HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-18; City Council; ; Presentation on Police Use of Force and Police Officers Bill of Rights and Discussion of Citizens Review Committee on Police Practices and ProceduresMeeting Date: Aug. 18, 2020
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Scott Chadwick, City Manager
Staff Contact: Celia Brewer, City Attorney
celia.brewer@carlsbadca.gov, 760-434-2891
Mickey Williams, Assistant Police Chief
mickey.williams@carlsbadca.gov, 760-931-2131
Judy von Kalinowski, Human Resources
judy.vonkalinowski@carlsbadca.gov, 760-602-2440
Sheila Cobian, Assistant to the City Manager
sheila.cobian@carlsbadca.gov, 760-434-2820
Subject: Presentation on Police Use of Force and Police Officers Bill of Rights
and Discussion of Citizens Review Committee on Police Practices and
Procedures
Recommended Action
Receive a presentation on police use of force and the Police Officers Bill of Rights and discuss
background information regarding the formation of citizens review committees on police
practices and procedures.
Executive Summary
The City Council voted on June 23, 2020, to place on a future agenda a presentation on police
use of force and the Police Officers Bill of Rights and to have a discussion on background
information on citizens review committees on police practices and procedures.
Discussion
Guiding principles
Carlsbad Police officers are guided by a reverence for human life in all investigative,
enforcement, and other interactions between the department and members of the community.
The police department is committed to providing peace officers with the training, equipment
and resources necessary to foster peaceful resolutions.
Each situation an officer responds to is unique. When officers are called upon to respond to a
crisis or criminal acts, they will, if reasonable under the circumstances, use tactics and
techniques to persuade the individual to voluntarily comply or that reduce the need for more
physical tactics to resolve the situation safely. Some situations require an immediate response,
while others may allow officers the opportunity to communicate with the individual, refine
tactical plans, and, if necessary, call for additional resources. When reasonable opportunity
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 1 of 28
exists, Carlsbad Police officers should consider the concepts of pre-engagement, de-escalation
and disengagement.
Legal guidance and department policies on the use of force
The overarching guidance in evaluating whether police use of force was legal is provided in the
landmark case of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that all claims of excessive force by law enforcement are properly reviewed under the
Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard. The “reasonableness” of a
particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the
scene, and its calculus must allow for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-
second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
The Carlsbad Police Department’s use of force policy defines force as, “the application of
physical techniques or tactics, chemical agents or weapons to another person. It is not a use of
force when a person allows him/herself to be searched, escorted, handcuffed or restrained.”
Deadly force is defined by the California Penal Code as any use of force that creates a
substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the
discharge of a firearm.
The use of force policy is based on relevant statutes and case law. It states,
“Officers shall use only that amount of force that reasonably appears necessary given
the facts and totality of the circumstances perceived by the officer at the time of the
event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement purpose. …
“The reasonableness of force will be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer
on the scene at the time of the incident. Any evaluation of reasonableness must allow
for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the
amount of force that reasonably appears necessary in a particular situation, with limited
information and in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.”
The policy also lists the factors officers should consider in deciding when it is reasonable to use
force:
“When determining whether to apply force and evaluating whether an officer has used
reasonable force, a number of factors should be taken into consideration, as time and
circumstances permit. These factors include, but are not limited to:
a) The apparent immediacy and severity of the threat to officers or others.
b) The conduct of the individual being confronted, as reasonably perceived by the
officer at the time.
c) Officer/subject factors (age, size, relative strength, skill level, injuries sustained,
level of exhaustion or fatigue, the number of officers available vs. subjects).
d) The conduct of the involved officer.
e) The effects of drugs or alcohol.
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 2 of 28
f) The individual’s apparent mental state or capacity.1
g) The individual’s apparent ability to understand and comply with officer
commands.
h) Proximity of weapons or dangerous improvised devices.
i) The degree to which the subject has been effectively restrained and his/her
ability to resist despite being restrained.
j) The availability of other reasonable and feasible options and their possible
effectiveness.
k) Seriousness of the suspected offense or reason for contact with the individual.
l) Training and experience of the officer.
m) Potential for injury to officers, suspects, and others.
n) Whether the person appears to be resisting, attempting to evade arrest by flight,
or is attacking the officer.
o) The risk and reasonably foreseeable consequences of escape.
p) The apparent need for immediate control of the subject or a prompt resolution
of the situation.
q) Whether the conduct of the individual being confronted no longer reasonably
appears to pose an imminent threat to the officer or others.
r) Prior contacts with the subject or awareness of any propensity for violence.
s) Any other exigent circumstances.”
Under department policy, an officer’s use of deadly force is only justified when it is done to:
• “Protect him/herself or others from what he/she reasonably believes is an imminent
threat of death or serious bodily injury”
• Apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or
serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death
or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended
When feasible, officers must make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as peace officers
and to warn that deadly force may use used, unless an officer has objectively reasonable
grounds to believe the other person is aware of those facts.
The policy recognizes that shooting a gun at or from a moving vehicle is rarely effective.
