Existing law defines a hate crime as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, in consultation with specified subject-matter experts, to develop a course of instruction that trains law enforcement on, among other things, indicators of hate crimes and techniques, responses to hate crime waves against certain groups, including Arab and Islamic communities, and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes in a noncombative manner.

This bill would require instruction to include identifying when a gun violence restraining order is appropriate to prevent a hate crime and the procedure for seeking a gun violence restraining order. The bill would additionally require instruction on responses to hate crime waves against specified groups, including the LGBTQ and Jewish communities.

Existing law allows a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having custody or control of any firearms or ammunition if the person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another by having custody or control of a firearm or ammunition. Existing law establishes a civil restraining order process to accomplish that purpose, including authorizing the issuance of an ex parte order, as specified.

Existing law requires specified law enforcement agencies to develop, adopt, and implement policies and standards relating to gun violence restraining orders. Existing law requires these policies to include, among other things, standards and procedures for requesting and serving an ex parte gun violence restraining order or procedures on the responsibility of officers to attend gun violence restraining order hearings.

This bill would revise the above-described policies and standards to include, among other things, an officers obligation to diligently participate in the evidence presentation process at hearings and the procedure for storing firearms surrendered in compliance with a gun violence restraining order. The bill would require law enforcement agencies, as specified, to make information about the standards and policies available to all officers. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would create 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 defines a hate crime as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, in consultation with specified subject-matter experts, to develop a course of instruction that trains law enforcement on, among other things, indicators of hate crimes and techniques, responses to hate crime waves against certain groups, including Arab and Islamic communities, and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes in a noncombative manner.

This bill would require instruction to include identifying when a gun violence restraining order is appropriate to prevent a hate crime and the procedure for seeking a gun violence restraining order. The bill would additionally require instruction on responses to hate crime waves against specified groups, including the LGBTQ and Jewish communities.

Existing law allows a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having custody or control of any firearms or ammunition if the person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another by having custody or control of a firearm or ammunition. Existing law establishes a civil restraining order process to accomplish that purpose, including authorizing the issuance of an ex parte order, as specified.

Existing law requires specified law enforcement agencies to develop, adopt, and implement policies and standards relating to gun violence restraining orders. Existing law requires these policies to include, among other things, standards and procedures for requesting and serving an ex parte gun violence restraining order or procedures on the responsibility of officers to attend gun violence restraining order hearings.

This bill would revise the above-described policies and standards to include, among other things, an officers obligation to diligently participate in the evidence presentation process at hearings and the procedure for storing firearms surrendered in compliance with a gun violence restraining order. The bill would require law enforcement agencies, as specified, to make information about the standards and policies available to all officers. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would create 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 defines a hate crime as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, in consultation with specified subject-matter experts, to develop a course of instruction that trains law enforcement on, among other things, indicators of hate crimes and techniques, responses to hate crime waves against certain groups, including Arab and Islamic communities, and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes in a noncombative manner.

This bill would require instruction to include identifying when a gun violence restraining order is appropriate to prevent a hate crime and the procedure for seeking a gun violence restraining order. The bill would additionally require instruction on responses to hate crime waves against specified groups, including the LGBTQ and Jewish communities.

Existing law allows a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having custody or control of any firearms or ammunition if the person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another by having custody or control of a firearm or ammunition. Existing law establishes a civil restraining order process to accomplish that purpose, including authorizing the issuance of an ex parte order, as specified.

Existing law requires specified law enforcement agencies to develop, adopt, and implement policies and standards relating to gun violence restraining orders. Existing law requires these policies to include, among other things, standards and procedures for requesting and serving an ex parte gun violence restraining order or procedures on the responsibility of officers to attend gun violence restraining order hearings.

This bill would revise the above-described policies and standards to include, among other things, an officers obligation to diligently participate in the evidence presentation process at hearings and the procedure for storing firearms surrendered in compliance with a gun violence restraining order. The bill would require law enforcement agencies, as specified, to make information about the standards and policies available to all officers. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would create 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 defines a hate crime as a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including, among other things, race, religion, disability, and sexual orientation. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, in consultation with specified subjectmatter subject-matter experts, to develop a course of instruction that trains law enforcement on, among other things, indicators of hate crimes and techniques, responses to hate crime waves against certain groups, including Arab and Islamic communities, and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes in a noncombative manner.

This bill would require instruction to include identifying when a gun violence restraining order is appropriate to prevent a hate crime and the procedure for seeking a gun violence restraining order. The bill would additionally require instruction on responses to hate crime waves against specified groups, including the LGBTQ and Jewish communities.

Existing law allows a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having custody or control of any firearms or ammunition if the person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another by having custody or control of a firearm or ammunition. Existing law establishes a civil restraining order process to accomplish that purpose, including authorizing the issuance of an ex parte order, as specified.

Existing law requires specified law enforcement agencies to develop, adopt, and implement policies and standards relating to gun violence restraining orders. Existing law requires these policies to include, among other things, standards and procedures for requesting and serving an ex parte gun violence restraining order or procedures on the responsibility of officers to attend gun violence restraining order hearings.

This bill would revise the above-described policies and standards to include, among other things, an officers obligation to diligently participate in the evidence presentation process at hearings and the procedure for storing firearms surrendered in compliance with a gun violence restraining order. The bill would require law enforcement agencies, as specified, to make information about the standards and policies available to all officers. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would create 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 defines a rout, riot, and unlawful assembly, and prohibits such activity, as specified. Existing law requires a magistrate or officer, having notice of an unlawful or riotous assembly, to proceed to the scene to suppress the assembly.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2621

Author:(Gabriel)

As Amended Ver:May 20, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Adds new requirements in the hate crimes guidelines and course of instruction that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) provides to peace officers, and revises the policies and standards that law enforcement agencies (LEAs) must adopt pertaining to gun violence restraining orders (GVROs).

Senate Amendments

Replaces reference to "anti-Arab/Middle Eastern" hate crime waves, with "anti-Arab, anti-Middle Eastern" hate crime waves.

COMMENTS

As Passed by the Assembly: This bill added new requirements in the hate crimes guidelines and course of instruction that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) provides to peace officers, and revises the policies and standards that law enforcement agencies (LEAs) must adopt pertaining to gun violence restraining orders (GVROs).

Major Provisions:

1. Modified the hate crimes guidelines, course of instruction, and training that POST provides to law enforcement officers employed as peace officers, and officers enrolled in a training academy for law enforcement officers, as follows:
   1. Expands the existing requirement that the POST course of instruction include preparation for, and response to anti-Arab/Middle Eastern, and anti-Islamic and any other future hate crime waves that the Attorney General (AG) determines are likely, to also include anti-LGBTQ, anti-Black, anti-Native American, anti-immigrant, anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander, and anti-Jewish hate crime waves; and,
   2. Specifies that the POST course of instruction shall include instruction pertaining to identifying when a GVRO may be an appropriate tool for preventing hate crimes and the procedures for seeking a GVRO.
2. Modified the policies and standards that police departments, county sheriffs, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, and the University of California and California State University police departments must adopt relating to GVROs, as follows:
   1. Specifies that such policies and standards shall be updated, as necessary, to incorporate changes in the law governing GVROs;
   2. Specifies that officers shall be instructed on the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future violence involving a firearm and shall encourage the use of de-escalation practices for officer and civilian safety when responding to incidents involving a firearm;
   3. Specifies that officers shall be instructed on the types of evidence a court considers in determining whether grounds exist for the issuance of a GVRO;
   4. Specifies that such policies and standards should inform officers about the different procedures and protections afforded by different types of firearm-prohibiting emergency protective orders that are available to law enforcement petitioners and provide examples of situations in which each type of emergency protective order is most appropriate;
   5. Expands when an officer should consider whether a GVRO is necessary to include: 1) when an officer responds to any residence and one of the involved parties expresses an intent to acquire a firearm; and 2) during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues (including suicidal thoughts, statements, or actions) and that person expresses an intent to acquire a firearm;
   6. Specifies that officers should be encouraged to provide information about mental health referral services during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues;
   7. Specifies that the above policies should include standards and procedures for:
      1. Requesting and serving a temporary emergency GVRO, including standards and procedures for determining prior to the expiration of a temporary emergency GVRO whether the subject of the temporary emergency GVRO presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a GVRO issued after notice and hearing may be necessary;
      2. Requesting and serving an ex parte GVRO, including standards and procedures for determining prior to the expiration of an ex parte GVRO whether the subject of the ex parte GVRO presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a GVRO issued after notice and hearing may be necessary; 
      3. Storing firearms surrendered pursuant to a GVRO;
      4. Returning firearms upon the termination of a GVRO, including verification that the respondent is not otherwise legally prohibited from possessing firearms; and,
      5. Addressing violations of a GVRO.
   8. Specifies that the above policy's requirement that officers attend GVRO hearings, also includes the responsibility to diligently participate in the evidence presentation process; 
   9. Specifies that the above standards and policies must be made available to all officers; and,
   10. Expands the list of entities that law enforcement agencies are encouraged to consult with, when developing and updating these policies, to include domestic violence services providers, and other community-based organizations.

According to the Author

"With hate crimes on the rise, the Legislature must ensure that law enforcement officers know of all the tools available to prevent an escalation in hate-based violence. AB 2621 will ensure that our first responders are aware of the steps they can take to prevent hate-based tragedies from occurring by issuing a GVRO in response to hate crimes. It will also require them to update their policies and procedures around GVROs whenever the laws are changed going forward."

