Senate Bill 2
Overview of SB 2
Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2021. SB 2 significantly impacts law enforcement agencies across the state. Its purpose is to increase accountability for peace office misconduct. In doing so, SB 2 makes five (5) significant changes, each of which will be discussed in more detail. SB 2:
Creates a process for California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to revoke peace officers’ certifications such that those individuals will be disqualified from peace officer employment in California.
Expands the list of circumstances that will disqualify a person from employment as a peace officer.
Requires law enforcement agencies to investigate all complaints or claims of serious misconduct by peace officers regardless of whether the subject officer(s) is/are still employed by the agency.
Requires law enforcement agencies to report to POST all complaints, claims, allegations, and findings of serious misconduct.
Removes some immunity provisions for peace officers and their employing agencies in civil rights lawsuits brought under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.
Peace officer CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
Currently, POST has the authority to cancel a certificate that was awarded in error or obtained fraudulently, but cannot otherwise cancel a previously issued certificate. SB 2 significantly expands POST’s authority in a variety of ways.
First and most notably, SB 2 requires law enforcement agencies to employ as peace officers only those individuals who hold a current and valid Basic POST Certificate. It also requires POST to revoke certification when an individual has become ineligible to hold office as a peace officer under Government Code §1029, or when an individual has been terminated for cause, or otherwise engaged in, “serious misconduct.” SB 2 specifies that the term shall at a minimum include the following:
Dishonesty, including tampering with, falsifying, destroying, or concealing evidence, and tampering with data recorded by a BWC or other device.
Intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, or knowingly making a false arrest.
Excessive or unreasonable force.
Sexual assault.
Demonstrating bias on the basis of any legally protected status.
Egregious or repeated violations of any law inconsistent with a peace officer’s duties.
Participation in a “law enforcement gang.”
Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct.
Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary.
Second, SB 2 authorizes POST to conduct investigations to determine the fitness of any person to serve as a peace officer in California, and to conduct audits of agencies that employ peace officers. To do so, the bill establishes a Peace Officer Standards Accountability Division (“Division”) with POST, with the responsibility to review investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies, and to conduct its own investigations into misconduct that could provide grounds for suspension or revocation of a peace officer’s certification. This Division will also have the responsibility to make findings and recommendations to the Commission, to conduct administrative proceedings seeking suspension or revocation, and to accept complaints from members of the public or law enforcement agencies.
The bill also amends Penal Code Section 832.7 (Pitchess statute) to allow disclosure to POST of otherwise confidential peace officer personnel records.
Third, SB 2 directs the Governor to establish a Peace Officers Standards Accountability Board. The purpose of the Board will be to hear the findings and recommendations from the investigative division and make recommendations on decertification to the POST commission. The Board will consist of nine members serving a three year term, all but two of whom are appointed by the Governor:
One current or former peace officer with command experience.
One current or former peace officer with management experience in internal investigations or disciplinary proceedings of peace officers.
Two members of the public with experience in police accountability issues working at nonprofit or academic institutions.
Two members of the public with experience in police accountability issues working in community-based organizations.
Two members of the public, with “strong consideration” given to individuals who have been subjected to wrongful use(s) of force by a peace officer, or surviving family members of a person killed by wrongful use(s) of force by a peace officer.
One attorney with professional experience involving oversight of police officers.