“Officers should move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging
their firearm(s) at the vehicle or any of its occupants. An officer should only discharge a
firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupants when the officer reasonably believes there
are no other reasonable means available to avert the threat of the vehicle, or if deadly
force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others. Officers should not shoot
at any part of a vehicle in an attempt to disable the vehicle.”
1 This refers to the individual’s apparent ability to understand and comply with officer commands.
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 3 of 28
Documentation and oversight
The policy also requires swift documentation of any uses of force:
“Any use of force by a member of the department must be documented promptly,
completely and accurately in an appropriate report, depending on the nature of the
incident. The officer is required to articulate the factors perceived and why he/she
believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances.”
The policy lists the circumstances in which officers are required to notify their supervisors of
the use of force:
“An officer who uses force must also provide notification to a supervisor as soon as
practicable following the application of force in any of the following circumstances:”
a) The application caused a visible injury.
b) The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may
have experienced more than momentary discomfort.
c) The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain.
d) The individual indicates intent to pursue litigation.
e) Any application of a TASER device or control device.
f) Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles or belly chains.
g) The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious.
h) An individual was struck or kicked.
i) An individual alleges any of the above has occurred.”
The department’s policy also details the specific tasks required of a supervisor after being
informed of an officer’s use of force.
“When a supervisor is notified of an incident involving the use of force, the supervisor is
required to respond to the incident and is expected to perform the following tasks:
a) Obtain the basic facts from the involved officers. …
b) Ensure that any injured parties are examined and treated.
c) When possible, separately obtain a recorded interview with the subject(s) upon
whom force was applied. …
d) Once any initial medical assessment has been completed or first aid has been
rendered, ensure that photographs have been taken of any areas involving visible
injury or complaint of pain, as well as overall photographs of uninjured areas. …
e) Identify any witnesses and ensure that all witnesses are interviewed.
f) (Ensure) that all reports are reviewed and approved by a supervisor.
g) Evaluate the circumstances surrounding the incident and complete a Supervisor’s
Complaint Summary report … if there is a question of policy noncompliance or if for
any reason further administrative investigation may be appropriate.
h) Prepare a Supervisor’s Use of Force investigation report. … This report shall be
reviewed and approved by another supervisor.”
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 4 of 28
Each use of force described above is then reviewed by the employee’s lieutenant and captain to
ensure compliance with department policy and applicable law and to identify training issues or
opportunities as well as any trends involving the use of force.
Officers’ duty to intercede
Department policy requires any officer present and observing another officer using force “that
is clearly beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances, when in a
position to do so, (to) intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force. An officer who
observes another employee use force that exceeds the degree of force permitted by law must
promptly report these observations to a supervisor.”
Carlsbad police use of force statistics
Department arrest and use of force statistics show that the department averages about 2,000
arrests per year2 approximately 546 detainments for Health and Safety Code Section 51503, and
approximately 3% of those arrests and 5150s involve a use of force incident.4 It should be noted
that the department handles approximately 100,000 incidents per year.5 Therefore, the
percentage of the total police incidents between 2017-2019 that involved a use of force was
about .08%.
The statistics also show that over this time period there has been an increase in the number of
incidents handled by the department, but a general trend towards a reduction in total number
of arrests.
2 Total arrests were 2,202 in 2017, 2,070 in 2018 and 1,964 in 2019.
3 Total 5150’s were 512 in 2017, 555 in 2018, and 572 in 2019.
4 Total use of force incidents were 76 in 2017, 76, 99 in 2018 and 82 in 2019.
5 Total incidents handled by department were 90,760 in 2017, 99,421 in 2018 and 112,323 in 2019.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2017 2018 2019
Total arrests and 5150s vs. use of force incidents
Total arrests/5150's Use of force incidents
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 5 of 28
When reviewing use of force incidents with respect to race and ethnicity, we found our use of
force incidents between 2017 and 2019 involved arrestees who were 55% White, 28% Hispanic,
9% Black, and 8% other.6
6 Total use of force incidents by race per year. (2017) White 38, Hispanic 17, Black 8, Other 13. (2018) White 57,
Hispanic 31, Black 6, Other 5. (2019) White 47, Hispanic 25, Black 8, Other 2.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2017 2018 2019
Arrests by race, ethnicity %
White Hispanic Black Other
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2017 2018 2019
Use of force by race, ethnicity %
White Hispanic Black Other
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 6 of 28
Between 2017 and 2019, the department was not involved in any use of force incident resulting
in the death of the arrestee, or an injury to an arrestee that required hospitalization. Statistics
on injuries sustained by an arrestee during a use of force incident show that 16% of these
arrestees required medical treatment at a hospital, 23% were treated at the scene and 60%
required no medical treatment.
Department training and the future of crisis management
Effective officer training plays an essential role in mitigating the need for the use of force, and
in its appropriate implementation. The department has provided officers with training on de-
escalation and crisis intervention for many years. This training is frequently incorporated in the
quarterly defensive tactics training. Additionally, every two years every officer is provided two
hours of tactical communications training by department-trained instructors. This training
focuses on using verbal communication that helps officers stay calm and professional in
challenging confrontational situations and often times results in voluntary compliance.