Arguments in Support

According to the Office of the San Diego City Attorney, "Preventing hate crimes with GVROs has been particularly effective in cities that otherwise have strong uptake of GVROs at the local level, like San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento. However, this tool may be left underutilized precisely at a time when threats of hate-based violence are rising rapidly due to inconsistent implementation… AB 2621 will ensure that existing law enforcement hate crimes training will properly prepare officers to identify situations where a GVRO can prevent a hate-related threat or tragedy. It will also ensure that local law enforcement agencies' written policies and standards on GVROs reflect the most up-to-date best practices for utilizing this life-saving tool to support effective implementation."

Arguments in Opposition

None submitted.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Minor and absorbable costs to POST to update its hate crimes guidelines and training materials.
2. Potentially reimbursable costs (local funds, General Fund) local law enforcement agencies. One-time costs, possibly in the tens of thousands of dollars collectively, in staff time to add the GVRO information included in this bill to existing policies and standards and make them available to all officers. Unknown, ongoing costs to local law enforcement agencies update the policies and standards to incorporate future changes in the law regarding GVROs. Costs to the General Fund will depend on whether the Commission on State Mandates determines these are reimbursable expenses.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0-5

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner, Megan Dahle, Gallagher, Hart, Mathis

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

UPDATED

VERSION: May 20, 2024

CONSULTANT: Ilan Zur / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004635

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2621

Author:(Gabriel)

As Amended Ver:May 20, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Adds new requirements in the hate crimes guidelines and course of instruction that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) provides to peace officers, and revises the policies and standards that law enforcement agencies (LEAs) must adopt pertaining to gun violence restraining orders (GVROs).

Senate Amendments

Replaces reference to "anti-Arab/Middle Eastern" hate crime waves, with "anti-Arab, anti-Middle Eastern" hate crime waves.

COMMENTS

As Passed by the Assembly: This bill added new requirements in the hate crimes guidelines and course of instruction that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) provides to peace officers, and revises the policies and standards that law enforcement agencies (LEAs) must adopt pertaining to gun violence restraining orders (GVROs).

Major Provisions:

1. Modified the hate crimes guidelines, course of instruction, and training that POST provides to law enforcement officers employed as peace officers, and officers enrolled in a training academy for law enforcement officers, as follows:
   1. Expands the existing requirement that the POST course of instruction include preparation for, and response to anti-Arab/Middle Eastern, and anti-Islamic and any other future hate crime waves that the Attorney General (AG) determines are likely, to also include anti-LGBTQ, anti-Black, anti-Native American, anti-immigrant, anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander, and anti-Jewish hate crime waves; and,
   2. Specifies that the POST course of instruction shall include instruction pertaining to identifying when a GVRO may be an appropriate tool for preventing hate crimes and the procedures for seeking a GVRO.
2. Modified the policies and standards that police departments, county sheriffs, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, and the University of California and California State University police departments must adopt relating to GVROs, as follows:
   1. Specifies that such policies and standards shall be updated, as necessary, to incorporate changes in the law governing GVROs;
   2. Specifies that officers shall be instructed on the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future violence involving a firearm and shall encourage the use of de-escalation practices for officer and civilian safety when responding to incidents involving a firearm;
   3. Specifies that officers shall be instructed on the types of evidence a court considers in determining whether grounds exist for the issuance of a GVRO;
   4. Specifies that such policies and standards should inform officers about the different procedures and protections afforded by different types of firearm-prohibiting emergency protective orders that are available to law enforcement petitioners and provide examples of situations in which each type of emergency protective order is most appropriate;
   5. Expands when an officer should consider whether a GVRO is necessary to include: 1) when an officer responds to any residence and one of the involved parties expresses an intent to acquire a firearm; and 2) during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues (including suicidal thoughts, statements, or actions) and that person expresses an intent to acquire a firearm;
   6. Specifies that officers should be encouraged to provide information about mental health referral services during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues;
   7. Specifies that the above policies should include standards and procedures for:
      1. Requesting and serving a temporary emergency GVRO, including standards and procedures for determining prior to the expiration of a temporary emergency GVRO whether the subject of the temporary emergency GVRO presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a GVRO issued after notice and hearing may be necessary;
      2. Requesting and serving an ex parte GVRO, including standards and procedures for determining prior to the expiration of an ex parte GVRO whether the subject of the ex parte GVRO presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a GVRO issued after notice and hearing may be necessary; 
      3. Storing firearms surrendered pursuant to a GVRO;
      4. Returning firearms upon the termination of a GVRO, including verification that the respondent is not otherwise legally prohibited from possessing firearms; and,
      5. Addressing violations of a GVRO.
   8. Specifies that the above policy's requirement that officers attend GVRO hearings, also includes the responsibility to diligently participate in the evidence presentation process; 
   9. Specifies that the above standards and policies must be made available to all officers; and,
   10. Expands the list of entities that law enforcement agencies are encouraged to consult with, when developing and updating these policies, to include domestic violence services providers, and other community-based organizations.

According to the Author

"With hate crimes on the rise, the Legislature must ensure that law enforcement officers know of all the tools available to prevent an escalation in hate-based violence. AB 2621 will ensure that our first responders are aware of the steps they can take to prevent hate-based tragedies from occurring by issuing a GVRO in response to hate crimes. It will also require them to update their policies and procedures around GVROs whenever the laws are changed going forward."

Arguments in Support

According to the Office of the San Diego City Attorney, "Preventing hate crimes with GVROs has been particularly effective in cities that otherwise have strong uptake of GVROs at the local level, like San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento. However, this tool may be left underutilized precisely at a time when threats of hate-based violence are rising rapidly due to inconsistent implementation… AB 2621 will ensure that existing law enforcement hate crimes training will properly prepare officers to identify situations where a GVRO can prevent a hate-related threat or tragedy. It will also ensure that local law enforcement agencies' written policies and standards on GVROs reflect the most up-to-date best practices for utilizing this life-saving tool to support effective implementation."

Arguments in Opposition

None submitted.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Minor and absorbable costs to POST to update its hate crimes guidelines and training materials.
2. Potentially reimbursable costs (local funds, General Fund) local law enforcement agencies. One-time costs, possibly in the tens of thousands of dollars collectively, in staff time to add the GVRO information included in this bill to existing policies and standards and make them available to all officers. Unknown, ongoing costs to local law enforcement agencies update the policies and standards to incorporate future changes in the law regarding GVROs. Costs to the General Fund will depend on whether the Commission on State Mandates determines these are reimbursable expenses.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

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

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0-5

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Boerner, Megan Dahle, Gallagher, Hart, Mathis

UPDATED

VERSION: May 20, 2024

CONSULTANT: Ilan Zur / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004635

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2621

Author: Gabriel (D), et al.

Amended: 5/20/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/4/24

AYES: Wahab, Seyarto, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0, 4/25/24 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Law enforcement training

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill adds a topic regarding gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) to the mandatory hate crimes training provided to peace officers by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), and revise the policies and standards that law enforcement agencies must adopt related to GVROs, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines “hate crime” as a criminal act committed, in part or in whole, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including: disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of the previously listed actual or perceived characteristics. (Pen. Code, § 422.55, subd. (a).)
2. Specifies that “hate crime” includes a violation of statutes prohibiting interference with a person’s exercise of civil rights because of the actual or perceived characteristics, as listed above. (Pen. Code, § 422.55, subd. (b).)
3. Requires POST, in consultation with subject matter experts, to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers who are employed as peace officers, or who are not yet employed as a peace officer but are enrolled in a training academy for law enforcement officers, addressing hate crimes. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subd. (a).)
4. States that the above hate crimes course of instruction shall make the maximum use of audio and video communication and other simulation methods, and shall include instruction in each of the following:
   1. Indicators of hate crimes;
   2. The impact of these crimes on the victim, the victim’s family and the community, and the assistance and compensation available to the victims;
   3. Knowledge of laws dealing with hate crimes and the legal rights of, and the remedies available to, victims of hate crimes;
   4. Law enforcement procedures, reporting, and documentation of hate crimes;
   5. Techniques and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes in a non-combative manner;
   6. Multi-mission criminal extremism, which means the nexus of certain hate crimes, antigovernment extremist crimes, anti-reproductive-rights crimes, and crimes committed in whole or in part because of the victim’s actual or perceived homelessness;
   7. The special problems inherent in some categories of hate crimes, including gender-bias crimes, disability-bias crimes, including those committed against homeless persons with disabilities, anti-immigrant crimes, and anti-Arab, and anti-Islamic crimes, and techniques and methods to handle these special problems; and,
   8. Preparation for, and response to, future anti-Arab/middle Eastern and anti-Islamic hate crime waves that the AG determines is likely. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subds. (a)-(c).)
5. Provides that the guidelines developed by POST shall incorporate the items required to be included in POST’s hate crimes course of instruction, and shall include a model hate crimes policy framework for use by law enforcement agencies that includes, but is not limited to, specified components. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6., subd. (c))
6. Specifies that the course of training leading to the basic certificate issued by POST shall include the above hate crime guidelines and course of instruction. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subd. (d)(1).)
7. Requires state and local law enforcement agencies, by July 1, 2024, to adopt a hate crimes policy that includes specified components. (Pen. Code § 422.87 (a).)
8. Defines a “GVRO” as an order in writing, signed by the court, prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18100.)
9. Requires a petition for a GVRO to describe the number, types, and locations of any firearms and ammunition presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the subject of the petition. (Pen. Code, § 18107.)
10. Prohibits a person that is subject to a GVRO from having in his or her custody any firearms or ammunition while the order is in effect. Specifies that this means the person cannot own, purchase, possess, or receive any firearms or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (a).)
11. Requires each municipal police department and county sheriff’s department, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, and the University of California and California State University Police Departments to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards relating to gun violence restraining orders. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (a).)
12. Requires the policies and standards adopted per the above to instruct officers to consider the use of a gun violence restraining order during a domestic disturbance response to any residence which is associated with a firearm registration or record, during a response in which a firearm is present, or during a response in which one of the involved parties owns or possesses a firearm, and provides that the policies and standards should encourage the use of gun violence restraining orders in appropriate situations to prevent future violence involving a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (b).)
13. Provides that the policies and standards should also instruct officers to consider the use of a gun violence restraining order during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues, including suicidal thoughts, statements, or actions, if that person owns or possesses a firearm, and shall encourage officers encountering situations in which there is reasonable cause to believe that the person poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another person by having custody or control of a firearm to consider obtaining a mental health evaluation of the person by a medically trained professional or to detain the person for mental health evaluation pursuant to agency policy relating to Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (c).)
14. Requires the policies and standards developed pursuant to the above to be consistent with any gun violence restraining order training administered by POST, and shall include specified elements. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (d).)
15. Specifies that municipal police departments, county sheriff’s departments, the Department of the California Patrol, and the UC and CSU police departments are encouraged, but not required, to train officers on the standards and procedures. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (e).)
16. Provides that in developing these policies and standards, law enforcement agencies are encouraged to consult with gun violence prevention experts and mental health professionals. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (f).)
17. Specifies that policies and standards related to GVROs shall be made available to the public upon request. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (g).)

