(Oct. 3, 2015, 10:05 p.m.) -- Governor Jerry Brown has signed into a law AB 953, a sweeping measure that will require CA law enforcement agencies to collect and report data on the perceived race, ethnicity and gender of every person stopped by an officer, as well as the results of the stop -- including traffic or pedestrian stops. The data to be recorded and reported could include no action, a warning, a citation, property seizure or arrest as well as the officer's actions during the stop.

The new law will require each agency annually to report the perceived racial, ethnic and gender data of those it stops to a "Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board" (RIPA), a newly created entity under the bill, tasked to analyze the data, make findings and provide recommendations "on the past and current status of racial and identity profiling, and...for eliminating racial and identity profiling."

The measure passed the state Senate on a 26-13 vote with state Senator Ricardo Lara (D., LB-Huntington Park) voting "yes" and state Senator Janet Nguyen (R, SE-LB/west OC) voting "no." It passed the Assembly 43-30 with Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell (D, LB) not casting a recorded vote on each occasion it came before him; O'Donnell was strongly supported by the Long Beach Police Officers Association PAC in his 2012 run for the Assembly...and LBPOA was among multiple law enforcement groups opposed to the bill (see list of supporters/opponents below.) Assemblyman Anthony Rendon (D, Lakewood) [now Assembly Speaker] voting "yes" on the bill.

To view the full text of AB 953, click here.

To view the recorded votes on the measure, click here.

[Scroll down for further.]

The measure will require all law enforcement agencies to report, at minimum, the following information for each officer stop:

(1) The time, date, and location of the stop.
(2) The reason for the stop.
(3) The result of the stop, such as, no action, warning, citation, property seizure, or arrest.
(4) If a warning or citation was issued, the warning provided or violation cited.
(5) If an arrest was made, the offense charged.
(6) The perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. For motor vehicle stops, this paragraph only applies to the driver, unless any actions specified under paragraph (7) apply in relation to a passenger, in which case the characteristics specified in this paragraph shall also be reported for him or her.
(7) Actions taken by the peace officer during the stop, including, but not limited to, the following:
(A) Whether the peace officer asked for consent to search the person, and, if so, whether consent was provided.
(B) Whether the peace officer searched the person or any property, and, if so, the basis for the search and the type of contraband or evidence discovered, if any.
(C) Whether the peace officer seized any property and, if so, the type of property that was seized and the basis for seizing the property...

...For purposes of this section, "stop" means any detention by a peace officer of a person, or any peace officer interaction with a person in which the peace officer conducts a search, including a consensual search, of the person's body or property in the person’s possession or control.

These data must then be reported annually to a "Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board (RIPA)" which the State Attorney General must establish by July 1, 2016 "for the purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling, and improving diversity and racial and identity sensitivity in law enforcement.for the stated purpose of eliminating racial and identity profiling and improving diversity and racial sensitivity in law enforcement."

Scroll down for further

Advertisement

Advertisement

RIPA's members must include:

(A) The Attorney General, or his or her designee.
(B) The President of the California Public Defenders Association, or his or her designee.
(C) The President of the California Police Chiefs Association, or his or her designee.
(D) The President of California State Sheriffs' Association, or his or her designee.
(E) The President of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, or his or her designee.
(F) The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, or his or her designee.
(G) A university professor who specializes in policing, and racial and identity equity.
(H) Two representatives of human or civil rights tax-exempt organizations who specialize in civil or human rights.
(I) Two representatives of community organizations who specialize in civil or human rights and criminal justice, and work with victims of racial and identity profiling. At least one representative shall be between 16 and 24 years of age.
(J) Two religious clergy members who specialize in addressing and reducing racial and identity bias toward individuals and groups.
(K) Up to two other members that the Governor may prescribe.
(L) Up to two other members that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate may prescribe.
(M) Up to two other members that the Speaker of the Assembly may prescribe."

Each year, the RIPA must:

"Analyze the data; analyze law enforcement training; work in partnership with state and local law enforcement agencies to review and analyze racial and identity profiling policies and practices across geographic areas in California; conduct, and consult available, evidence-based research on intentional and implicit biases, and law enforcement stop, search, and seizure tactics; issue a report that provides RIPA's analysis, detailed findings on the past and current status of racial and identity profiling, and makes policy recommendations for eliminating racial and identity profiling."

