonably believe it is proportional to the seriousness of the suspected offense or the reasonably perceived level of actual or physical threat of resistance;
   6. Requirements for use of an unleashed police canine to arrest or apprehend a person;
   7. Requirements for use of a police canine for crowd control at an assembly, protest, or demonstration;
   8. Procedures to minimize harm to innocent bystanders by an unleashed police canine;
   9. A requirement that all patrol canine handlers shall be equipped with a supplemental method of aiding with the release of a bite including, but not limited to, a breaker bar, e-collar, pinch collar or other device;
   10. A requirement that, unless it would otherwise increase the risk of injury or escape, a clearly audible warning announcing the potential release of a canine if the suspect does not surrender will be given prior to the release, if feasible;
   11. A requirement that officers allow a reasonable opportunity to a suspect to comply after a warning, if feasible;
   12. Factors for evaluating and reviewing all canine use of force incidents;
   13. The role of supervisors in the review of use of force canine applications; and,
   14. A requirement that any canine team that does not meet the agency's required training regimen and guidelines will be prohibited from field assignment with the canine until such training and guidelines have been successfully satisfied.
2. Authorizes POST to periodically amend the guidelines, as specified.
3. Requires POST, on or before January 1, 2026, to certify courses of training for all law enforcement canine handlers and those law enforcement supervisors directly overseeing canine programs in the use of canines by law enforcement.
4. Requires POST training courses to include, at a minimum, both of the following:
   1. An explanation of legal standards for the use of force with a canine, as specified; and,
   2. Requirements for canine handlers and law enforcement supervisors who directly oversee canine programs to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of their law enforcement agency's canine policy.
5. Requires all courses to be certified by POST before being implemented.

COMMENTS

According to the Author

"There currently isn't a statewide policy that governs the use of police dogs. This bill seeks to fix that."

Arguments in Support

None Submitted.

Arguments in Opposition

According to ACLU California Action, "As you know, the practice of training and using dogs to attack people dates to slave patrols, and police agencies continue to disproportionately use attack dogs against our Black and Latino communities. Statewide, two-thirds of Californians severely injured by police dogs are people of color. Notably, many of the attacks by police dogs are perpetrated against people who are unarmed, do not pose a danger to officers or others, are suspected of minor crimes or no crime at all, and often against people who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis. Their use is outdated and dangerous – with the potential of severe, life-altering, and deadly consequences.

"We know that without clear restrictions written into state law, AB 2042 will do no more than endorse the status quo and usher in objectively weak rules for this dangerous practice, perpetuating standards far below the federal standards for the limited permissible use of police attack dogs, and that do not mirror best practices from other law enforcement agencies. We have observed police special interest groups such as Lexipol and the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), among others, manipulate the outcome of POST's use of force policy-making process in ways that completely undermined both public safety and the Legislature's intent. AB 2042's delegation of authority to set canine use of force standards to POST, without meaningful guidelines or limitations, directly facilitates police special interests' efforts to perpetuate the status quo. Also of concern is the increase to POST's budget in light of potential cuts to critical social safety net programs and other critical funding. As such, we respectfully oppose AB 2042 unless amended.

"AB 2042 should be amended to, at a minimum, include clear and strict restrictions on the use of police attack dogs.

"Instead of setting clear and strict restrictions on the use of police attack dogs, AB 2042 grants POST unfettered power to develop regulations for the use of police dogs even in situations where your constituents and other Californians fundamentally believe police attack dogs should never be used. Despite what law enforcement tells us, data and public records show that police most commonly use attack dogs to inflict severe injuries on people who pose no serious danger to officers or to others. The vast majority of Californians severely injured by police attack dogs are not armed with any weapon, according to data reported by police agencies to the state Department of Justice. A news investigation analyzing the same official data found that many Californians seriously injured by police attack dogs were not combative or even running from "police but reported to be only 'passively not complying.'" A canine attack - which may lead to serious and often permanent damage to nerves, muscles, and bones, and even loss of organs and limbs - is not proportional as a response to any movement a person may make, or any form of physical or threatened resistance. Such an attack would obviously be inappropriate in response to a person merely flinching or cowering, or verbally or passively resisting in a manner that poses no threat to the officer or another person, or unable to respond to police command and in need of medical care because the individual has a mental or physical disability or is experiencing a behavioral health crisis. Given the potential for harm by police attack dogs, AB 2042 must be amended to, at a minimum, prevent police dogs from being used for 1) non-violent offenses, 2) crowd control at an assembly, protest, or demonstration, and 3) when a person does not present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to others or the officer.

"AB 2042 must provide clear and strict limitations on when a police attack dog can be deployed to arrest or apprehend a person. These limitations must include, at a minimum, all the following:

1. The person is being pursued for a crime of violence (i.e., a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily injury or death).
2. Canine handler must remain within visual and auditory range of the canine;
3. Canine handler shall have approval from a canine supervisor (sergeant or higher) prior to deployment;
4. Canine handler shall issue three loud and clear warnings capable of being heard throughout the area of deployment that a canine will be deployed;
5. Canine handler shall provide a reasonable amount of time after the warning described in number 3 to enable uninvolved members of the public and other officers to reach a safe distance from the area of deployment, and the person being pursued to yield to the officer's commands prior to deployment;
6. A police canine shall not be used for crowd control at any assembly, protest, or demonstration;
7. A police canine shall not be used to bite in any circumstance unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person by the person against whom the canine is used, and alternatives to force could not reasonably be expected to defend against this threat.