This bill:

1. Expands the existing requirement that the POST hate crimes training include preparation for specified future hate crime waves to also include training on preparation for and response to anti-Arab, anti-Middle Easter, anti-Islamic, anti-LGBTQ, anti-Native American, anti-immigrant, anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander, and anti-Jewish hate crime waves.
2. Requires the POST hate crimes course to also cover identifying when a GVRO may be an appropriate tool for preventing hate crimes and the procedures for seeking a GVRO.
3. Requires that the policies and standards related to GVROs that law enforcement agencies must adopt under existing laws must be updated, as necessary, to incorporate changes in the law governing GVROs.
4. Provides that the GVRO policies and standards shall instruct officers on the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future violence involving a firearm and encourage the use of de-escalation practices for officer and civilian safety when responding to incidents involving a firearm.
5. Specifies that the GVRO policies and standards shall instruct officers on the types of evidence a court considers in determining whether grounds exist for the issuance of a GVROs.
6. Specifies that the GVRO policies and standards shall instruct offices to consider whether a GVRO may be necessary during a response in which one of the involved parties has expressed an intent to acquire a firearm.
7. Provides that the GVRO policies and standards policies and standards should inform officers about the different procedures and protections afforded by different types of firearm-prohibiting emergency protective orders that are available to law enforcement petitioners and provide examples of situations in which each type of emergency protective order is most appropriate.
8. Specifies that the GVRO policies and standards should instruct offices to consider whether a GVRO may be necessary during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues, including suicidal thoughts, statements, or actions, if that person has expressed an intent to acquire a firearm, and should encourage officers to provide information about mental health referral services during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues.
9. Requires the written GVRO policies and standards developed pursuant to existing law to include the following:
   1. Standards and procedures for requesting and serving a temporary emergency GVRO, including determining prior to the expiration of such an order whether the subject of the order presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and hearing may be necessary.
   2. Standards and procedures for requesting and serving an ex parte GVRO, including determining prior to the expiration of such an order whether the subject of the GVRO presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a GVRO issued after notice and hearing may be necessary.
   3. Standards and procedures for storing firearms surrendered pursuant to a gun violence restraining order.
   4. Standards and procedures for returning firearms upon the termination of a gun violence restraining order, including verification that the respondent is not otherwise legally prohibited from possessing firearms.
   5. Standards and procedures for addressing violations of a gun violence restraining order.
10. Requires law enforcement agencies subject to the GVRO policies and standards requirements to make information regarding implemented GVRO policies and standards available to all officers.
11. Authorizes law enforcement agencies, in developing and updating these policies and standards, to consult with domestic violence service providers and other community based organizations, in addition to gun violence prevention experts and mental health professionals specified under existing law.

Comments

According to the Author. “With hate crimes on the rise, the Legislature must ensure that law enforcement officers know of all the tools available to prevent an escalation in hate-based violence. AB 2621 will ensure that our first responders are aware of the steps they can take to prevent hate-based tragedies from occurring by issuing a GVRO in response to hate crimes. It will also require them to update their policies and procedures around GVROs whenever the laws are changed going forward.”

Existing law requires local law enforcement agencies, the California Highway Patrol, and the University and Cal State University Police Departments to develop, adopt and implement written policies and standards relating to GVROs, which are required to instruct officers how to determine when the use of a GVRO is appropriate, specifically with regard to domestic violence situations and in encounters with individuals with mental health issues.

Existing law provides that written policies and standards must be consistent with any POST training regarding GVROs and include standards and procedures for requesting, renewing and serving GVROs, seizing firearms and verifying the removal of firearms from the respondent, and obtaining and serving search warrants. Additionally, existing law includes several permissive provisions suggesting that law enforcement agencies’ standards and policies related to GVROs ‘encourage’ the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future firearm violence, and that the policies encourage officers to consider obtaining a mental health evaluations in certain scenarios. Existing law also encourages, but does not require, law enforcement agencies to train officers on GVRO standards and procedures and to consult with gun violence prevention experts and mental health professions in developing the GVRO standards.

This bill makes several additions to what must be included in the written policies and standards law enforcement agencies must adopt under existing law. Centrally, the bill requires that the policies be regularly updated to reflect changes in GVRO law, that they instruct officers on the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future firearm violence (instead of merely encouraging these practices, as is the case under existing law), and that they instruct officers on the types of evidence a court considers in issuing a GVRO. The bill also requires that the policies encourage officers to use de-escalation practices when responding to firearm incidents and to provide information about mental health referral services during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues.

This bill also includes additional standards and procedures that agencies must incorporate into their written GVRO policies, including how to determine when an OAH is appropriate after the issuance of an ex parte order, officer responsibilities for participating in the evidence participation process, how to properly store firearms surrendered to law enforcement and how to subsequently return those firearms, and how to address GVRO violations.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• Minor and absorbable costs to POST to update its hate crimes guidelines and training materials.
• Potentially reimbursable costs (local funds, General Fund) local law enforcement agencies. One-time costs, possibly in the tens of thousands of dollars collectively, in staff time to add the GVRO information included in this bill to existing policies and standards and make them available to all officers. Unknown, ongoing costs to local law enforcement agencies update the policies and standards to incorporate future changes in the law regarding GVROs. Costs to the General Fund will depend on whether the Commission on State Mandates determines these are reimbursable expenses.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/15/24)

1 Hundred Years Enterprises

American Jewish Committee - Los Angeles

Anti-Defamation League

Brady California

California Public Defenders Association

Civil Prosecutors Coalition

Democrats for Israel – CA

Democrats for Israel Los Angeles

Equality California

Etta

Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Hadassah

Holocaust Museum LA

JCRC Bay Area

Jewish Center for Justice

Jewish Community Federation and Endowment Fund

Jewish Democratic Club of Marin

Jewish Democratic Club of Solano County

Jewish Democratic Coalition of The Bay Area

Jewish Family and Children's Service of Long Beach and Orange County

Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties

Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles

Jewish Family Service of San Diego

Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley

Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles

Jewish Federation of The Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys

Jewish Free Loan Association

Jewish Long Beach

Jewish Public Affairs Committee

Jewish Silicon Valley

March for Our Lives Action Fund

Progressive Zionists of California

San Diego County City Attorney’s Office

San Francisco City Attorney’s Office

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/15/24)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-0, 4/25/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Boerner, Megan Dahle, Gallagher, Hart, Mathis

Prepared by: Alex Barnett / PUB. S. /

8/18/24 9:19:21

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2621 (Gabriel) - Law enforcement training

Bill Summary:

AB 2621 adds a topic regarding gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) to the mandatory hate crimes training provided to peace officers by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and revises the policies and standards that law enforcement agencies must adopt related to GVROs, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• Minor and absorbable costs to POST to update its hate crimes guidelines and training materials.
  
• Potentially reimbursable costs (local funds, General Fund) local law enforcement agencies. One-time costs, possibly in the tens of thousands of dollars collectively, in staff time to add the GVRO information included in this bill to existing policies and standards and make them available to all officers. Unknown, ongoing costs to local law enforcement agencies update the policies and standards to incorporate future changes in the law regarding GVROs. Costs to the General Fund will depend on whether the Commission on State Mandates determines these are reimbursable expenses.