The RIPA must post its reports on the web, including "disaggregated statistical data for each reporting law enforcement agency" and hold at least three public meetings annually "to discuss racial and identity profiling, and potential reforms to prevent racial and identity profiling. Each year, one meeting shall be held in northern California, one in central California, and one in southern California."

Advertisement

Advertisement

An Assembly legislative analysis noted the following arguments in support and opposition:

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Advancement Project:

People throughout California have long been plagued by the humiliating and frightening act of racial and identity profiling. In 2000, for example, 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.” [Footnote omitted.] Subsequently, the Legislative Analyst's Office concluded that California's current prohibition against such acts is over-vague and that law enforcement agencies have resisted following it. [Footnote omitted.] 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 respectively searched at three and two times the rate of whites.

To add, those searches showed that blacks and Latinos were less likely to be arrested. [Footnote omitted.]

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 evidenced-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: According to the California State Sheriffs' Association:

AB 953 significantly expands the definition of racial profiling such that it prevents an officer from relying on identifying characteristics in any way in terms of deciding how to conduct police work. Specifically, by prohibiting an officer from considering or relying on, to any degree, a person's actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, this bill would prevent an officer from using the fact that a person appears to be a Caucasian female in deciding how to respond to a “be on the lookout” order that indicates that a white woman is suspected to have committed a crime. If such a person were stopped because of a traffic violation, the perceived race and gender characteristics could not be considered in deciding whether to escalate enforcement activities.

Additionally, AB 953 would require every law enforcement agency to annually report to the Attorney General (AG) data on all stops. Some of the data points that must be collected at every stop include: the reason for, and result of, the stop; if an arrest was made, the offense charged; whether the subject was searched; and the perceived race or ethnicity, gender, and approximate age of the person stopped, provided that the identification of these characteristics shall be based on the observation and perception of the peace officer making the stop, and the information shall not be requested from the person stopped. In essence, and counterintuitively, the bill seeks to combat racial profiling by requiring peace officers to pay very close attention to the race of the people with whom they interact.

Respectfully, AB 953 will hamstring peace officers and prevent them from doing their jobs effectively. The bill is overly broad and will result in negative impacts on public safety and local budgets. For these reasons, CSSA must oppose AB 953.

The state Senate legislative analysis noted support/opposition to the bill as follows:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/15)
American Civil Liberties Union of California (co-source)
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Sacramento (co-source)
California State Conference of the NAACP (co-source)
Dignity & Power Now (co-source)
PICO California (co-source)
Reform California (co-source)
Youth Justice Coalition (co-source)
A New Path
Advancement Project
Advancing Justice
AIDS Project Los Angeles
Alliance for Boys and Men of Color
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
API Equality-LA
Asian Law Alliance
Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach
Bay Area Youth Summit
Board of Rabbis of Southern California
Brown Boi Project
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Black Health Network
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Nurses Association
California Partnership
California State Council of Service Employees International
Children's Defense Fund—California
City of West Hollywood
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Community Coalition
Council on American-Islamic Relations
Courage Campaign
Dignity & Power Now
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
Equal Justice Society
FACTS Education Fund and Faire Chance Project
Friends Committee of Legislation of California
Immigrant Legal Resource Center
Immigrant Youth Coalition
Interfaith Center for Worker Justice
Islamic Shura Council
Japanese American Citizens League
Justice for Immigrants Coalition of Inland Southern California
LA Progressive
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Black Worker Center
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Los Angeles Regional Reentry Project
Los Angeles Urban League
Lutheran Office of Public Policy
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Lawyers Guild
PACT: People Acting in Community Together
PolicyLink
Priority Africa Network
Progressive Christians Uniting
San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium
San Diego LGBT Community Center
San Francisco Public Defender
South Asian Network
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
The Greenlining Institute
The K.W. Lee Center for Leadership

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/15)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police
California State Sheriffs' Association
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs' Association

Under the bill, law enforcement agencies with 1,000 or more peace officers must begin reporting data on or before April 1, 2019; those with 667-1,000 officers -- such as the Long Beach Police Department -- must begin reporting their data by April 1, 2020. Smaller agencies also have somewhat longer phased-in dates for data.