In 2016 and 2017, the department contracted with an outside training vendor to provide eight
hours of crisis intervention and behavioral health training to each officer. Since then, the
department has sent new officers at the department to an eight-hour Psychiatric Emergency
Response Team behavioral health training course. This year, working in conjunction with the
San Diego District Attorney’s Office, Carlsbad Police have created an eight-hour California Peace
Officers Standards and Training-certified de-escalation course that is intended to be provided to
all of the department’s officers in late 2020 or early 2021, with Carlsbad police officers trained
to provide the instruction.
Additionally, this certified in-house de-escalation course will be available to train new officers
to the department or to provide additional or remedial training as necessary to existing officers.
This training will also implement the San Diego Countywide Crisis Management Philosophy;
Considerations for De-escalation, which was implemented into Carlsbad Police Department
policy in June.
The department is in the process of modifying our current training practices to eliminate
training “silos” and instead focus on providing comprehensive crisis management training,
employing the best practices from each training specialty, as appropriate for the specific
circumstances of an incident.
The department’s strategy is to give our officers training that will encourage and enable them
to think dynamically and give them the skill sets that will increase the likelihood of peaceful
outcomes in challenging situations.
Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act
Overview
The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act is a state law that outlines procedural
rights that an employer must give to public safety officers under two specific conditions: when
those officers are subject to interrogation or discipline.
The act applies only to employees that the Penal Code defines as “peace officers.” For practical
purposes, that means it covers all of the following: local city police officers; police chiefs, county
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 7 of 28
deputy sheriffs, state police officers, California Highway Patrol officers, welfare investigators
and peace officers hired by the California State University and University of California systems.
It covers all sworn police officers in the Carlsbad Police Department.
Peace officers have rights under this law when an officer is at risk of disciplinary action resulting
from an interrogation. “Disciplinary action” is broad and includes dismissal, demotion,
suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand or transfer, if that transfer is intended as
punitive.
Peace officers do not have rights under the law when an interrogation occurs during an officer’s
normal course of events, for example, during normal duty, counseling or instruction. These
rights also do not apply during a supervisor’s informal, verbal admonishment, or during routine
or unplanned contact with a supervisor.
Rights to representation, against self-incrimination and to privacy
Peace officers have the right to representation during an interrogation.7 The employer must
also provide the peace officer with reasonable advance notice of the nature of the investigation
before an interrogation.
When an employer interrogates a peace officer and it appears the officer may be charged with
a criminal offense as a result of the misconduct or the officer refuses to answer questions on
the grounds that the answers may be self-incriminating,8 the employer must tell peace officers
that they have the right to remain silent, but their silence constitutes insubordination and will
give rise to administrative discipline. Further, any statement they make under these
circumstances would not, and could not, be used against them in any subsequent criminal
proceeding.
During an investigation, the law prohibits an employer from loaning, or temporarily reassigning,
an officer to a location or a duty assignment if a sworn member of the peace officer’s
department would not otherwise be so assigned under similar circumstances.9
The law also gives peace officers a protected right to privacy.10 This prevents an employer from
subjecting an officer to the news media without the officer’s express consent. An employer may
not, for example, divulge an officer’s home address or provide a copy of an officer’s
photograph.11
Investigation and discipline timelines, rights to appeal
The employer must complete its investigation into any alleged misconduct and notify the officer
of a proposed disciplinary action within one year of the employer’s discovery of this
misconduct. A “discovery” occurs when an individual with investigative authority either realizes,
or should have realized, that the misconduct transpired.
The employer does not have to impose discipline within that one-year time period. The
employer must simply conclude its investigation within the year and advise the officer of its
7 Cal. Gov. Code § 3303(i).
8 Cal. Gov. Code § 3303(e) and (h).
9 Cal. Gov. Code § 3303(j).
10 Cal. Gov. Code § 3303(e).
11 Cal. Gov. Code §§ 3253(e)(2) and 3303(e).
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 8 of 28
intent to discipline within one year. The employer has an obligation to notify the officer of its
final decision to impose discipline within 30-days of its decision to do so.12 That means once the
employer decides the level of discipline it intends to impose, it has 30 days from that point to
notify the peace officer in writing.
The law provides that any peace officer who has successfully completed his or her probationary
period must receive an “opportunity for administrative appeal” whenever a “punitive action,
(or) denial of promotion on grounds other than merit” occurs. Officers may also appeal
limitations the employer imposes on their authority to carry weapons and make arrests,
including the reasons an employer documents in officers’ personnel files. Notably, peace
officers can appeal advisory citizens’ law enforcement review board decision.
The peace officer appeals a disciplinary decision through the local, administrative process. The
employer’s rules and procedures govern the hearing.13 The law does not prescribe hearing
procedures, but it implies that such procedures should comport with fair play and due process
standards as appropriate to the seriousness of the charges. Peace officers are routinely
represented by a lawyer during the investigation process and during the appeals process.
Confidentiality of peace officer personnel files
Generally speaking, peace officers’ personnel files are confidential unless a court orders their
disclosure. The California Penal Code14 describes the following as confidential: personal data
(marital status, family members, educational history, etc.); medical history; employee benefits;
employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline; complaints or investigations of complaints.