Background:

Existing law requires POST to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training addressing specified hate crime topics. Under existing law, each peace officer must complete the training course within one year of it being made available, and then again every six years for in-service police officers. Additionally, state and local law enforcement agencies, by July 1, 2024, must adopt a hate crimes policy, which must include the elements of a model policy framework developed by POST.

A GVRO prohibits the restrained person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and authorizes law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual’s possession. Axing law authorizes law enforcement officer, as specified, to petition the court to issue GVROs in certain circumstances. Existing law requires local law enforcement agencies, the California Highway Patrol, and the University and Cal State University Police Departments to develop, adopt and implement written policies and standards relating to GVROs, which are required to instruct officers how to determine when the use of a GVRO is appropriate, specifically with regard to domestic violence situations and in encounters with individuals with mental health issues.

Proposed Law:

• Expands the current hate crime training provided by POST to include instruction on preparing for and responding to hate crime waves against specific racial, ethnic and religious groups, as well as instruction on the role that GVROs can play in preventing hate crimes.
• Requires the POST course to instruct officers in identifying when a GVRO may be an appropriate tool to prevent a hate crime, and the specific procedures for seeking a GVRO.
• Requires the written policies and standards law enforcement agencies must adopt under existing law, to be regularly updated to reflect changes in GVRO law, to instruct officers on the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future firearm violence, and to instruct officers on the types of evidence a court considers in issuing a GVRO.
  
• Requires that the policies encourage officers to use de-escalation practices when responding to firearm incidents and to provide information about mental health referral services during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues.
  
• Sets forth additional standards and procedures that law enforcement agencies must incorporate into their written GVRO policies, including how to determine when an order after a hearing is appropriate after the issuance of an ex parte order, officer responsibilities for participating in the evidence participation process, how to properly store firearms surrendered to law enforcement and how to subsequently return those firearms, and how to address GVRO violations.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2621 Hearing Date: June 4, 2024

Subject: Law enforcement training

HISTORY

Source: Everytown for Gun Safety

Prior Legislation: AB 449 (Ting, Ch. 524, Stats. of 2023)

AB 2870 (Santiago, Ch. 974, Stats. of 2022)

AB 57 (Gabriel, Ch. 691, Stats. of 2021)

AB 2235 (Gabriel, 2020), not heard due to COVID-19

AB 2236 (Gabriel, 2020), held in Assembly Appropriations

AB 12 (Irwin, Ch. 724, Stats. of 2019)

AB 165 (Gabriel, 2019), held in Senate Appropriations

AB 1014 (Skinner, Ch. 872, Stats. of 2014)

Support: 1 Hundred Years Enterprises; American Jewish Committee - Los Angeles; Anti-Defamation League; Brady California; California Public Defenders Association; Civil Prosecutors Coalition; Democrats for Israel – CA; Democrats for Israel Los Angeles; Equality California; Etta; Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Hadassah; Holocaust Museum LA; JCRC Bay Area; Jewish Center for Justice; Jewish Community Federation and Endowment Fund; Jewish Democratic Club of Marin; Jewish Democratic Club of Solano County; Jewish Democratic Coalition of The Bay Area; Jewish Family and Children's Service of Long Beach and Orange County; Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties; Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles; Jewish Family Service of San Diego; Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley; Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles; Jewish Federation of The Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys; Jewish Free Loan Association; Jewish Long Beach; Jewish Public Affairs Committee; Jewish Silicon Valley; March for Our Lives Action Fund; Progressive Zionists of California; San Diego County City Attorney’s Office; San Francisco City Attorney’s Office

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 75 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to 1) add a topic regarding gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) to the mandatory hate crimes training provided to peace officers by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), and clarify a topic related to hate crime waves and 2) revise the policies and standards that law enforcement agencies must adopt related to GVROs, as specified.

Existing law defines “hate crime” as a criminal act committed, in part or in whole, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including: disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of the previously listed actual or perceived characteristics. (Pen. Code, § 422.55, subd. (a).)

Existing law specifies that “hate crime” includes a violation of statutes prohibiting interference with a person’s exercise of civil rights because of the actual or perceived characteristics, as listed above. (Pen. Code, § 422.55, subd. (b).)

Existing law Requires POST, in consultation with subject matter experts, to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers who are employed as peace officers, or who are not yet employed as a peace officer but are enrolled in a training academy for law enforcement officers, addressing hate crimes. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subd. (a).)

Existing law states that the above hate crimes course of instruction shall make the maximum use of audio and video communication and other simulation methods, and shall include instruction in each of the following:

• Indicators of hate crimes;
  
• The impact of these crimes on the victim, the victim’s family and the community, and the assistance and compensation available to the victims;
  
• Knowledge of laws dealing with hate crimes and the legal rights of, and the remedies available to, victims of hate crimes;
  
• Law enforcement procedures, reporting, and documentation of hate crimes;
  
• Techniques and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes in a non-combative manner;
  
• Multi-mission criminal extremism, which means the nexus of certain hate crimes, antigovernment extremist crimes, anti-reproductive-rights crimes, and crimes committed in whole or in part because of the victim’s actual or perceived homelessness;
  
• The special problems inherent in some categories of hate crimes, including gender-bias crimes, disability-bias crimes, including those committed against homeless persons with disabilities, anti-immigrant crimes, and anti-Arab, and anti-Islamic crimes, and techniques and methods to handle these special problems; and,
  
• Preparation for, and response to, future anti-Arab/middle Eastern and anti-Islamic hate crime waves that the AG determines is likely. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subds. (a)-(c).)
  

Existing law provides that the guidelines developed by POST shall incorporate the items required to be included in POST’s hate crimes course of instruction, and shall include a model hate crimes policy framework for use by law enforcement agencies that includes, but is not limited to:

• • A message from the law enforcement agency’s chief executive officer to the agency’s officers and staff concerning the importance of hate crime laws and the agency’s commitment to enforcement;
    
  • The definition of hate crime, as specified;
    
  • References to hate crime statutes, as specified;
    
  • A title-by-title specific protocol that agency personnel are required to follow, including, but not limited to, the following:
    
    • Preventing and preparing for likely hate crimes by, among other things, establishing contact with persons and communities who are likely targets, and forming and cooperating with community hate crime prevention and response networks;
      
    • Responding to reports of hate crimes, including reports of hate crimes committed under the color of authority;
      
    • Accessing assistance, by, among other things, activating the Department of Justice (DOJ) hate crime rapid response protocol when necessary;
      
    • Providing victim assistance and follow up, including community follow up;
      
    • Reporting;
      
    • A list of all requirements that law enforcement agencies must include in its hate crime policy. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6., subd. (c))

Existing law specifies that the course of training leading to the basic certificate issued by POST shall include the above hate crime guidelines and course of instruction. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subd. (d)(1).)

Existing law requires state and local law enforcement agencies, by July 1, 2024, to adopt a hate crimes policy that includes specified components. (Pen. Code § 422.87 (a).)

This bill expands the existing requirement that the POST hate crimes training include preparation for specified future hate crime waves to also include training on preparation for and response to anti-Arab, anti-Middle Easter, anti-Islamic, anti-LGBTQ, anti-Native American, anti-immigrant, anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander, and anti-Jewish hate crime waves.

This bill requires the POST hate crimes course to also cover identifying when a GVRO may be an appropriate tool for preventing hate crimes and the procedures for seeking a GVRO.

Existing law defines a “GVRO” as an order in writing, signed by the court, prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18100.)

Existing law requires a petition for a GVRO to describe the number, types, and locations of any firearms and ammunition presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the subject of the petition. (Pen. Code, § 18107.)

Existing law requires the court to notify the Department of Justice (DOJ) when a GVRO is issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. (Pen. Code, § 18115.)

Existing law prohibits a person that is subject to a GVRO from having in his or her custody any firearms or ammunition while the order is in effect. Specifies that this means the person cannot own, purchase, possess, or receive any firearms or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires the court to order the restrained person to surrender all firearms and ammunition in his or her control, or which the person possesses or owns. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(1).)

Existing law requires each municipal police department and county sheriff’s department, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, and the University of California and California State University Police Departments to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards relating to gun violence restraining orders. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires the policies and standards adopted per the above to instruct officers to consider the use of a gun violence restraining order during a domestic disturbance response to any residence which is associated with a firearm registration or record, during a response in which a firearm is present, or during a response in which one of the involved parties owns or possesses a firearm, and provides that the policies and standards should encourage the use of gun violence restraining orders in appropriate situations to prevent future violence involving a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides that the policies and standards should also instruct officers to consider the use of a gun violence restraining order during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues, including suicidal thoughts, statements, or actions, if that person owns or possesses a firearm, and shall encourage officers encountering situations in which there is reasonable cause to believe that the person poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another person by having custody or control of a firearm to consider obtaining a mental health evaluation of the person by a medically trained professional or to detain the person for mental health evaluation pursuant to agency policy relating to Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (c).)

Existing law requires the policies and standards developed pursuant to the above to be consistent with any gun violence restraining order training administered by POST, and shall include the following:

• Standards and procedures for requesting and serving a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order.
• Standards and procedures for requesting and serving an ex parte gun violence restraining order.
• Standards and procedures for requesting and serving a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and hearing.
• Standards and procedures for the seizure of firearms and ammunition at the time of issuance of a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order.
• Standards and procedures for verifying the removal of firearms and ammunition from the subject of a gun violence restraining order.
• Standards and procedures for obtaining and serving a search warrant for firearms and ammunition.
• Responsibility of officers to attend gun violence restraining order hearings.
• Standards and procedures for requesting renewals of expiring gun violence restraining orders. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (d).)