"AB 2042 should be amended to include that corresponding training regarding the use of police attack dogs shall be consistent with, at a minimum, all of the limitations set forth immediately above.

"The delegation to POST to establish regulations for police attack dogs will certainly lead to weak standards, which will not safeguard the rights or well-being of our community.

"Although the Legislature has regularly delegated to POST the responsibility to develop policies related to officer use of force and other agency practices, POST's actions over the past several years have been inconsistent with the spirit, intent, and sometimes plain language of the law.

"For example, AB 846 (Burke), Chapter 322, Statues of 2020 required POST to update their regulations and screening material for prospective police officers to help identify implicit or explicit bias. Instead, POST rejected public comment recommendations from the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) Board, and blatantly refused to implement the spirit and intent of the legislature despite RIPA highlighting the Legislature's explicit intent. Only after the Office of Administrative Law rejected POST's regulations because POST did not meaningfully respond to the RIPA Board's comments, did POST amend its regulations to comply.

"The Legislature also directed POST to develop guidelines and training to address peace officer bias. POST's existing training curricula do not train officers based on the existing definitions of bias enacted by the Legislature and instead uses a lower standard than California law. Additionally, the Legislature in 2017 directed POST to "develop and disseminate guidelines . . . [for] effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a diverse racial, identity, and cultural environment," which agencies can use to develop their own policies implementing RIPA. POST has never created these guidelines, despite the recommendation by the RIPA Board that it complete this duty, and numerous findings of this failure in the RIPA reports. While POST has finally agreed to satisfy this obligation, it has not yet done so.

"Senate Bill 2 (Bradford) Chapter 409, Statutes of 2021 created the police decertification process and delegated to POST the duty to develop regulations defining "serious misconduct" that would render an individual ineligible to work as a peace officer in California. The Legislature set a floor for minimum conduct that would satisfy this definition and authorized POST to expand those grounds–yet POST's proposed regulations either restate this minimum or, in some cases, attempt to undercut the statutory language by permitting conduct that the Legislature determined categorically rendered an individual unfit to serve as an officer.

"POST should not be entrusted to draft regulations to safeguard the rights and safety of our community against the use of police attack dogs because it has allowed police special interest groups, such as Lexipol and the PORAC, to undermine use of force policies and trainings in ways that endanger public safety. For example, POST caved to the demands of police special interest groups (e.g., PORAC and California Police Chiefs Association) who objected to an AB 392 training video. Records indicate POST discussed the content of the training with these opponents of the new law behind closed doors and agreed to their demands remove portions of the training, then completely de-published the training, and only republished a revised, watered-down version after these special interest groups provided their stamp of approval. Police special interest groups have continuously employed aggressive efforts to limit and undermine POST regulations, making it plain that legislation granting POST the authority to regulate the use of police attack dogs would fare no differently. For these reasons, strong statewide limitations on the use of attack dogs by California's police agencies must be explicitly legislated in clear statutory standards.

"Funding POST to develop standards and training that would be more effectively and efficiently set by statute is not a fiscally sound approach.

"POST's budget is bloated, and the current allocation of funds to it is disproportionate when compared to other critical areas like education, healthcare, and social services. POST's proposed budget for training alone, for fiscal year 2024-2025, is more than half (57%) of its total budget. Given a potential fiscal crisis in California that will likely require significant cuts to critical social safety net programs, we are compelled to oppose policies that would direct more funding to law enforcement when people are struggling to access affordable housing, quality education, community-based mental health and substance use services, and low or no-cost healthcare.

"Moreover, the Little Hoover Commission (LHC), the Legislature's own oversight agency, has called into serious doubt the efficacy of POST trainings. In its 2021 report, LHC found that California "spends millions of dollars on law enforcement training each year, yet there is very little evidence to demonstrate which types of training actually achieve intended goals and positively impact officer behavior in the field – and which do not." LHC's report also explained the importance of assessing and improving law enforcement training courses prior to spending more taxpayer dollars on training that may have limited effectiveness. The California State Auditor has also raised similar concerns about POST training, further raising concerns about the effectiveness of training being delivered to officers. Similarly, the RIPA Board raised concerns in its 2022 and 2023 Annual Reports. AB 2042 would require a convoluted, costly process for POST to create regulations for the use of police attack dogs, when instead clear and strict limitations on the use of police attack dogs could be set simply, clearly, and effectively by statute.

"We are deeply concerned with the approach employed in AB 2042, which cedes the authority of regulating the use of police attack dogs to POST. Conspicuously absent are clear and strict statutory limitations."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "One-time costs to POST (General Fund) of an unknown but likely significant amount to establish guidelines for use of canines by law enforcement and certify training courses for canine handlers and their supervisors, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars."

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-1-1

YES: McCarty, Stephanie Nguyen, Reyes, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

NO: Alanis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Lackey

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 9-4-2

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin

NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Villapudua

UPDATED

VERSION: May 16, 2024

CONSULTANT: Andrew Ironside / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003433

Date of Hearing: May 1, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2042

Author:(Jackson) – As Amended Ver:March 21, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop standards and training guidelines for use of police canines, and requires each law enforcement agency to adopt a policy and training regimen that complies with POST standards.