Personnel records retain their confidential status even after a peace officer retires.
Non-confidential information includes a peace officer’s name, employing agency, employment
dates, an accident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person, and a use of force resulting
in death or great bodily injury. These later categories can be disclosed under a Public Records
Act request.
The right to respond
Both actively employed and former peace officers have a right to review adverse comments
entered into their personnel files.15 The officers then have thirty days to file a written response.
Courts have found that a citizen complaint qualifies as an adverse comment, which requires the
peace officer’s review before the complaint becomes part of that officers’ personnel file.
Citizens review committees on police practices and procedures
Overview
Civilian oversight of police departments has been a recurring topic of discussion and debate in
the United States since the 1960’s. There are three basic models of civilian oversight:
1. Auditor/monitor. The auditor/monitor model focuses on making broad organization-level
recommendations by reviewing patterns in complaint investigations, police policies,
12 Cal. Gov. Code, § 3304(f).
13 Gov. Code, § 3304.5.
14 Cal. Pen. Code § 832.8
15 Cal. Gov. Code §§ 3305 and 3306.
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 9 of 28
practices or training. Some auditor/monitor models also review open internal
investigations.
2. Review-focused. The review-focused model usually consists of citizen volunteers who focus
on improving community-police relations by providing a forum for members of the public to
comment on police conduct, practices and policies. This model may also review and
comment upon completed investigations, request further investigation be conducted, and
make recommendations to police executives.
3. Investigation-focused. An investigation-focused model involves non-police civilian
investigators, often assisted by non-police city staff, conducting routine, independent
investigations of complaints against police officers. The board or commission generally
makes findings of fact and conclusions about whether alleged misconduct occurred and
whether it constituted a violation of law or police departmental rules. This process may
replicate the existing police department’s internal affairs process. Due to the legal
complexities and the significant amount of resources necessary to establish and maintain
this model, it is more common in large jurisdictions or those that have experienced
significant issues surrounding the use of force. 16
Some oversight boards contain aspects of each of the three models. It is uncommon for an
oversight board to include the power to recommend or impose discipline. However, each
model usually includes the ability to provide input on policy to elected officials.
Examples of committees around the state
Staff surveyed San Diego County cities as well as some other cities throughout the state that
have established citizens review committees on police practices and procedures. The results of
the survey are reflected below and detailed in Exhibit 4:
City Type of committee or commission
Anaheim Police Review Board
Berkeley Police Review Commission
Burbank Police Commission
Chula Vista Community Advisory Committee
Davis Police Accountability Commission
Inglewood Citizen Police Oversight Commission
Long Beach Citizen Complaint Commission
National City Community & Police Relations Commission
Oceanside Police and Fire Commission
Riverside Community Police Review Commission
Sacramento Sacramento Community Police Review Commission
San Diego Community Review Board on Police Practices
Tulare Citizen Complaint Police Review Board
*County of San Diego Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board
* Provides law enforcement services to cities throughout San Diego County.
16 Stephens, Darrel W., Ellen Scrivner, and Josie F. Cambareri. 2018. Civilian Oversight of the Police in Major Cities.
Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 10 of 28
The National City Community and Police Relations Commission and the Burbank Police
Commission provide useful examples of two types of police oversight boards.
National City Community and Police Relations Commission
The National City Community and Police Relations Commission consists of eight members
appointed by the mayor and subject to council confirmation. At least five members must be
residents of the city and as many as two may be non-residents. One of the eight members must
be a member of the National City Police Officers’ Association, however, that member may not
vote.
The commission’s mission is threefold, to:
1. Provide a forum for citizens to voice their concerns about police conduct, practices, and
policies.
2. Examine police practices and policies as they pertain to conduct issues.
3. Identify opportunities to ameliorate adversity between the police department and
citizen complainants.
The commission’s powers include:
• Receiving and monitoring or investigating citizen complaints regarding police conduct,
but without interfering with the administration of the police department.
• Requesting and receiving supplemental information from the police department on
citizen complaints and such other matters as the commission may request.
• Allowing parties the opportunity to mediate their disputes.
• Advising on police department operations and making recommendations on police
policy issues.
• Conducting investigations and holding public hearings. This includes the power to
examine witnesses under oath and compel their attendance or the production of
evidence by issuing subpoenas.
This is the review-focused approach, intended to improve community-police relations.
Burbank Police Commission
The Burbank Police Commission consists of five members appointed by the City Council. The
stated mission of the commission is to “provide civilian oversight to advocate for best law
enforcement policies for the greater good of the Burbank community” and to “monitor the
Burbank Police Department to achieve and maintain a culture of respect and professionalism
through accountability and transparency in all its actions.”
The commission meets regularly to provide community input and feedback on policies and
issues within the community.