Existing law specifies that municipal police departments, county sheriff’s departments, the Department of the California Patrol, and the UC and CSU police departments are encouraged, but not required, to train officers on the standards and procedures. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (e).)

Existing law provides that in developing these policies and standards, law enforcement agencies are encouraged to consult with gun violence prevention experts and mental health professionals. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (f).)

Existing law specifies that policies and standards related to GVROs shall be made available to the public upon request. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (g).)

This bill requires that the policies and standards related to GVROs that law enforcement agencies must adopt under existing laws must be updated, as necessary, to incorporate changes in the law governing GVROs.

This bill provides that the GVRO policies and standards shall instruct officers on the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future violence involving a firearm and encourage the use of de-escalation practices for officer and civilian safety when responding to incidents involving a firearm.

This bill specifies that the GVRO policies and standards shall instruct officers on the types of evidence a court considers in determining whether grounds exist for the issuance of a GVROs.

This bill specifies that the GVRO policies and standards shall instruct offices to consider whether a GVRO may be necessary during a response in which one of the involved parties has expressed an intent to acquire a firearm.

This bill provides that the GVRO policies and standards policies and standards should inform officers about the different procedures and protections afforded by different types of firearm-prohibiting emergency protective orders that are available to law enforcement petitioners and provide examples of situations in which each type of emergency protective order is most appropriate.

This bill specifies that the GVRO policies and standards should instruct offices to consider whether a GVRO may be necessary during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues, including suicidal thoughts, statements, or actions, if that person has expressed an intent to acquire a firearm, and should encourage officers to provide information about mental health referral services during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues.

This bill requires the written GVRO policies and standards developed pursuant to existing law to include the following:

• Standards and procedures for requesting and serving a temporary emergency GVRO, including determining prior to the expiration of such an order whether the subject of the order presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and hearing may be necessary. 
• Standards and procedures for requesting and serving an ex parte GVRO, including determining prior to the expiration of such an order whether the subject of the GVRO presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a GVRO issued after notice and hearing may be necessary.
• Standards and procedures for storing firearms surrendered pursuant to a gun violence restraining order.
• Standards and procedures for returning firearms upon the termination of a gun violence restraining order, including verification that the respondent is not otherwise legally prohibited from possessing firearms.
• Standards and procedures for addressing violations of a gun violence restraining order.

This bill requires law enforcement agencies subject to the GVRO policies and standards requirements to make information regarding implemented GVRO policies and standards available to all officers.

This bill authorizes law enforcement agencies, in developing and updating these policies and standards, to consult with domestic violence service providers and other community based organizations, in addition to gun violence prevention experts and mental health professionals specified under existing law.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the Author:

With hate crimes on the rise, the Legislature must ensure that law enforcement officers know of all the tools available to prevent an escalation in hate-based violence. AB 2621 will ensure that our first responders are aware of the steps they can take to prevent hate-based tragedies from occurring by issuing a GVRO in response to hate crimes. It will also require them to update their policies and procedures around GVROs whenever the laws are changed going forward.

1. Hate Crimes and Related Peace Officer Training

In 1995, the DOJ began collecting and annually reporting data regarding hate crimes in California, and beginning in 2017, the DOJ was further required to publish that data on its OpenJustice Web Portal.^[1] The most recent DOJ hate crimes report, presenting data collected from local law enforcement agencies in 2022, revealed some disturbing trends. Although the number of hate crime vents has fluctuated over the last decade, overall, hate crime events have increased by an alarming 145.7 percent, with 863 hate crime events reported in 2013 and 2,120 reported in 2022.^[2] Since the prior year (2021), hate crime events had increased by 20 percent and the number of victims of reported hate crimes increased 13.5 percent.^[3] Reported hate crime events in all tracked bias categories (race, religion, sexual orientation, and gender) increased between 2021 and 2022, with the biggest percentage increase being attributable to gender-related hate crimes (55.6 percent increase) and the biggest in overall numbers attributable to racial bias (133 additional hate crime events).^[4]

Generally, the DOJ’s annual hate crime reports are accompanied by updated guidance for local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors on various topics related to hate crimes, including relevant state laws and best practices for hate crime investigation, training and reporting.^[5] The guidance for local law enforcement details the various hate crimes training requirements set forth in existing law, including the requirement that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training addressing specified hate crime topics. Under existing law, each peace officer must complete the training course within one year of it being made available, and then again every six years for in-service police officers.^[6] Additionally, recent legislation (AB 449, Ting, Ch. 524, Stats. of 2023) requires state and local law enforcement agencies, by July 1, 2024, to adopt a hate crimes policy, which must include the elements of a model policy framework developed by POST.^[7]

One component of this bill expands the current hate crime training provided by POST to include instruction on preparing for and responding to hate crime waves against specific racial, ethnic and religious groups, as well as instruction on the role that GVROs can play in preventing hate crimes. Specifically, as to the latter topic, the bill requires the POST course to instruct officers in identifying when a GVRO may be an appropriate tool to prevent a hate crime, and the specific procedures for seeking a GVRO.

1. Gun Violence Restraining Orders Generally

In 2014, California enacted the nation’s first gun violence restraining order law (AB 1014 Skinner, Ch. 872, Stats. of 2014), which was modeled after similar domestic violence restraining order statutes, and went into effect on January 1, 2016.^[8] A GVRO prohibits the restrained person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and authorizes law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual’s possession. A court is required to notify DOJ when a GVRO is issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. The statutory scheme establishes three types of GVRO’s: (1) a temporary emergency GVRO, (2) an ex parte GVRO, and (3) a GVRO issued after notice and hearing.

A temporary emergency GVRO may only be sought by a law enforcement officer. To obtain this order, a court must find that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; and the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the order or another because less restrictive alternatives have been tried and been ineffective or have been determined to be inadequate or inappropriate under the circumstances.^[9]

The second type of GVRO is an ex parte GVRO, which may be sought by an immediate family member of the subject of the petition; an individual who has a dating relationship with the subject or who has a child in common with the subject; an employer of the subject of the petition; a coworker, if they have had substantial and regular interactions with the subject for at least one year and have obtained the approval of the employer; an employee or teacher of a school that the subject has attended in the past 6 months, if the employee or teacher has obtained the approval of a school administrator or a school administration staff member with a supervisorial role; or a law enforcement officer. The ex parte order may be issued if the court finds that (1) the subject of the petition poses a significant danger, in the near future, of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having under his or her custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined as determined by considering specified factors; and (2) an order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition.^[10]

Within 21 days, and before the temporary or ex parte GVRO expires, one of the above listed categories of individuals may request that a court issue the third type of GVRO which is issued after notice and a hearing, enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition for a period of one to five years (often referred to as an “order after hearing” or OAH). At the hearing, the petitioner has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by having access to firearms or ammunition and that a GVRO is necessary to prevent personal injury because less restrictive alternatives have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the respondent’s circumstances.^[11]

1. Law Enforcement Agency Policies and Standards Related to GVRO

Existing law requires local law enforcement agencies, the California Highway Patrol, and the University and Cal State University Police Departments to develop, adopt and implement written policies and standards relating to GVROs, which are required to instruct officers how to determine when the use of a GVRO is appropriate, specifically with regard to domestic violence situations and in encounters with individuals with mental health issues.^[12] Existing law provides that written policies and standards must be consistent with any POST training regarding GVROs and include standards and procedures for requesting, renewing and serving GVROs, seizing firearms and verifying the removal of firearms from the respondent, and obtaining and serving search warrants. Additionally, existing law includes several permissive provisions suggesting that law enforcement agencies’ standards and policies related to GVROs ‘encourage’ the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future firearm violence, and that the policies encourage officers to consider obtaining a mental health evaluations in certain scenarios. Existing law also encourages, but does not require, law enforcement agencies to train officers on GVRO standards and procedures and to consult with gun violence prevention experts and mental health professions in developing the GVRO standards.^[13]

This bill makes several additions to what must be included in the written policies and standards law enforcement agencies must adopt under existing law. Centrally, the bill requires that the policies be regularly updated to reflect changes in GVRO law, that they instruct officers on the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future firearm violence (instead of merely encouraging these practices, as is the case under existing law), and that they instruct officers on the types of evidence a court considers in issuing a GVRO. The bill also requires that the policies encourage officers to use de-escalation practices when responding to firearm incidents and to provide information about mental health referral services during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues. The bill also includes additional standards and procedures that agencies must incorporate into their written GVRO policies, including how to determine when an OAH is appropriate after the issuance of an ex parte order, officer responsibilities for participating in the evidence participation process, how to properly store firearms surrendered to law enforcement and how to subsequently return those firearms, and how to address GVRO violations.

The provision of existing law amended by this bill employs two phrases – “policies and standards” and “standards and procedures” – which may cause some confusion. It appears from context that the phrases are not intended to be used interchangeably throughout the provision at issue; “policies and standards” is meant to describe the overarching written policy that law enforcement agencies must adopt regarding GVROs, and “standards and procedures” appears to describe required components of that written policy. However, one provision of the bill employs “standards and procedures” when referring to the overarching written policy, and “policies and standards” should be used. The Author may wish to consider correcting this misnomer or replacing these terms altogether with ones that do not cause such confusion.