Specifically, among other provisions, this bill:

1. Requires POST to develop standards for the use of canines by law enforcement. The standards must, at a minimum, include guidelines based on established best practices for:
   1. The use of unleashed police canines to arrest or apprehend persons being pursued for crimes of violence, as defined, and those being pursued for nonviolent crimes.
   2. The use of a police canine for crowd control at an assembly, protest, or demonstration.
   3. Procedures to minimize harm to innocent bystanders by an unleashed police canine.
2. Requires a law enforcement agency to adopt a policy for the use of canines by the agency that, at a minimum, complies with POST standards.
3. Requires POST to develop standardized training guidelines for all law enforcement officers in the use of canines by law enforcement, including a description of the minimum standards for training police canines and canine handlers.
4. Requires a law enforcement agency to require regular and periodic training for all canines and canine handlers that, at a minimum, covers the POST canine use standards.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time costs to POST (General Fund) to establish standards and training guidelines for use of canines by law enforcement, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. POST estimates costs to develop standards for canine use may range from $250,000 to $400,000, plus additional one-time costs of approximately $300,000 to develop training to complement the guidelines.
2. Minor and absorbable costs to California Highway Patrol to update its canine use policy and incorporate POST training guidelines into its existing training regimen.
3. Possibly reimbursable costs (local funds, General Fund) of an unknown but significant amount to law enforcement agencies to adopt canine policies that meet POST standards. Notably, this requirement appears to apply to each law enforcement agency in the state, regardless of whether the agency has a canine unit. In the aggregate, one-time costs may be in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. General Fund costs will depend on whether the duties imposed by this bill constitute a reimbursable state mandate, as determined by the Commission on State Mandates.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years. 

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, “There currently isn't a statewide policy that governs the use of police dogs. This bill seeks to fix that.”
2. Background. Police canines used for apprehension are considered a less-than-lethal use of force option for law enforcement officers to deploy when trying to arrest or apprehend a suspect. However, police canines’ bites are very powerful, and have resulted in serious injuries to those they bite. In general, police use of force is disproportionately deployed against people of color, particularly Black people. As pointed out in the analysis of this bill by the Assembly Committee of Public Safety, the lack of statewide data on use of police canines makes it difficult to analyze and evaluate outcomes from canine use in the aggregate.

Unlike other types of use of force by peace officers, there are no uniform, statewide standards that govern use of police canines for apprehension. POST has developed guidelines for minimum training and performance standards for police canine patrol and detection, but the guidelines are voluntary and were specifically designed to accommodate the varying operational policies of law enforcement agencies. Individual law enforcement agencies may develop their own policies to govern use of police canines and related training. As a result, police canine policies may vary among agencies, and are not subject to statewide standards or oversight.

This bill requires POST to develop standards for use of canines by law enforcement and standardized training guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement. The bill also requires each law enforcement agency to adopt a policy for the use of canines that complies with the standards established by POST, and to conduct “regular and periodic” trainings of canines and handlers that meet the guidelines established by POST. Although the bill specifies minimum topics that POST must cover in its canine standards and guidelines, the bill largely leaves the details to POST’s discretion, though it requires the standards be based on established best practices.

1. Opposition. This bill does not have registered support and is opposed by law enforcement advocates and criminal justice reform advocates. The California State Sheriff’s Association writes:

AB 2042 provides that the standards referenced above shall, at a minimum, establish guidelines based upon “established best practices” for several matters. The standards appear to reference particular topics that critics of canine use point to when they seek further restriction of the use of canines. Additionally, it is unclear, in this particular circumstance, what the “established best practices” are and who established that they are the best practices.

To better address discussions around the use of canines, stakeholders have crafted a more comprehensive bill that addresses guidelines for canine use, training course certification, legal standards, and data reporting. We feel this alternative bill is the better approach on this topic.

Also in opposition, ACLU California Action writes:

AB 2042 acknowledges that the current use of police attack dogs is dangerous and must be addressed. Yet, the bill disregards the undeniable truth-- the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) has repeatedly allowed police special interest groups, such as Lexipol and PORAC, to undermine reform-oriented use of force policies and trainings in ways that ignore legislative intent and endanger public safety. Consequently, Californian’s first and only statewide rules on the use of this historically racialized practice must entail clear and strict statutory limitations. AB 2042 lacks these critical provisions.

1. Related Legislation. AB 3241 (Pacheco) establishes minimum standards for the use of a canine by law enforcement to search for and apprehend a suspect, requires POST to develop minimum guidelines for the use of canines by law enforcement, and requires each law enforcement agency to publish on its website a report on the use of canines by the agency. AB 3241 is pending hearing in this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 9, 2024

Counsel: Andrew Ironside

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to develop standards and standardized training guidelines for use of canines by law enforcement. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires POST, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop standards for the use of canines by law enforcement.
   
2. Requires, at a minimum, the standards to establish guidelines based upon established best practices for all of the following:
   
   1. The use of unleashed police canines to arrest or apprehend persons being pursued for crimes of violence, as defined, and those being pursued for nonviolent crimes;
      
   2. The use of a police canine for crowd control at an assembly, protest, or demonstration; and,
      
   3. Procedures to minimize harm to innocent bystanders by an unleashed police canine.
      
3. Authorizes POST to amend the standards to include greater restrictions on the use of canines by law enforcement.
   
4. Requires a law enforcement agency, on or before January 1, 2027, to adopt a policy for the use of canines by the agency that, at a minimum, complies with POST standards, as specified.
   