The commission has the power to:
• Initiate studies and surveys in the general field of police science and law enforcement
and report its findings and recommendations to the council
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 11 of 28
• Conduct hearings, investigations, or both, at the request of the council for the purpose
of ascertaining whether additional legislation is needed for the health, safety, peace and
welfare of the inhabitants of the city and to make findings and recommendations to the
council
• Act in an advisory capacity to the council on policy matters pertaining to the police
department of the city
• Receive complaints, except those relating to traffic engineering, pertaining to the police
department and law enforcement in general
• Examine books, papers, records and accounts in the police department, other than
confidential matters under investigation
The City of Burbank’s commission follows the auditor/monitor model. It does not conduct
hearings or investigations into individual incidents and is instead focused on making broad
policy-level recommendations. However, the City of Burbank also contracts with the Office of
Independent Review to provide an additional level of oversight and independent monitoring of
the police department. The Office of Independent Review was retained in 2012 after
controversies regarding the police department.
In addition to the commission’s role, the Office of Independent Review conducts individualized
and random reviews of law enforcement incidents and presents an annual report at a joint
meeting of the City Council and the Police Commission. The police department provides the
office with full access to all investigative files under review. The office’s review includes an
assessment of the adequacy of the police department’s investigation into an incident and the
appropriateness of the findings and action taken by the police department in response to the
investigation. For example, the office reviews and reports on all uses of deadly force, all
complaints of bias in policing and a fourth of all cases involving the use of force, chosen at
random.
Fiscal Analysis
This agenda item is for discussion only, so there are no fiscal impacts at this time.
Environmental Evaluation (CEQA)
This action does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental
Quality Act under Public Resources Code Section 21065 in that it has no potential to cause
either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment and therefore does not require environmental review.
Public Notification and Outreach
Public notice of this item was posted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and it was
available for viewing at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting date.
Exhibits
1. City of Carlsbad Police Department Policy 300 – Use of Force
2. Carlsbad Special Order 2020-04 – Considerations for De-Escalation
3. Police Officers’ Bill of Rights
4. Citizens Review Committees on Police Practices and Procedures Survey
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 12 of 28
Exhibit 1
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 13 of 28
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 14 of 28
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 15 of 28
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 16 of 28
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 17 of 28
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 18 of 28
Exhibit 2
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 19 of 28
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 20 of 28
Police Officers Bill of Rights
CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 3300-3311
3300. This chapter is known and may be cited as the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
3301. For purposes of this chapter, the term public safety officer means all peace officers specified in Sections 830.1,
830.2, 830.3, 830.31, 830.32, 830.33, except subdivision (e), 830.34, 830.35, except subdivision (c), 830.36, 830.37,
830.38, 830.4, and 830.5 of the Penal Code. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the rights and protections
provided to peace officers under this chapter constitute a matter of statewide concern. The Legislature further finds and
declares that effective law enforcement depends upon the maintenance of stable employer-employee relations, between
public safety employees and their employers. In order to assure that stable relations are continued throughout the state and
to further assure that effective services are provided to all people of the state, it is necessary that this chapter be applicable
to all public safety officers, as defined in this section, wherever situated within the State of California.
3302. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, or whenever on duty or in uniform, no public safety officer shall be
prohibited from engaging, or be coerced or required to engage, in political activity.
(b) No public safety officer shall be prohibited from seeking election to, or serving as a member of, the governing board
of a school district.
3303. When any public safety officer is under investigation and subjected to interrogation by his or her commanding
officer, or any other member of the employing public safety department, that could lead to punitive action, the
interrogation shall be conducted under the following conditions. For the purpose of this chapter, punitive action means
any action that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for
purposes of punishment.
(a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the public safety officer is on
duty, or during the normal waking hours for the public safety officer, unless the seriousness of the investigation requires
otherwise. If the interrogation does occur during off-duty time of the public safety officer being interrogated, the public
safety officer shall be compensated for any off-duty time in accordance with regular department procedures, and the
public safety officer shall not be released from employment for any work missed.
(b) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed prior to the interrogation of the rank, name, and
command of the officer in charge of the interrogation, the interrogating officers, and all other persons to be present during
the interrogation. All questions directed to the public safety officer under interrogation shall be asked by and through no
more than two interrogators at one time.
(c) The public safety officer under investigation shall be informed of the nature of the investigation prior to any
interrogation.
(d) The interrogating session shall be for a reasonable period taking into consideration gravity and complexity of the issue
being investigated. The person under interrogation shall be allowed to attend to his or her own personal physical
necessities.
(e) The public safety officer under interrogation shall not be subjected to offensive language or threatened with punitive
action, except that an officer refusing to respond to questions or submit to interrogations shall be informed that failure to
answer questions directly related to the investigation or interrogation may result in punitive action. No promise of reward
shall be made as an inducement to answering any question. The employer shall not cause the public safety officer under
interrogation to be subjected to visits by the press or news media without his or her express consent nor shall his or her
home address or photograph be given to the press or news media without his or her express consent.
Exhibit 3
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 21 of 28
(f) No statement made during interrogation by a public safety officer under duress, coercion, or threat of punitive action
shall be admissible in any subsequent civil proceeding. This subdivision is subject to the following qualifications:
(1) This subdivision shall not limit the use of statements made by a public safety officer when the employing public safety
department is seeking civil sanctions against any public safety officer, including disciplinary action brought under Section
19572.