1. Constitutional Considerations

In N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 142 S.Ct. 2111, the United States Supreme Court established a new test for determining whether a government restriction on carrying a firearm violates the Second Amendment:

“[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’” (Id. at 2126.)

Based on Bruen, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a federal statute prohibiting a defendant from possessing a firearm pursuant to a domestic violence court order, even after the defendant was involved in five shootings over the course of approximately one month.^[14] The court examined several different historical statutes to see if there were any analogues which prohibited firearm possession based on civil proceedings alone.^[15] Ultimately, the court found that there were no such relevantly similar historical laws and found that the firearm prohibition was an, “‘an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.’”^[16] The United States Supreme Court is now reviewing the case (certiorari granted United States v. Rahimi (2023) 143 S.Ct. 2688). On November 7, 2023, the Court heard oral arguments in the case. The justices’ questioning seemed to suggest that they would uphold the law at issue in the case.^[17] Many experts expect the decision to be issued by mid-late June 2024.^[18]

Although the Rahimi case deals with domestic violence restraining orders, the inquiry principally revolved around prohibiting firearm possession based on a civil proceeding, which could implicate California’s GVRO laws depending on the outcome of the case. For the purposes of this bill, a change in the constitutionality of California’s GVRO firearm restrictions would have a significant impact on the content of the policies and standards law enforcement agencies must adopt. If the Rahimi decision comes down as many expect in June 2024, this bill will require every law enforcement agency required to adopt a GVRO policy under existing law to make substantial updates to those policies when the bill goes into effect on January 1, 2025.

1. Argument in Support

According to the Brady Campaign:

As you know, gun violence is a public health, safety, and equity crisis. Ten years ago, California passed the nation’s first modern version of an “extreme risk” law. This landmark gun violence restraining order (“GVRO”) law created a civil legal process through which law enforcement, concerned family members, and other designated individuals may request that a court issue an order temporarily restricting a person’s access to firearms and ammunition when there is evidence that the person poses a significant danger for harming themselves or another person with a firearm. GVROs are one of the most effective tools available for preventing gun violence before it occurs. By promptly and temporarily removing firearms from a person at risk of harming others or themselves, GVROs fill a critical public safety need that is particularly useful for preventing mass violence and suicides. From 2016 - 2022, approximately 6,300 GVRO petitions have been filed in the state of California. 98% of those petitions were filed by law enforcement. As first responders when individuals are in crisis, it is more important than ever to ensure law enforcement agencies’ standards and policies regarding GVROs have a uniform foundation. The actual use of GVROs as a tool for preventing gun violence is inconsistent across counties. A study published in 2021 found “substantial geographic variation” in GVRO use around California.

At the same time, hate-based violence is increasing across the state. In some California jurisdictions, hate based threats of violence have already been the basis for law enforcement seeking a life-saving GVRO. Preventing hate crimes with GVROs has been particularly effective in cities that otherwise have strong uptake of GVROs at the local level, like San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento. However, with inconsistent implementation around the state, this tool may be left underutilized precisely at a time when threats of hate-based violence are rising rapidly. The California Department of Justice’s annual report on Hate Crimes in California for 2022 confirmed that hate crime events in our state have increased almost 150% over the last ten years. The Anti-Defamation League’s May 2023 report “Hate in the Golden State: Extremism & Antisemitism in California, 2021-2022” outlines “significant increases” in extremist activity and antisemitic incidents over that time period, and specifically a “high level of extremist-related violence.”

AB 2621 will ensure that existing law enforcement hate crimes training will properly prepare officers to identify situations where a GVRO can prevent a hate-related threat or tragedy. It will also ensure that local law enforcement agencies’ written policies and standards on GVROs reflect the most up-to-date best practices for utilizing this life-saving tool to support effective implementation.

-- END –

1. AB 2524 (Irwin), Ch. 418, Stats. of 2016, the OpenJustice Data Act of 2016. ↑

2. “Hate Crime in California 2022.” California Department of Justice. Published June 27, 2023. Hate Crime In CA 2022f.pdf ; the term “hate crime event” is defined as an occurrence where a hate crime is involved. There may be one or more suspects involved, one or more victims targeted, and one or more offenses involved for each event. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. The law enforcement bulletin can be found here: 2023-DLE-04 Information Bulletin.pdf (ca.gov) the guidance for prosecutors can be found here: Guidance to Prosecutors on Hate Crimes - Attorney General's Office - California Department of Justice ↑

6. Penal Code § 13519.6; Another provision, § 13519.41, ↑

7. Penal Code §422.87 ↑

8. GVROs are also referred to as “extreme risk protection orders” or ERPOs. ↑

9. Pen. Code, § 18125. ↑

10. Pen. Code, §§ 18150, 18155. ↑

11. Pen. Code, § 18170 et seq. ↑

12. Pen. Code §18108. ↑

13. Ibid. ↑

14. U.S. v. Rahimi (2023) 61 F.4th 443. ↑

15. Id. at 455-460. ↑

16. Id. at 461. ↑

17. See Amy Howe, Justices appear wary of striking down domestic-violence gun restriction, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 7, 2023, 5:47 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-appear-wary-of-striking-down-domestic-violence-gun-restriction ) ↑

18. “Rahimi, Decision Timing, and Opinion-Writing Predictions.” Duke Center for Firearms Law. 8 May 2024. Rahimi, Decision Timing, and Opinion-Writing Predictions | Duke Center for Firearms Law ↑

Date of Hearing: April 17, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2621

Author:(Gabriel) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Trainings (POST) to add information to its existing hate crimes training and requires specified state and local law enforcement agencies to incorporate additional information about gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) into their existing policies and standards.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Minor and absorbable costs to POST to update its hate crimes guidelines and training materials.
2. One-time, absorbable costs to state law enforcement agencies to add the GVRO information included in this bill to existing policies and standards and make them available to all officers. Ongoing costs of an unknown amount to update policies and standards to incorporate future changes in the law regarding GVROs.
3. Likely reimbursable costs (local funds, General Fund) to each municipal police department and county sheriff’s department. One-time costs, possibly in the tens of thousands of dollars collectively, in staff time to add the GVRO information included in this bill to existing policies and standards and make them available to all officers. Ongoing costs of an unknown amount to update the policies and standards to incorporate future changes in the law regarding GVROs. Cost to the General Fund will depend on whether the Commission on State Mandates determines these are reimbursable expenses.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

With hate crimes on the rise, the Legislature must ensure that law enforcement officers know of all the tools available to prevent an escalation in hate-based violence. AB 2621 will ensure that our first responders are aware of the steps they can take to prevent hate-based tragedies from occurring by issuing a GVRO in response to hate crimes. It will also require them to update their policies and procedures around GVROs whenever the laws are changed going forward.

1. Background. A GVRO is a restraining order issued by a court that temporarily prohibits a respondent from possessing or purchasing a firearm or ammunition. A petition seeking a GVRO against a respondent may be filed by a law enforcement officer or the family member, employer, coworker, school employee, roommate, or romantic partner, among others, of the respondent. If a court determines that a respondent poses a significant risk to themselves or others by having access to firearms or ammunition, the court may issue a GVRO that prohibits the respondent from possessing, purchasing, or attempting to purchase a firearm or ammunition.

This bill requires each specified state and local law enforcement agency to include additional information about GVROs in its existing policies and standards. This includes information about whether a GVRO may be necessary in certain situations, assessing risk of violence before the expiration of a GVRO, and addressing violations of a GVRO. The bill also requires each specified agency to update its policies and standards as needed, presumably on an ongoing basis, to incorporate changes in the law governing GVROs.

The bill also requires POST, which is responsible for setting the minimum training standards for California law enforcement officers, to add information about GVROs and additional types of hate crime waves to its existing hate crimes guidelines and course of instruction.