5. Requires POST, on or before January 1, 2026, to develop standardized training guidelines for all law enforcement officers in the use of canines by law enforcement.
   
6. Requires POST training guidelines to include, at a minimum, all of the following:
   
   1. An explanation of POST standards for the use of canines by law enforcement, as specified;
      
   2. A description of the minimum standards for training canines prior to their use by law enforcement; and,
      
   3. A description of the minimum standards for training canine handlers before employing canines in the line of duty.
      
7. Requires a law enforcement agency, on or before January 1, 2027, to require regular and periodic training for all canines and canine handlers that, at a minimum, covers the POST canine use standards, as specified.
   
8. Defines “crime of violence” as a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily injury or death.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes POST. (Pen. Code, § 13500, et seq.)
   
2. Provides that POST has, among others, the power to develop and implement programs to increase the effectiveness of law enforcement and, when those programs involve training and education courses, to cooperate with and secure the cooperation of state-level peace officers, agencies, and bodies having jurisdiction over systems of public higher education in continuing the development of college-level training and education programs. (Pen. Code, § 13500.3, subd. (e).)
   
3. Requires POST to submit annually a report to the Legislature on the overall effectiveness of any additional funding for improving peace officer training, including the number of peace officers trained by law enforcement agency, by course, and by how the training was delivered, as well as the training provided and the descriptions of the training. (Pen. Code, § 13500.5, subd. (a) & (b).)
   
4. Authorizes a peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person to be arrested has committed a public offense to use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance. (Pen. Code, § 835a, subd. (b).)
   
5. Authorizes a peace officer to use deadly force when the officer believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons:
   
   1. To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person; or
      
   2. To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts. (Pen. Code, § 835a, subd. (c)(1)(A) & (B).)
      
6. Prohibits a peace officer from using deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person. (Pen. Code, § 835a, subd. (c)(2).)
   
7. Defines “deadly force” as any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 835a, subd. (e)(1).)
   
8. Provides that an arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person, or by submission to the custody of an officer, and that the person arrested may be subjected to such restraint as is reasonable for their arrest and detention. (Pen. Code, § 835.)
   
9. Permits a peace officer who is authorized to make an arrest and who has stated their intention to do so, to use all necessary means to effect the arrest if the person to be arrested either flees or forcibly resists. (Pen. Code, § 843.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “There currently isn't a statewide policy that governs the use of police dogs. This bill seeks to fix that."
   
2. Police Canine Use and Deployment Policies: Law enforcement agencies view the use of police canines as indispensable to protecting the public and law enforcement personnel. According the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department,
   

The prompt and proper utilization of a trained canine team has proven to be a valuable use of a unique resource in law enforcement. When properly used, a canine team greatly increases the degree of safety to citizens within a contained search area, enhances individual officer safety, significantly increases the likelihood of suspect apprehension, and dramatically reduces the amount of time necessary to conduct a search.

(Field Operations Direction (FOD): 86-037 Canine Deployment, Search and Force Policy, at p. 2; see also VanSickle et al., When Police Violence Is a Dog Bite, The Marshall Project (Oct. 2, 2020) <https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/02/when-police-violence-is-a-dog-bite> [last viewed Apr. 4, 2024] [a joint investigation with USA Today, AL.com, and the Invisible Institute] and Kaste, Videos Reveal A Close, Gory View of Police Dog Bites, NPR (Nov. 20, 2017) <https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563973584/videos-reveal-a-close-gory-view-of-police-dog-bites> [last visited Apr. 4, 2024].) Despite their importance to law enforcement, the state has offered very little direction to local law enforcement on the use and deployment of police canines.

POST has minimum training and performance standards for police canines. According to POST, “Patrol K-9 teams should meet minimum standards with regards to obedience, search, apprehension, and handler protection.” (POST Law Enforcement K-9 Guidelines, p. xiii <https://post.ca.gov/Portals/0/post_docs/publications/K-9.pdf> [last viewed Apr. 4, 2024].) POST apprehension guidelines require, “[u]nder the direction of the handler and while off leash, the K-9 will pursue and apprehend a person acting as a ‘suspect’ (agitator/decoy).” It adds, “The K-9 team will demonstrate a pursuit and call off prior to apprehension. On command from the handler, the K-9 will pursue and apprehend the agitator/decoy. From a reasonable distance and on verbal command only, the K-9 will cease the apprehension.” (Id. at p. 2.) POST detection guidelines advise “[t]he evaluator [to] be fully apprised of the pertinent agency policies and regulations prior to commencement of the exercise. The ‘correct’ response or reach of the handler, the dog, or the two acting together, may differ from agency to agency, based on prevailing agency policy.” (Id. at 5.) The detection exercise duplicates the apprehension procedure, “except in [the detection] scenario the agitator/decoy will not stop and the handler will send the dog to pursue, contact, and apprehend the agitator decoy.” (Ibid.) The exercise requires the police canine to “contact and control the agitator/decoy until called off by the handler.” (Ibid.) “During the apprehension and on verbal command only from the handler, the dog will disengage the contact.” (Ibid.)