(2) This subdivision shall not prevent the admissibility of statements made by the public safety officer under interrogation
in any civil action, including administrative actions, brought by that public safety officer, or that officer's exclusive
representative, arising out of a disciplinary action.
(3) This subdivision shall not prevent statements made by a public safety officer under interrogation from being used to
impeach the testimony of that officer after an in camera review to determine whether the statements serve to impeach the
testimony of the officer.
(4) This subdivision shall not otherwise prevent the admissibility of statements made by a public safety officer under
interrogation if that officer subsequently is deceased.
(g) The complete interrogation of a public safety officer may be recorded. If a tape recording is made of the interrogation,
the public safety officer shall have access to the tape if any further proceedings are contemplated or prior to any further
interrogation at a subsequent time. The public safety officer shall be entitled to a transcribed copy of any notes made by a
stenographer or to any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons, except those which are deemed by
the investigating agency to be confidential. No notes or reports that are deemed to be confidential may be entered in the
officer's personnel file. The public safety officer being interrogated shall have the right to bring his or her own recording
device and record any and all aspects of the interrogation.
(h) If prior to or during the interrogation of a public safety officer it is deemed that he or she may be charged with a
criminal offense, he or she shall be immediately informed of his or her constitutional rights.
(i) Upon the filing of a formal written statement of charges, or whenever an interrogation focuses on matters that are likely
to result in punitive action against any public safety officer, that officer, at his or her request, shall have the right to be
represented by a representative of his or her choice who may be present at all times during the interrogation. The
representative shall not be a person subject to the same investigation. The representative shall not be required to disclose,
nor be subject to any punitive action for refusing to disclose, any information received from the officer under investigation
for non criminal matters. This section shall not apply to any interrogation of a public safety officer in the normal course of
duty, counseling, instruction, or informal verbal admonishment by, or other routine or unplanned contact with, a
supervisor or any other public safety officer, nor shall this section apply to an investigation concerned solely and directly
with alleged criminal activities.
(j) No public safety officer shall be loaned or temporarily reassigned to a location or duty assignment if a sworn member
of his or her department would not normally be sent to that location or would not normally be given that duty assignment
under similar circumstances.
3304. (a) No public safety officer shall be subjected to punitive action, or denied promotion, or be threatened with any
such treatment, because of the lawful exercise of the rights granted under this chapter, or the exercise of any rights under
any existing administrative grievance procedure.Nothing in this section shall preclude a head of an agency from ordering
a public safety officer to cooperate with other agencies involved in criminal investigations. If an officer fails to comply
with such an order, the agency may officially charge him with insubordination.
(b) No punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken by any public agency
without providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal.
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 22 of 28
3305. No public safety officer shall have any comment adverse to his interest entered in his personnel file, or any other
file used for any personnel purposes by his employer, without the public safety officer having first read and signed the
instrument containing the adverse comment indicating he is aware of such comment, except that such entry may be made
if after reading such instrument the public safety officer refuses to sign it. Should a public safety officer refuse to sign,
that fact shall be noted on that document, and signed or initialed by such officer.
3306. A public safety officer shall have 30 days within which to file a written response to any adverse comment entered in
his personnel file. Such written response shall be attached to, and shall accompany, the adverse comment.
3307. No public safety officer shall be compelled to submit to a polygraph examination against his will. No disciplinary
action or other recrimination shall be taken against a public safety officer refusing to submit to a polygraph examination,
nor shall any comment be entered anywhere in the investigator's notes or anywhere else that the public safety officer
refused to take a polygraph examination, nor shall any testimony or evidence be admissible at a subsequent hearing, trial,
or proceeding, judicial or administrative, to the effect that the public safety officer refused to take a polygraph
examination.
3308. No public safety officer shall be required or requested for purposes of job assignment or other personnel action to
disclose any item of his property, income, assets, source of income, debts or personal or domestic expenditures (including
those of any member of his family or household) unless such information is obtained or required under state law or proper
legal procedure, tends to indicate a conflict of interest with respect to the performance of his official duties, or is
necessary for the employing agency to ascertain the desirability of assigning the public safety officer to a specialized unit
in which there is a strong possibility that bribes or other improper inducements may be offered.
3309. No public safety officer shall have his locker, or other space for storage that may be assigned to him searched
except in his presence, or with his consent, or unless a valid search warrant has been obtained or where he has been
notified that a search will be conducted. This section shall apply only to lockers or other space for storage that are owned
or leased by the employing agency.
3309.5. (a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights
and protections guaranteed to them by this chapter.
(b) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any
public safety department for alleged violations of this section.
(c) In any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated any of the provisions of this
chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or other extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent
future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order,
preliminary, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety department from taking any punitive action against the
public safety officer.
3310. Any public agency which has adopted, through action of its governing body or its official designee, any procedure
which at a minimum provides to peace officers the same rights or protections as provided pursuant to this chapter shall not
be subject to this chapter with regard to such a procedure.
3311. Nothing in this chapter shall in any way be construed to limit the use of any public safety agency or any public
safety officer in the fulfilling of mutual aid agreements with other jurisdictions or agencies, nor shall this chapter be
construed in any way to limit any jurisdictional or interagency cooperation under any circumstances where such activity is
deemed necessary or desirable by the jurisdictions or the agencies involved.