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

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Ilan Zur

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2621

Author:(Gabriel) – As Amended Ver:March 11, 2024

AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED IN COMMITTEE

SUMMARY:

Adds new requirements in the hate crimes guidelines and course of instruction that the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) provides to peace officers, and revises the policies and standards that law enforcement agencies (LEAs) must adopt pertaining to gun violence restraining orders (GVROs). Specifically, this bill:

1. Modifies the hate crimes guidelines, course of instruction, and training that POST provides to law enforcement officers employed as peace officers, and officers enrolled in a training academy for law enforcement officers, as follows:
   1. Expands the existing requirement that the POST course of instruction include preparation for, and response to anti-Arab/Middle Eastern, and anti-Islamic and any other future hate crime waves that the Attorney General (AG) determines are likely, to also include anti-LGBTQ, anti-Black, anti-Native American, anti-immigrant, anti-Asian American and Pacific Islander, and anti-Jewish hate crime waves; and,
   2. Specifies that the POST course of instruction shall include instruction pertaining to identifying when a GVRO may be an appropriate tool for preventing hate crimes and the procedures for seeking a GVRO.
2. Modifies the policies and standards that police departments, county sheriffs, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, and the University of California and California State University police departments must adopt relating to GVROs, as follows:
   1. Specifies that such policies and standards shall be updated, as necessary, to incorporate changes in the law governing GVROs;
   2. Specifies that officers shall be instructed on the use of GVROs in appropriate situations to prevent future violence involving a firearm and shall encourage the use of de-escalation practices for officer and civilian safety when responding to incidents involving a firearm;
   3. Specifies that officers shall be instructed on the types of evidence a court considers in determining whether grounds exist for the issuance of a GVRO;
   4. Specifies that such policies and standards should inform officers about the different procedures and protections afforded by different types of firearm-prohibiting emergency protective orders that are available to law enforcement petitioners and provide examples of situations in which each type of emergency protective order is most appropriate;
   5. Expands when an officer should consider whether a GVRO is necessary to include: 1) when an officer responds to any residence and one of the involved parties expresses an intent to acquire a firearm; and 2) during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues (including suicidal thoughts, statements, or actions) and that person expresses an intent to acquire a firearm;
   6. Specifies that officers should be encouraged to provide information about mental health referral services during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues;
   7. Specifies that the above policies should include standards and procedures for:
      1. Requesting and serving a temporary emergency GVRO, including standards and procedures for determining prior to the expiration of a temporary emergency GVRO whether the subject of the temporary emergency GVRO presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a GVRO issued after notice and hearing may be necessary; 
      2. Requesting and serving an ex parte GVRO, including standards and procedures for determining prior to the expiration of an ex parte GVRO whether the subject of the ex parte GVRO presents an ongoing increased risk for violence so that a GVRO issued after notice and hearing may be necessary; 
      3. Storing firearms surrendered pursuant to a GVRO;
      4. Returning firearms upon the termination of a GVRO, including verification that the respondent is not otherwise legally prohibited from possessing firearms; and,
      5. Addressing violations of a GVRO.
   8. Specifies that the above policy’s requirement that officers attend GVRO hearings, also includes the responsibility to diligently participate in the evidence presentation process; 
   9. Specifies that the above standards and policies must be made available to all officers; and, 
   10. Expands the list of entities that law enforcement agencies are encouraged to consult with, when developing and updating these policies, to include domestic violence services providers, and other community-based organizations.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines “hate crime” as a criminal act committed, in part or in whole, because of actual or perceived characteristics of the victim, including: disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of the previously listed actual or perceived characteristics. (Pen. Code, § 422.55, subd. (a).)
2. Specifies that “hate crime” includes a violation of statutes prohibiting interference with a person’s exercise of civil rights because of the actual or perceived characteristics, as listed above. (Pen. Code, § 422.55, subd. (b).)
   
3. Requires POST, in consultation with subject matter experts, to develop guidelines and a course of instruction and training for law enforcement officers who are employed as peace officers, or who are not yet employed as a peace officer but are enrolled in a training academy for law enforcement officers, addressing hate crimes. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subd. (a).)
   
4. States that the above hate crimes course of instruction shall make the maximum use of audio and video communication and other simulation methods, and shall include instruction in each of the following:
   
   1. Indicators of hate crimes;
      
   2. The impact of these crimes on the victim, the victim’s family and the community, and the assistance and compensation available to the victims;
      
   3. Knowledge of laws dealing with hate crimes and the legal rights of, and the remedies available to, victims of hate crimes;
      
   4. Law enforcement procedures, reporting, and documentation of hate crimes;
      
   5. Techniques and methods to handle incidents of hate crimes in a non-combative manner;
      
   6. Multi-mission criminal extremism, which means the nexus of certain hate crimes, antigovernment extremist crimes, anti-reproductive-rights crimes, and crimes committed in whole or in part because of the victim’s actual or perceived homelessness;
      
   7. The special problems inherent in some categories of hate crimes, including gender-bias crimes, disability-bias crimes, including those committed against homeless persons with disabilities, anti-immigrant crimes, and anti-Arab, and anti-Islamic crimes, and techniques and methods to handle these special problems; and,
      
   8. Preparation for, and response to, future anti-Arab/middle Eastern and anti-Islamic hate crime waves that the AG determines is likely. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subds. (a)-(c).)
      
5. Provides that the guidelines developed by POST shall incorporate the items required to be included in POST’s hate crimes course of instruction, and shall include a model hate crimes policy framework for use by law enforcement agencies that includes, but is not limited to:
   1. A message from the law enforcement agency’s chief executive officer to the agency’s officers and staff concerning the importance of hate crime laws and the agency’s commitment to enforcement;
      
   2. The definition of hate crime, as specified;
      
   3. References to hate crime statutes, as specified;
      
   4. A title-by-title specific protocol that agency personnel are required to follow, including, but not limited to, the following:
      
      1. Preventing and preparing for likely hate crimes by, among other things, establishing contact with persons and communities who are likely targets, and forming and cooperating with community hate crime prevention and response networks;
         
      2. Responding to reports of hate crimes, including reports of hate crimes committed under the color of authority;
         
      3. Accessing assistance, by, among other things, activating the Department of Justice (DOJ) hate crime rapid response protocol when necessary;
         
      4. Providing victim assistance and follow up, including community follow up;
         
      5. Reporting;
         
      6. A list of all requirements that law enforcement agencies must include in its hate crime policy. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6., subd. (c))
6. Specifies that the course of training leading to the basic certificate issued by POST shall include the above hate crime guidelines and course of instruction. (Pen. Code, § 13519.6, subd. (d)(1).)
7. Requires state and local law enforcement agencies, by July 1, 2024, to adopt a hate crimes policy that includes specified components. (Pen. Code § 422.87 (a).)
   
8. Defines a GVRO as an order in writing, signed by the court, prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having in their custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18100, subd. (a).)
9. Provides that a petition for a GVRO shall describe the number, types, and locations of any firearms and ammunition presently believed by the petitioner to be in the possession or control of the subject of the petition. (Pen. Code, § 18107.)
   
10. Prohibits a person that is subject to a GVRO from having in their custody or control, own, purchase, possess, or receive any firearms or ammunition while the order is in effect. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (a).)
    
11. Requires the court to order the restrained person to surrender all firearms and ammunition in their custody or control. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(1).)

1. Requires each municipal police department, county sheriffs’ department, the Department of California Highway Patrol, and the UC and CSU Police Departments, by January 1, 2021, to develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards related to GVROs and encourages such departments to train their officers on such standards and procedures and to consult with gun violence prevention experts and mental health professionals in developing such policies and procedures. Such policies and standards shall:
   1. Instruct officers to consider the use of a GVRO during a domestic disturbance response to any residence which is associated with a firearm registration or record, during a response in which a firearm is present or in which one of the involved parties owns or possesses a firearm;
   2. Encourage the use of a GVRO in appropriate situations to prevent future violence involving a firearm;
      
   3. Consider the use of a GVRO during a contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues, including suicidal thoughts, statements, or actions, if that person owns or possesses a firearm;
      
   4. Encourage officers encountering situations in which there is reasonable cause to believe that the person poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to themselves or another person by having custody or control of a firearm to consider obtaining a mental health evaluation of the person by a medically trained professional or to detain the person for mental health evaluation, as specified;
      
   5. Be consistent with any GVRO training administered by POST;
      
   6. Include standards and procedures for:
      
      1. Requesting and serving a temporary emergency GVRO, ex parte GVRO, a GVRO issued after notice and hearing;
         
      2. Seizing firearms and ammunition at the time of issuance of a temporary emergency GVRO;
         
      3. Verifying the removal of firearms and ammunition from the subject of a GVRO;
         
      4. Obtaining and serving a search warrant for firearms and ammunition;
         
      5. The responsibility of officers to attend GVRO hearings;
         
      6. Requesting renewals of expiring GVROs. (Pen. Code, § 18108.)
2. Specifies that municipal police departments, county sheriff’s departments, the Department of the California Patrol, and the UC and CSU police departments are encouraged to train officers on the standards and procedures. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (e).)
   
3. Specifies that policies and standards related to GVROs shall be made available to the public upon request. (Pen. Code, § 18108, subd. (g).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “With hate crimes on the rise, the Legislature must ensure that law enforcement officers know of all the tools available to prevent an escalation in hate-based violence. AB 2621 will ensure that our first responders are aware of the steps they can take to prevent hate-based tragedies from occurring by issuing a GVRO in response to hate crimes. It will also require them to update their policies and procedures around GVROs whenever the laws are changed going forward.”
   
2. Hate Crimes: Although hate crimes make up a small percentage of total reported crimes, the number of reported hate crimes in California has increased. In 2021 the DOJ reported “hate crime events” reported to law enforcement “increased 32.6 percent from 1,330 in 2020 to 1,763 in 2021,” and “hate crime offenses increased 42.1 percent from 1,563 in 2020 to 2,221 in 2021.” (DOJ, 2021 Hate Crime in California (2021). Available at: <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Hate Crime In CA 2021 FINAL.pdf> [as of Mar. 26, 2024].) Specifically, the DOJ found that “[v]iolent [hate] crime offenses increased 47.4 percent from 1,088 in 2020 to 1,604 in 2021.” (Ibid.) In 2022, the DOJ found hate crime events increased 16.6% percent from 2,221 in 2021 to 2,589 in 2022. (DOJ, 2022 Hate Crime in California (2022). Available at: <https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Hate%20Crime%20In%20CA%202022f.pdf> [as of Mar. 26, 2024].)