These limited training and guidelines leave local law enforcement agencies to come up with their own use and deployment practices and procedures. Some agencies have limited the use of police canines. The Oakland Police Department, for example, provides that a police canine may be used “[t]o search for and assist in the apprehension of criminal suspects when there is reasonable suspicion to believe they committed a forcible violent crime, burglary, or a weapon-related offense”; or “[t]o pursue and apprehend criminal suspects who are attempting to actively evade arrest” for a forcible violent crime, burglary, or a weapon-related offense.” (Office of Chief of Police, Oakland Police Department, Revised DGO K-9, Department Canine Program (Aug. 1, 2006) p. 1 <http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/police/documents/webcontent/oak059998.pdf> [last visited Apr. 4, 2024] [emphasis in original].)

Similarly, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department provides for police canine deployment for “[s]earches for felony suspects, or armed misdemeanor suspects, who are wanted for SERIOUS crimes and the circumstances of the situation presents a clear danger to deputy personnel who would otherwise conduct a search without a canine.” (FOD: 86-037, supra, at p. 2 [emphasis in original].) The department’s guidelines further provide, “Searches for suspects wanted for Grand Theft Auto shall be limited to those who are reasonably believed to be adults, and are reasonably believed to be the driver of a confirmed stolen vehicle.” (Ibid.) Despite these limitations, the Special Counsel to the department recommended “winnowing the list of crimes for which canines should be used.” (33rd Semiannual Report of Special Counsel, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Sept. 2013) p. 14 <https://scvtv.com/pdf/lasd100713.pdf> [last visited Apr. 4, 2024].)

This bill would require POST to establish guidelines based upon established best practices for the use of unleashed police canines to arrest or apprehend persons being pursued for crimes of violence and those being pursued for nonviolent crimes; the use of a police canine for crowd control at an assembly, protest, or demonstration; and, procedures to minimize harm to innocent bystanders by an unleashed police canine. This bill would also require POST to establish training guidelines to include, at a minimum, an explanation of POST standards for the use of canines by law enforcement; a description of the minimum standards for training canines prior to their use by law enforcement; and a description of the minimum standards for training canine handlers before employing canines in the line of duty.

1. Lack of Comprehensive Data: Efforts to examine the effect and scope of police canine use by law enforcement agencies are stymied by a familiar problem: insufficient data. There currently is no statewide data on the use of police canines. No entity is charged with collecting information that would help contextualize existing practices.
   
   For example, supporters and opponents of the use of police canines by law enforcement dispute the effectiveness of call-off procedures. Police dog-handlers “point out that a dog can be called back after it's been unleashed — unlike the deployment of a Taser or the firing of a gun.” (Kaste, supra.) Indeed, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department reasonably requires a handler to “call off the dog at the first moment the canine can be safely released.” (FOD: 86-037, supra, at p. 2.)
   
   But opponents point to instances where police canines do not obey call-off commands by their handlers. One report states, “Although training experts said dogs should release a person after a verbal command, we found dozens of cases where handlers had to yank dogs off, hit them on the head, choke them or use shock collars.” (VanSickle et al., supra.) According to another, “Privately, handlers often talk about having trouble getting a dog to ‘out,’ or open its jaws. It's a concern that comes up on discussion boards, and in this K9 training video.” (Kaste, supra.)
   
   Law enforcement does not appear to collect data on the frequency with which police canines obey call-off commands. Some agencies require officers to document how long a bite lasted, but that does not appear to be a consistent practice throughout the state. (See FOD: 86-037, supra, at p. 2 [providing that “[w]ithout exception, a reference to the duration of the canine’s contact with a suspect shall be included in the handler’s supplemental report”].)
   
   Would robust data collection and comparative analyses of existing agencies’ protocols assist in the development of policies and procedure that would limit the use of police canines to a handful of cases when their use is most justifiable?
   
2. Department of Justice Data on Use of Force Incidents Involving Police Canines: According to data collected by the DOJ’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center, law enforcement used a police canine in a use of force incident that resulted in serious bodily injury or death 76 times in 2020, accounting for 10.2% of the total such use of force incidents by law enforcement.^[1] (DOJ, Use of Force Incident Reporting (2021) p. 30 <https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/USE OF FORCE 2020.pdf> [last visited Apr. 1, 2024].) Of those 76 incidents, 49 were against persons of color—9 Black individuals, 33 Hispanic individuals, 3 Asian/Pacific Islander individuals, and 2 multi-race individuals. (Id. at 34 [2 individuals are identified as “other”].) In 29 of the 76 incidents, the officer did not perceive that the civilian was armed. (Id. at 37.) The civilian was later confirmed armed in 24 of the 76 of incidents. (Id. at 39.) In two incidents, the civilian did not resist. (Id. at 40.)
   
   According to the raw data on use of force incidents in 2020, 14 use of force incidents involving canine contact also involved the discharge of a firearm by the officer, six of which resulted in fatalities and three of which resulted in critical or serious injuries. Of those 14 incidents involving the use of both a canine and a firearm, eight were against people of color. (2020 URSUS Use of Force Data.)
   