Aug. 18, 2020 Item #9 Page 23 of 28
City NameName of Commission/CommitteeReporting Hierarchy Meetings Composition Purpose and Duties/Tasks or MissionAnaheimPolice Review BoardCity Manager MonthlySeven members Members selected using lottery system - one representative from each of Anaheim’s six council districts and one representative from the City at-large. Provide increased transparency; access to information; expand the public’s ability to provide feedback on police accountability and allow for greater civic engagement and further increase awareness of police services and operations. Through the City’s external auditor, the PRB will review critical incidents; receive real-time notifications of major incidents; review police practices and policies; and serve as an advisory body to the City Manager. BerkeleyPolice Review CommissionCity Council2nd & 4th WednesdaysNine membersEach council member shall appoint one member to the commission. All members shall be residents of the City of Berkeley. No officer or employee of the City shall be appointed to the commission.Advise and make recommendations to the public, council and city manager; review and make recommendations concerning all written and unwritten policies/practices/procedures of whatever kind and without limitation relating to the Berkeley Police Department, other law enforcement agencies and intelligence and military agencies operating with the city; receive complaints directed against the Police Department, investigate said complaints and make recommendations relating to departmental policies/procedures to council and city manager; exercise the power of subpoena; adopt rules and regulations and develop procedures for its own activities and investigations as may be necessary; to take testimony under oath.Citizens Review Committees on Police Practices & Procedures SurveyExhibit 4
Aug. 18, 2020Item #9 Page 24 of 28
BurbankPolice CommissionQuarterlyFive membersTo initiate studies and surveys in the general field of police science and law enforcement and report its findings and recommendations to the Council; to conduct hearings, investigations, or both, at the request of the Council for the purpose of ascertaining whether additional legislation is needed for the health, safety, peace and welfare of the City and to make findings and recommendations to the Council; To act in in an advisory capacity to the Council on policy matters pertaining to the Police Department of the City; To receive complaints, except those relating to traffic engineering, pertaining to the Police Department and law enforcement in general; to examine books, papers, records and accounts in the Police Department, other than confidential matters under investigation.Chula VistaCommunity Advisory CommitteePolice chiefNo less than twice a year - as needed13 membersComposed of community members that provide a positive influence on the department yet communicate alternative and divergent viewpoints and positions regarding public safety issues and initiatives.Advises Police Chief on police and community relations to deter and prevent crime and disorder problems; functions as a method of community participation in recommending and reviewing policies, practices and programs to educate the community and assist the department in being more sensitive, effective and responsive; works to encourage and foster citizen participation in community engagement activities; encourages and promotes open communication/cooperation between the department, residents and stakeholders of the city.DavisPolice Accountability CommissionCity CouncilMonthlyNine members (1 UCD student, 1 alternate) Appointment of commissioners is made by the City Council and shall reflect a diverse representation of the community and include members of various ethnicities, racial backgrounds, sexual orientations, economic status, etc. A minimum of two members appointed by council shall have demonstrated previous adverse interactions with the Davis Police Department. No member will have a law enforcement background.Develop Community Outreach Plan; provide input to audit Police Department policies/procedures/training; recommend changes/improvements to policies/ procedures/training; review Independent Police Auditor reports on misconduct complaints; provide input into reports; assess the work of the Independent Police Auditor; when time permits, respond to Davis Police Department requests for input on matters outside Independent Police Auditor/Commission priorities.InglewoodCitizen Police Oversight CommissionCity Council Monthly11 membersComposed of residents who broadly represent the diversity of the city. Two commissioners are appointed by the Mayor, two are appointed by each Council Member and one is appointed by the Chief of Police.Provide a means for prompt, impartial and fair investigation of all citizen complaints brought by individuals against the Inglewood Police Department, and provide for community participation in setting and reviewing police department polices, practices and procedures. Aug. 18, 2020Item #9 Page 25 of 28
Long BeachCitizen Police Complaint CommissionCity Council Monthly11 membersMembers appointed by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the City Council. One Commission member shall be appointed to represent each of the nine City Council districts, and two members are appointed at large. Each member of the City Council shall nominate an individual to the Mayor to represent each respective Council district.Receive, administer and investigate through an independent investigator, allegations of police misconduct; conduct a hearing into those allegations; subpoena and require the attendance of witnesses, production of books and papers pertinent to the investigation and administer oaths to such witnesses; make recommendations concerning allegations to the City Manager; recommend to City Council the provision of staff as is necessary to carry out its power and duties.National CityCommunity & Police Relations CommissionCity CouncilQuarterlyEight membersAppointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council. Of the eight members, seven (7) shall be voting members, and one (1) shall be a non-voting member. Of the seven voting members, five (5) shall be residents of the City of National City.The non-voting member shall be a member of the National City Police Officers’ Association.Receive and investigate citizen complaints regarding police conduct; request and receive supplemental information from the Police Department regarding citizen complaints and such other matters as the Commission may be reviewing; allow parties the opportunity to mediate their dispute; make recommendations to the City Council regarding additional duties which the Commission may perform; make an annual report of its activities, findings and recommendations to the City Council.OceansidePolice & Fire CommissionCity CouncilQuarterlyNine Members (seven regular members & two alternates) Appointed by the Mayor with consent of the City Council.Acts in an advisory capacity to the City Council on policy matters pertaining to safety, police, fire and other areas wherein the matter of public safety may be of concern; act to mobilize community participation to help find solutions to problems and concerns relating to public safety; make studies, reports, hold hearings and formulate policy recommendations to the City Council on matters relating to public safety; receive and expeditiously act on all special assignments requested by the City Council and submit reports and recommendations to the City Council on these assignments; submit recommended projects to the City Council for possible assignment by the City Council.Aug. 18, 2020Item #9 Page 26 of 28