Hate crimes severely impact victims. The emotional effect can be significant, with victims experiencing “more psychological distress than victims of other violent crimes.” (California State Auditor, Hate Crimes in California (May 2018) at p. 11. Available at: <https://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2017-131.pdf> [last visited Mar. 15, 2022]) Experts have observed that “[e]xperiences of hate are associated with poor emotional well-being such as feelings of anger, shame, and fear. Moreover, victims tend to experience poor mental health, including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and suicidal behavior.” (Cramer et al., Hate-Motivated Behavior: Impacts, Risk Factors, and Interventions, Health Affairs (Nov. 9, 2020) <https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20200929.601434/> [last visited Mar. 8, 2023].) The physical health of victims also suffers. The “impacts include poor overall physical health, physical injury, stress, and difficulty accessing medical care.” (Cramer et al., supra.)

In an effort to combat an increase in the rise of hate crimes, this bill expands the current hate training that POST provides to peace officers to include the role that GVROs can play in preventing hate crimes. Specifically it requires the POST course of instruction to identify when a GVRO may be an appropriate tool to prevent a hate crime, and the specific procedures for seeking a GVRO. Given the documented instances of GVROs being used to prevent violence, this is an important addition to the POST hate crimes training materials, which may incentivize the use of an effective law enforcement tool to prevent future hate-based violence.

1. Gun Violence Restraining Orders: California's GVRO laws, modeled after domestic violence restraining order laws, went into effect on January 1, 2016. A GVRO will prohibit the restrained person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and authorizes law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual's possession.

The statutory scheme establishes three types of GVRO's: a temporary emergency GVRO, an ex parte GVRO, and a GVRO issued after notice and hearing. A law enforcement officer may seek a temporary emergency GVRO by submitting a written petition to or calling a judicial officer to request an order at any time of day or night.

In contrast, an immediate family member, an employer, a coworker, an employee or teacher of a secondary or post-secondary school, law enforcement officer, a roommate, an individual who has a dating relationship or a child in common with the subject of the petition can petition for either an ex parte GVRO or a GVRO after notice and a hearing.

An ex parte GVRO is based on an affidavit filed by the petitioner which sets forth the facts establishing the grounds for the order. The court will determine whether good cause exists to issue the order. If the court issues the order, it can remain in effect for 21 days. Within that time frame, the court must provide an opportunity for a hearing. At the hearing, the court can determine whether the firearms should be returned to the restrained person, or whether it should issue a more permanent order.

The final type of GVRO is one issued after notice and a hearing. If the court issues a GVRO after notice and hearing have been provided to the person to be restrained, this more permanent order can last for up to five years. To balance the due process rights of the individual restrained the person is allowed to request a hearing for termination of the order on an annual basis.

As reflected below there have been many recent legislative changes to the laws on GVROs. This bill would require law enforcement agencies to update their policies and standards, as necessary, to incorporate changes in the law governing gun violence restraining orders.

1. Pending Litigation on Validity of Firearm Prohibition based on Court Order: In N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 142 S.Ct. 2111 (hereafter Bruen), the United States Supreme Court established a new test for determining whether a government restriction on carrying a firearm violates the Second Amendment:

“[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’” (Id. at 2126.)

Based on Bruen, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a federal statute prohibiting a defendant from possessing a firearm pursuant to a domestic violence court order, even after the defendant was involved in five shootings over the course of approximately one month. (U.S. v. Rahimi (2023) 61 F.4th 443.) The court examined several different historical statutes to see if there were any analogues which prohibited firearm possession based on civil proceedings alone. (Id. at 455-460.) Ultimately, the court found that there were no such relevantly similar historical laws and found that the firearm prohibition was “‘an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.’” (Id. at 461.)

The United States Supreme Court is now reviewing the case. (certiorari granted United States v. Rahimi (2023) 143 S.Ct. 2688.) This is the first Second Amendment case taken up by the Supreme Court after its decision in Bruen. The government argues that the Second Amendment allows Congress to disarm persons who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens. Rahimi counters that there is no historical tradition of any similar restriction, and so the prohibition is unconstitutional. On November 7, 2023, the Court heard oral arguments in the case. The justices’ questioning seemed to suggest that they would uphold the law. (See Amy Howe, Justices appear wary of striking down domestic-violence gun restriction, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 7, 2023, 5:47 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-appear-wary-of-striking-down-domestic-violence-gun-restriction ) The Court’s opinion is still pending.

Although the Rahimi case deals with domestic violence restraining orders, the inquiry principally revolved around prohibiting firearm possession based on a civil proceeding, which means that the decision will likely impact the validity of California’s GVRO laws.

Notably, this bill would expand the factors that local law enforcement officers should consider, when determining if a GVRO is necessary, to apply to a law enforcement response in which one of the involved parties person “expresse[s] an intent to acquire a firearm.” The bill would apply this same consideration when officers are in contact with a person exhibiting mental health issues. This means that local law enforcement GVRO policies and standards must instruct officers to consider the use of a GVRO when responding to a residence if that person expresses interest in purchasing a firearm, regardless of whether that person poses any threat or risk of violence. This appears inconsistent with the imminent danger standards incorporated into other Penal Code provisions establishing when GVROs can be issued (See e.g., Pen. Code, § 18125, subd. (a).) [requiring that there is reasonable cause to believe the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of personal injury due to a firearm and there are no less restrictive alternatives in order to issue a temporary emergency GVRO]; Pen. Code, § 18150, subd. (b) [requiring a substantial likelihood the subject of the petition poses a significant danger in the near future due to a firearm and there are no less restrictive alternatives or such alternatives are inadequate for the circumstances to issue an ex parte GVRO].) Given the uncertainty surrounding the constitutionality of California’s GVRO laws while Rahimi is pending, it may be prudent for this bill to clarify that an officer should not be required to consider the necessity of a GVRO when responding to a residence, purely by virtue of a person expressing interest in purchasing a firearm.

1. Argument in Support: According to the Office of the San Diego City Attorney, “Preventing hate crimes with GVROs has been particularly effective in cities that otherwise have strong uptake of GVROs at the local level, like San Diego, San Francisco, and Sacramento. However, this tool may be left underutilized precisely at a time when threats of hate-based violence are rising rapidly due to inconsistent implementation… AB 2621 will ensure that existing law enforcement hate crimes training will properly prepare officers to identify situations where a GVRO can prevent a hate-related threat or tragedy. It will also ensure that local law enforcement agencies’ written policies and standards on GVROs reflect the most up-to-date best practices for utilizing this life-saving tool to support effective implementation.”
2. Argument in Opposition: None
   
3. Related Legislation:
   1. AB 3014 (Irwin), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session would authorize a district attorney to petition for an ex parte GVRO, a GVRO after notice and a hearing, and a renewal of a GVRO. AB 3014 will be heard in this committee today.
   2. AB 667 (Maienschein), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would require a court to issue a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) lasting the maximum time of five years if the subject of the petition displayed an extreme risk of violence within the prior 12 months. AB 667 is pending referral in Senate Rules
   3. AB 2917 (Zbur), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session would require a court, when determining if grounds for a GVRO exist, to consider evidence of a recent threat of violence or act of violence, a past history of those threats or acts in the last 12 months, the reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm, evidence of stalking, evidence of cruelty to animals, or evidence of the respondent’s threats of violence to advance a political objective.  AB 2917 is pending hearing in this committee.
      
4. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 449 (Ting), Chapter 524, Statutes of 2023, requires state or local law enforcement agencies to adopt a hate crime policy by July 1, 2024, report that policy to the DOJ, and requires POST to update its model hate crimes policy framework.
      
   2. AB 2870 (Santiago), Chapter 974, Statutes of 2022, further expanded the category of persons that may file a petition requesting a court to issue a GVRO.
   3. AB 57 (Gabriel), Chapter 691, Statutes of 2021, requires the basic peace officer course curriculum to include instruction on the topic of hate crimes, which shall incorporate a specified hate crimes video developed by POST.
   4. AB 2235 (Gabriel), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill in that it would have required DOJ to carry out various duties related to documenting and responding to hate crimes, including conducting reviews of all law enforcement agencies every three years to evaluate the accuracy of hate crime data reported. AB 2235 was not heard by this committee due to Covid-19 restrictions
      
   5. AB 2236 (Gabriel), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have required POST to develop a peace officer in-service hate crimes refresher course to be taken every five years. AB 2236 was held on the Assembly Appropriations suspense file.
      
   6. AB 12 (Irwin), Chapter 724, Statutes of 2019, extended the duration of GVROs and their renewals to a maximum of five years.
   7. AB 165 (Gabriel), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have required POST to develop and implement a training course on GVROs and for its incorporation into basic training for law enforcement officers, as specified. AB 165 was held in Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   8. AB 339 (Irwin), Chapter 727, Statutes of 2019, requires each municipal police department, county sheriff's department, the Department of California Highway Patrol, and the UC and CSU Police Departments to develop and adopt written policies and standards regarding the use of GVROs on or before January 1, 2021.
   9. AB 1014 (Skinner), Chapter 872, Statutes of 2014, allows the court to issue a GRVO and established the process by which the orders can be obtained.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Brady California
Brady Campaign
California Public Defenders Association
Equality California
Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
March for Our Lives Action Fund
San Diego City Attorney's Office
San Francisco City Attorney's Office

Opposition:

None.

Analysis Prepared by:

Ilan Zur / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744