   In 2021, law enforcement used a canine in a use of force incident that resulted in serious bodily injury or death 77 times, or 11.7% of the total use of force incidents by law enforcement against a civilian. (DOJ, Use of Force Incident Reporting (2021) p. 31 <https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/USE OF FORCE 2021.pdf> [last visited Apr. 1, 2024].) Of those 77 incidents, 50 were against persons of color—13 Black individuals, 36 Hispanic individuals, and 1 American Indian individual. (Id. at 35.) In 37 of the 77 incidents, the officer did not perceive that the civilian was armed. (Id. at 38.) The civilian was later confirmed armed in 27 of the 77 incidents. (Id. at 39.) In five of those incidents the civilian did not resist. (Id. at 40.)
   
   There were 63 use of force incidents reported to DOJ in 2022, which amounted to 10.3% of the total use of force incidents. (DOJ, Use of Force Incident Reporting (2022) p. 38 <https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-06/USE OF FORCE 2022f.pdf> [last visited Apr. 1, 2024].) Arrests were made in 62 of the 63 incidents, and 49 of the 63 incidents were against people of color—11 Black individuals, 36 Hispanic individuals, and 2 Asian/Pacific Islander individuals. (Id. at p. 32.) The officer did not perceive the individual to be armed in 22 of the 63 incidents. (Id. at p. 35.) The civilian was later confirmed to be armed in 26 of the 63 incidents. (Id. at p. 36.)
   
3. Past Use of Police Dogs: In July 2022, the California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans issued an interim report documenting the history of, among other things, the enslavement, racial terror, political disenfranchisement, and mistreatment of African Americans in the justice system. The report briefly discussed the role of police dogs in that history:
   

Slave patrols also used dogs to attack enslaved people by biting them but also to instill fear, and used bloodhounds to track down enslaved people. Freedom seekers learned to run without shoes and put black pepper in their socks to make the slave patrols’ bloodhounds sneeze and throw them off their scent.

Much like slave patrols, police have continued to use dogs against African Americans in the 20th century through the present. Police used dogs against demonstrators during the civil rights movement. The United States Department of Justice noted in its 2015 report that the Ferguson Police Department “exclusively set their dogs against black individuals, often in cases where doing so was not justified by the danger presented.” In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, police dogs bit at least 146 people from 2017 to 2019 and almost all of whom were Black…

In the 1980s, the Los Angeles Police Department, which is the largest police department in California and one of the largest in the country, referred to Black suspects as “dog biscuits.” Victims of police dogs sued and alleged that the department disproportionately used dogs in minority neighborhoods, which resulted in police dogs inflicting 90 percent of their reported bites on African Americans or Latinos. In 2013, the Special Counsel to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which is the largest sheriff’s department in California and the country, found that African Americans and Latinos comprised 89 percent of the total individuals who were bitten by the department’s dogs from 2004 to 2012. During the same time, the Special Counsel found that the number of African Americans that police dogs bit increased 33 percent.

(California Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African Americans, Interim Report (June 2022) p. 376, 380 < https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/ab3121-reparations-interim-report-2022.pdf> [last visited Apr. 4, 2024].)

There remain “stark racial disparities in police interactions and use of force, particularly for Black people.” (Premkumar et al., Police Use of Force and Misconduct in California, PPIC (Oct. 2021) <https://www.ppic.org/publication/police-use-of-force-and-misconduct-in-california/> [last visited Apr. 4, 2024].)

1. Police Canine Bites: Given the history and contemporary uses of police canines by law enforcement, the question is whether this particular law enforcement tool is unique.
   
   Police canines are considered less than lethal. Law enforcement hopes that the presence of a canine will de-escalate a situation by intimidating the sought individual with the threat of a canine attack. The fear is supposed to make the person submit. If they do not surrender, and occasionally even when they do, law enforcement releases the canine who subdues the individual by biting them.
   
   According to canine handlers, a police canine’s bite should not cause serious injury. (VanSickle et al., supra.) However, as one report observed, “police videos shows some officers using biting dogs against people who show minimal threat to officers, and a degree of violence that would be unacceptable if inflicted directly by the officers.” (Kaste, supra.).) A police canine’s bite causes more damage than a domestic dog bite. According to one study, “Police dog bite victims were usually bitten multiple times…were bitten more often in the head, neck, chest, and flank. They were hospitalized more often, underwent more operations and had more invasive diagnostic tests.” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572346106000596.)
   
   Indeed, police canine bites are “strong enough to punch through sheet metal” and have been compared to shark attacks. (VanSickle et al., supra.) One article argued that “the police canine needs to be reconceptualized as the physical equivalent of a police baton with spikes three centimeters in length, the approximate length of German Shepherd teeth (i.e., a spiked impact weapon capable of sustained puncturing, compression-pressure, pulling and tearing).” (McCauley et al., The Police Canine Bite: Force, Injury, and Liability, The Center for Research in Criminology (Nov. 2008) <k9-crc-report-11-08-final-for-pds_1_.pdf (iup.edu)> [last visited Apr. 4, 2024].) By comparison, for the purpose of DOJ use of force investigations, a deadly weapon includes a billy or blackjack. (Gov. Code, § 12525.3, subd. (a)(1).)
   
   Moreover, individuals suspected of a crime are not the only ones injured by police canines. Occasionally, a police canine bites an individual who is not a suspect of a crime. (VanSickle et al., supra.) Sometimes, a law enforcement officer is the victim. According to NPR, “In 2016, California's workers compensation system recorded 190 law enforcement officers reporting on-the-job injuries involving police dogs.” (Kaste, supra.)
   