RiversideCommunity Police Review CommissionCity Council MonthlyNine membersCommissioners appointed by the Mayor and City Council.Advise Mayor/Council on all police/community relations issues; conduct public education outreach; receive, review and investigate through the Executive Director, complaints filed within six months of date of alleged police misconduct, in writing with commission or any other City office; review and investigate the death of any individual arising out of or in connection with actions of a sworn police officer; conduct a hearing on filed complaints or commission initiated investigations; exercise the power of subpoena to require attendance of witnesses, and the production of books and papers pertinent to the investigation and administer oaths to witnesses and take testimony; make findings concerning allegations contained in the file complaint; review and advise the Police Department in matters pertaining to police policies and practices; submit an annual report ot the City Council on Commission activities.SacramentoSacramento Community Police Review CommissionCity CouncilNo less than nine times per year11 members Onemember shall be recommended for appointment by each councilmember, and three members shall be recommended for appointment by the mayor. After receiving councilmember recommendations, the mayor shall appoint all members of the commission, subject to the concurrence of a majority of the city council. All members must be residents of the City of Sacramento. No past or present peace officer, or current employee of the city shall be appointed to the commission. Advise and make recommendations to the City Council regarding police policy, procedures and best practices, including those related to community relations, hiring and training best practices; review quarterly reports prepared by the Office of Public Safety Accountability consistent with California Penal Code section 832.7(c), relating to the number, kind and status of all citizen complaints filed against police department personnel, to determine whether there are patterns of misconduct that necessitate revisions to police policy, practice or procedure. At least annually, report and make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council regarding the activities of the commission and the Sacramento Police Department’s efforts to strengthen bias-free policing and community-police relations.Aug. 18, 2020Item #9 Page 27 of 28
San DiegoCommunity Review BoardMayorMonthly23 membersComposed entirely of volunteers. All members must be at least 18 years of age and reside in the City of San Diego. Applicants are screened and interviewed by a selection committee made up of Board Members and community leaders who make recommendations to the Mayor, who makes all appointments to the CRB. Review all deaths occurring while a person is in custody; review and evaluate citizens' complaints against the department and Police Department administration of discipline from such complaints; submit semiannual report to the Mayor/City Council concerning evaluation of the department investigation of citizens' complaints; adopt bylaws consistent with the law for the governance of its business/procedures; may maintain a training program for individuals interested in applying to the Board; may refer, if appropriate, a completed citizen complaint investigation to the grand jury, district attorney or other governmental agency authorized by law to investigate.TulareCitizen Complaint Police Review BoardCity CouncilMonthlySeven membersFive members nominated by individual City Council members subject to approval of appointment by the remainder of the Council. The remaining two members selected at large by the City Council as a whole. Goal of the Council to select board members providing a diversity of ethnic, racial and socioeconomic backgrounds as well as a diversity of geographic representation from all areas of the city. In addition, an eighth, non-voting member shall be appointed by the membership of the recognized bargaining unit representing the sworn employees of the Police Department. The appointee shall be entitled to participate in all aspects of the Board’s activities, including reviewing citizen complaint investigations and discussions related thereto, except that the appointee shall not be entitled to vote on any matter before the Board. All appointees to the Board shall be residents of the city.Receive citizen complaints of alleged police officer misconduct in the form of misuse of force, false arrest, discrimination, criminal conduct, use of racial or ethnic slurs, abuse of authority, extreme discourtesy and/or serious misconduct. Has authority to review the Police Department investigation of all such allegations of police officer misconduct. Board shall further have the authority to make an annual report summarizing its activities and providing statistical information regarding the receipt and processing of citizen complaints of police officer misconduct. The Board is not intended to, nor shall it be invested with authority to, review disciplinary action if any, proposed and/or imposed upon police personnel as a result of the investigation of the citizen complaints.*County of San DiegoCitizens' Law Enforcement Review Board Rules and RegulationsBoard of SupervisorsMonthly11 MembersNominated by the Chief Administrative Officer and appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Each member shall be a qualified lector of San Diego County and shall possess a reputation for integrity and responsibility and have demonstrated an active interest in public affairs and service.To increase public confidence in government and accountability of law enforcement by conducting impartial and independent investigations of citizen complaints of misconduct concerning Sheriff's Deputies and Probation Officers employed by the County of San Diego.Aug. 18, 2020Item #9 Page 28 of 28