Sac'to Assembly Approves, Sends To State Senate, Bill To Require Peace Officers (Police, Sheriffs, CHP) To Collect Racial And Other Data For Every Officer-Conducted Stop For Submission To A Proposed "Racial And Identity Profiling Advisory Board" (See Members); Long Beach Ass'yman O'Donnell Declines To Vote "Yes" Or "No"

LBReport.com

News / Detailed Coverage

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(June 7, 2015) -- On June 3, the Assembly narrowly approved and sent to the state Senate -- with Long Beach Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell (D, Long Beach) declining to cast a recorded vote "yes" or "no" -- a bill with potentially far reaching public safety impacts that would require every state and local agency that employs peace officers (including police departments, sheriffs, CHP) to report annually to the state Attorney General's office data on all stops conducted by its officers (including the reason for the stop, its results (no action, warning, citation, property seizure, arrest) with the officer's perception of the race or ethnicity, gender, approximate age of the person stopped plus action(s) taken by the officer during the stop.

In addition, AB 953 would also create a "Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board" (RIPA) for the stated purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in law.

RIPA would be comprised of the following (or their designees): the CA Attorney General, the President of the CA Public Defenders Association, the presidents of the CA Police Chiefs Ass'n, State Sheriffs Ass'n, Peace Officers Research Ass'n of CA, CA Ass'n of Highway Patrolmen, and the Chairs of the California Legislative Black Caucus, Latino Legislative Caucus, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legislative Caucus.

RIPA would also include a university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity; two representatives of civil or human rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil and human rights and criminal justice, two representatives of community organizations specializing in civil or human rights and criminal justice and who work with victims of racial and identity profiling; two clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups or practices; and up to two other members prescribed by the state Attorney General.

[Scroll down for further.]

RIPA would analyze the data reported and law enforcement training on racial and identity profiling; work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies; issue an annual report and hold at least three annual public meetings to discuss racial and identity profiling and potential reforms.

[Scroll down for further.]

A legislative analysis by the Assembly Appropriations Committee [which focuses on state budget costs, not policy] said AB 953 would create "significant [state taxpayer] reimbursable mandated costs (General Fund), in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, significant costs to the CHP (to update their automated reporting system (approx $1 million), create a need for additional officers to document the additional data points or current service provided will be reduced. The analysis also indicates significant cost to the state Dept. of Justice (approx $2 million in 2015-16 and $10 million in 2016-17. and $9 million each year thereafter. The Committee's analysis didn't estimate costs to local police and sheriff agencies.

The bill narrowly cleared the Assembly floor with the minimum 41 votes needed to advance to the state Senate. The floor tally was 41-23 (at one point with only 40 "yes" votes, one short of passage, requiring the Speaker Pro Tem to repeat several times "all members vote who desire to vote" until a 41st vote appeared.) At the end of the day's session, some members changed their votes (a procedure allowed by the Assembly at the end of each day's actions) leaving the officially recorded tally as 45-27.

Assembly members in support of AB 953 called it a "data collection" measure. Only one Republican, Assemblyman Rocky Chavez (R., Oceanside) spoke in opposition.

Long Beach Assemblyman O'Donnell (D., Long Beach), who was present and voted on the bills immediately before and after AB 953, didn't speak during Assembly floor discussion and wasn't listed as voting "yes" or "no" in the floor tally. O'Donnell is officially recorded as "absent, abstaining or not voting" on the bill.

To the right is a screen save of the floor vote tally.

To view the names of the officially recorded "yays" and "nays" (45-27), click here.

To view the full text of AB 953 as most recently amended June 1 and headed to the state Senate is at this link.

[Scroll down for further.]

AB 953 received two Assembly Committee hearings: one in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on policy matters, and a second in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on fiscal matters [focuses on state budget costs, not policy.]

In an April 21 Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing on policy, its staff's legislative analysis reported [footnotes omitted here]:

Author's Statement: According to the author, "AB 953 will help eliminate the harmful and unjust practice of racial and identity profiling, and improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. AB 953 promotes equal protection and prevents unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Peace officers risk their lives every day, and the people of California greatly appreciate their hard work and dedication to public safety. At the same time, a recent poll shows that 55% of Californians and 85% of African-Americans in California believe that 'blacks and other minorities do not receive equal treatment in the criminal justice system.'<1> Racial and identity profiling significantly contributes to this lack of confidence in our justice system.
"Racial and identity profiling occurs when law enforcement personnel stop, search, seize property from, or interrogate a person without evidence of criminal activity. Studies show that profiling often occurs due to unconscious biases about particular demographic identities.<2>
"AB 953 would prevent profiling by, among other things, clarifying and modernizing California's current prohibition against profiling to better account for the ways in which profiling occurs, establishing a uniform system for collecting and analyzing data on law enforcement-community interactions, and establishing an advisory board that investigates profiling patterns and practices and provides recommendations on how to curb its harmful impact."
2)Racial Profiling: Racial profiling is a violation of our constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and equal protection. Existing state and federal law prohibits law enforcement officers from engaging in racial profiling. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (f).) "Racial profiling" is currently defined as the practice of detaining a suspect based on a broad set of criteria which casts suspicion on an entire class of people without any individualized suspicion of the particular person being stopped. (Pen. Code, § 13519.4, subd. (e).)
Although racial profiling is prohibited, studies show that racial profiling by law enforcement does occur. For example, according to a report by the Oakland Police Department released last week, African-Americans, who compose 28 percent of Oakland's population, accounted for 62 percent of police stops from last April to November. The figures also showed that stops of African-Americans were more likely to result in felony arrests. And, while African-Americans were more likely to be searched after being stopped, police were no more likely to find contraband from searching African-Americans than members of other racial groups.
Likewise, in 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported that "The U.S. Department of Justice has warned the Los Angeles Police Department that its investigations into racial profiling by officers are inadequate and that some cops still tolerate the practice."?"The Justice Department's concerns, which were conveyed in a recent letter obtained by The Times, are a setback for the LAPD, which remains under federal oversight on the issue." The article noted, "Profiling complaints typically occur after a traffic or pedestrian stop, when the officer is accused of targeting a person solely because of his or her race, ethnicity, religious garb or some other form of outward appearance. About 250 such cases arise each year, but more damaging is the widely held belief, especially among black and Latino men, that the practice is commonplace."
Argument in Support: According to the Youth Justice Coalition, a co-sponsor of this bill, "Racial and identity profiling - the practice of law enforcement stops, searches, property seizures, and/or interrogations in absence of evidence of criminal activity - have eroded public trust, led to humiliation and false detentions of thousands of Californians, and contribute to an increase in law enforcement use of force resulting in serious injury and death.
"In March 2015, the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended that profiling based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion gender, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability, and other demographic characteristics, be prohibited.
"Here in California, people throughout our state have long been plagues by the humiliating and frightening act of racial and identity profiling. In 2000, the Legislature found that 'racial profiling is a practice that presents a great danger to the fundamental principles of a democratic society,' and declared that 'it is abhorrent and cannot be tolerated.'
Subsequently, the Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that California's current prohibition against such acts is overvague (sic) and that law enforcement agencies have resisted following it.
As one of numerous examples, a 2015 report by a police department in California found that blacks were stopped twice as often as their driving age demographic representation, and that blacks and Latinos were less likely to be arrested.
"The persistence of profiling in our state violates the U.S. and California Constitutions by betraying the fundamental promise of equal protection, and infringing upon the guarantee that all people shall be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It also misdirects limited resources away from evidence-based policing and the efficient pursuit of individuals who actually pose a threat to public safety, thus making all Californians less safe."
Arguments in Opposition:
The Peace Officers Research Association of California writes, "Our officers pride themselves on the fact that all stops are made justly and for probable cause. They are rigorously trained by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), which includes thorough training on racial profiling.
"In addition, our officers have already compiled, for many years now, a lot of the information set forth in your bill, including race, ethnicity, gender, age, reason for stop, result of stop, whether the vehicle was searched, and if so, why, whether a warrant was issued, etc. We believe the additional information required will take much more of the officer's time and result in less service to the public."

An April 2015 legislative analysis by the Assembly Public Safety Committee listed its support/opposition [at that time; caveat, bill has since been amended] as follows:

Support
American Civil Liberties Union of California (Co-Sponsor)
Youth Justice Coalition (Co-Sponsor)
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
Alliance San Diego
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Asian Law Alliance Brown Boi Project
California Federation of Teachers
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Public Defenders Association
Californians United for a Responsible Budget
Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Central American Resource Center, Los Angeles
Community Coalition
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Courage Campaign
Dignity and Power Now
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
Equality California
FACTS Education Fund & Fair Chance Project
Filipino Migrant Center of Southern California
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
GSA Network
Greenlining Institute
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Immigrant Youth Coalition
Inland Empire Immigrant Youth Coalition
Inner City Struggle
Japanese American Citizens League
Justice for Immigrants Coalition of Inland Southern California
Justice Not Jails
K.W. Lee Center for Leadership
LA Voice
Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition
Los Angeles Black Worker Center
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership
Merced Organizing Project
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Day Laborer Organizing Network
National Employment Law Project
New Covenant Church
New PATH, Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing
New Way of Life Reentry Project
Pilipino Workers Center of Southern California
Placer People of Faith Together
Private Individual
Progressive Christians Uniting
Public Advocates
Reform California
Riverside Coalition for Police Accountability
Root & Rebound
Sacramento Area Congregations Together
Sadler Healthcare
San Francisco Organizing Project
San Francisco Tenants Union
Services, Immigrant Rights, and Education Network
Social Justice Learning Institute
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Starting Over, Inc.
Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Whittier Law School
Transgender Law Center
True North Organizing Network
W. Haywood Burns Institute
One Private Individual
Opposition
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association