2. Limitations on Use of Force by Law Enforcement: The legislature has acted to limit the authority of law enforcement to use specific types of force. Following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN, California banned the use of carotid restraint control holds by law enforcement. (Gov. Code, § 7286.5; AB 96 (Gipson), Chapter 324, Statutes of 2020.) According to the DOJ’s Use of Force Incident Reporting data, these holds resulted in serious bodily injury or death at similar rates as police canines, and the racial disparities among those who suffered the injuries mirrored those of police canines. For example, of the 60 carotid restraint hold incidents in the year before the ban, 37 were used on people of color (DOJ, Use of Force Incident Reporting (2019) p. 34 <https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/USE OF FORCE 2019.pdf> [last visited Apr. 1, 2024].)
   
3. Argument in Support: None submitted.
   
4. Argument in Opposition: According to ACLU California Action, “As you know, the practice of training and using dogs to attack people dates to slave patrols, and police agencies continue to disproportionately use attack dogs against our Black and Latino communities. Statewide, two-thirds of Californians severely injured by police dogs are people of color. Notably, many of the attacks by police dogs are perpetrated against people who are unarmed, do not pose a danger to officers or others, are suspected of minor crimes or no crime at all, and often against people who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis. Their use is outdated and dangerous – with the potential of severe, life-altering, and deadly consequences.
   
   “We know that without clear restrictions written into state law, AB 2042 will do no more than endorse the status quo and usher in objectively weak rules for this dangerous practice, perpetuating standards far below the federal standards for the limited permissible use of police attack dogs, and that do not mirror best practices from other law enforcement agencies. We have observed police special interest groups such as Lexipol and the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), among others, manipulate the outcome of POST’s use of force policy-making process in ways that completely undermined both public safety and the Legislature’s intent. AB 2042’s delegation of authority to set canine use of force standards to POST, without meaningful guidelines or limitations, directly facilitates police special interests’ efforts to perpetuate the status quo. Also of concern is the increase to POST’s budget in light of potential cuts to critical social safety net programs and other critical funding. As such, we respectfully oppose AB 2042 unless amended.
   
   “AB 2042 should be amended to, at a minimum, include clear and strict restrictions on the use of police attack dogs.
   
   “Instead of setting clear and strict restrictions on the use of police attack dogs, AB 2042 grants POST unfettered power to develop regulations for the use of police dogs even in situations where your constituents and other Californians fundamentally believe police attack dogs should never be used. Despite what law enforcement tells us, data and public records show that police most commonly use attack dogs to inflict severe injuries on people who pose no serious danger to officers or to others. The vast majority of Californians severely injured by police attack dogs are not armed with any weapon, according to data reported by police agencies to the state Department of Justice. A news investigation analyzing the same official data found that many Californians seriously injured by police attack dogs were not combative or even running from “police but reported to be only ‘passively not complying.’” A canine attack - which may lead to serious and often permanent damage to nerves, muscles, and bones, and even loss of organs and limbs - is not proportional as a response to any movement a person may make, or any form of physical or threatened resistance. Such an attack would obviously be inappropriate in response to a person merely flinching or cowering, or verbally or passively resisting in a manner that poses no threat to the officer or another person, or unable to respond to police command and in need of medical care because the individual has a mental or physical disability or is experiencing a behavioral health crisis. Given the potential for harm by police attack dogs, AB 2042 must be amended to, at a minimum, prevent police dogs from being used for 1) non-violent offenses, 2) crowd control at an assembly, protest, or demonstration, and 3) when a person does not present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to others or the officer.
   
   “AB 2042 must provide clear and strict limitations on when a police attack dog can be deployed to arrest or apprehend a person. These limitations must include, at a minimum, all the following:

1. The person is being pursued for a crime of violence (i.e., a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily injury or death).

2. Canine handler must remain within visual and auditory range of the canine;

3. Canine handler shall have approval from a canine supervisor (sergeant or higher) prior to deployment;

4. Canine handler shall issue three loud and clear warnings capable of being heard throughout the area of deployment that a canine will be deployed;

5. Canine handler shall provide a reasonable amount of time after the warning described in number 3 to enable uninvolved members of the public and other officers to reach a safe distance from the area of deployment, and the person being pursued to yield to the officer’s commands prior to deployment;

6. A police canine shall not be used for crowd control at any assembly, protest, or demonstration;

7. A police canine shall not be used to bite in any circumstance unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person by the person against whom the canine is used, and alternatives to force could not reasonably be expected to defend against this threat.

“AB 2042 should be amended to include that corresponding training regarding the use of police attack dogs shall be consistent with, at a minimum, all of the limitations set forth immediately above.

“The delegation to POST to establish regulations for police attack dogs will certainly lead to weak standards, which will not safeguard the rights or well-being of our community.

“Although the Legislature has regularly delegated to POST the responsibility to develop policies related to officer use of force and other agency practices, POST’s actions over the past several years have been inconsistent with the spirit, intent, and sometimes plain language of the law.

“For example, AB 846 (Burke, 2020) required POST to update their regulations and screening material for prospective police officers to help identify implicit or explicit bias. Instead, POST rejected public comment recommendations from the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) Board, and blatantly refused to implement the spirit and intent of the legislature despite RIPA highlighting the Legislature’s explicit intent. Only after the Office of Administrative Law rejected POST’s regulations because POST did not meaningfully respond to the RIPA Board's comments, did POST amend its regulations to comply.

“The Legislature also directed POST to develop guidelines and training to address peace officer bias. POST's existing training curricula do not train officers based on the existing definitions of bias enacted by the Legislature and instead uses a lower standard than California law. Additionally, the Legislature in 2017 directed POST to “develop and disseminate guidelines . . . [for] effective, noncombative methods of carrying out law enforcement duties in a diverse racial, identity, and cultural environment,” which agencies can use to develop their own policies implementing RIPA. POST has never created these guidelines, despite the recommendation by the RIPA Board that it complete this duty, and numerous findings of this failure in the RIPA reports. While POST has finally agreed to satisfy this obligation, it has not yet done so.

“Senate Bill 2 (Bradford, 2021) created the police decertification process and delegated to POST the duty to develop regulations defining “serious misconduct” that would render an individual ineligible to work as a peace officer in California. The Legislature set a floor for minimum conduct that would satisfy this definition and authorized POST to expand those grounds–yet POST’s proposed regulations either restate this minimum or, in some cases, attempt to undercut the statutory language by permitting conduct that the Legislature determined categorically rendered an individual unfit to serve as an officer.

“POST should not be entrusted to draft regulations to safeguard the rights and safety of our community against the use of police attack dogs because it has allowed police special interest groups, such as Lexipol and the PORAC, to undermine use of force policies and trainings in ways that endanger public safety. For example, POST caved to the demands of police special interest groups (e.g., PORAC and California Police Chiefs Association) who objected to an AB 392 training video. Records indicate POST discussed the content of the training with these opponents of the new law behind closed doors and agreed to their demands remove portions of the training, then completely de-published the training, and only republished a revised, watered-down version after these special interest groups provided their stamp of approval. Police special interest groups have continuously employed aggressive efforts to limit and undermine POST regulations, making it plain that legislation granting POST the authority to regulate the use of police attack dogs would fare no differently. For these reasons, strong statewide limitations on the use of attack dogs by California’s police agencies must be explicitly legislated in clear statutory standards.

“Funding POST to develop standards and training that would be more effectively and efficiently set by statute is not a fiscally sound approach.

“POST’s budget is bloated, and the current allocation of funds to it is disproportionate when compared to other critical areas like education, healthcare, and social services. POST’s proposed budget for training alone, for fiscal year 2024-2025, is more than half (57%) of its total budget. Given a potential fiscal crisis in California that will likely require significant cuts to critical social safety net programs, we are compelled to oppose policies that would direct more funding to law enforcement when people are struggling to access affordable housing, quality education, community-based mental health and substance use services, and low or no-cost healthcare.

“Moreover, the Little Hoover Commission (LHC), the Legislature’s own oversight agency, has called into serious doubt the efficacy of POST trainings. In its 2021 report, LHC found that California “spends millions of dollars on law enforcement training each year, yet there is very little evidence to demonstrate which types of training actually achieve intended goals and positively impact officer behavior in the field – and which do not.” LHC’s report also explained the importance of assessing and improving law enforcement training courses prior to spending more taxpayer dollars on training that may have limited effectiveness. The California State Auditor has also raised similar concerns about POST training, further raising concerns about the effectiveness of training being delivered to officers. Similarly, the RIPA Board raised concerns in its 2022 and 2023 Annual Reports. AB 2042 would require a convoluted, costly process for POST to create regulations for the use of police attack dogs, when instead clear and strict limitations on the use of police attack dogs could be set simply, clearly, and effectively by statute.

“We are deeply concerned with the approach employed in AB 2042, which cedes the authority of regulating the use of police attack dogs to POST. Conspicuously absent are clear and strict statutory limitations.”

1. Related Legislation: AB 3241 (Pacheco), would establish minimum standards for the use of a canine by law enforcement to search for and/or apprehend a suspect; requires POST to develop minimum standards for the use of canines by law enforcement; and requires each law enforcement agency to publish on its website a report on the use of canines by the agency.
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 742 (Jackson), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have prohibited the use of canines by peace officers for arrest and apprehension, or in any circumstances to bite a person, but permits their use of canines for search and rescue, explosives detection, and narcotics detection. AB 742 was ordered to the inactive file in the Assembly.
      
   2. AB 1196 (Gibson), Chapter 324, Statutes of 2020, prohibited a law enforcement agency for authorizing the use of a carotid restraint or a choke hold, as defined, and further prohibits techniques or transport methods that involve a substantial risk of positional asphyxia, as defined.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None

Opposition

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California Fish and Game Warden Supervisors and Managers Association
California Fraternal Order of Police
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California Public Defenders Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
California Wildlife Officers Foundation
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
Newport Beach Police Association
Novato Police Officers Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Employees' Benefit Association
Santa Ana Police Officers Association
Upland Police Officers Association
ACLU California Action
Asian Law Alliance
Californians United for A Responsible Budget
Care First Kern
Initiate Justice Action
Milpa (motivating Individual Leadership for Public Advancement)
National Police Accountability Project
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
San Francisco Public Defender

Analysis Prepared by:

1. The DOJ’s Use of Force Incident Reporting contains only incidents where use of force resulted in serious bodily injury or death. DOJ, Use of Force Incident Reporting (2021) p. 1 <https://data-openjustice.doj.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-08/USE OF FORCE 2020.pdf> [last visited Apr. 4, 2024].) ↑