Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), enacted in 2021, transformed and expanded the role of the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). Most of the mandates in SB 2 took effect on January 1, 2023. As many readers are likely aware, one of the most significant changes brought on by SB 2 is the
All California peace officers must meet initial standards set by the Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training (POST). Those standards have recently been expanded, and more change may be coming.
AB 846, effective January 1, 2021, modified Government Code section 1031 to require that a peace officer be free of bias against race or
On January 7, 2020, Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham (R-San Luis Obispo) reintroduced Assembly Bill 1599, which proposes to expand upon Senate Bill 1421 by making more records relating to officer-involved sexual assault available to the public. SB 1421 changed the status quo by amending Government Code section 832.7 to generally allow disclosure of records related to
On Monday morning, August 19, 2019, Governor Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 392, a police use-of-force bill that redefines the circumstances under which the use of lethal force by a peace officer is considered justifiable. The law is intended to encourage law enforcement to increasingly rely on alternative methods such as less-lethal force or de-escalation
On July 15, 2019, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued a decision in the case, Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Orange, PERB Decision No. 2657-M. At issue in the case was whether PERB has jurisdiction to hear claims brought by employee organizations that represent peace officers as that
This Special Bulletin was authored by J. Scott Tiedemann & Lars T. Reed
Over the past three months, since California Senate Bill 1421 went into effect on January 1, 2019, numerous public agencies across California have been involved in litigation over whether the new law applies to records created before 2019. After conflicting decisions from
This blog was authored by Alysha Stein-Manes.
On October 1, 2017, several peace officers from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department were in attendance at the 91 Harvest Music Festival when a gunman opened fire on the crowd. Fifty-eight people were killed and over 800 injured. Several of these peace officers brought other festivalgoers to
On September 30, 2018, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed two significant pieces of legislation, Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748, that will require major changes in how law enforcement agencies respond to requests for peace officer personnel records. We described this legislation in detail in a previous Special Bulletin.
In short, these
Courts have held that generally employees are not obligated to make a temporary assignment permanent where an employee requests reasonable accommodation because of a disability. This falls in line with the idea that employers are not expected to create as a form of accommodation new positions that did not previously exist. Recently, however, this notion
On how many occasions have you found yourself asking whether you can lawfully send an employee for a fitness for duty evaluation? At one time or another you may have been faced with an employee whose ability to perform their job is questioned. Sometimes these situations are clear: the employee is actually failing to perform his or her job duties and you have cause to believe they are not fit for duty. However, what about situations where an employee is performing the functions and duties of their job, 
but is acting out behaviorally in a way that is stressful and disruptful to a department or unit? Can that employee be sent for a fitness for duty evaluation even though they are competently performing their actual job duties?
In Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F. 3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2010), Brownfield, a Yakima police officer, was performing his duties as a peace officer, but his communications with his supervisors were overly emotional on about five occasions. For example, he used an expletive and he walked out of a meeting with two of his supervisors. On another occasion, Brownfield swore at a supervisor and told him to leave the room when he was talking with another officer. As a result of this behavior, the City ordered Brownfield to undergo a fitness for duty examination. The doctor diagnosed Brownfield with a permanent mood disorder and concluded that he was unfit for police duty. The City terminated Brownfield on the ground that he was unfit for duty.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That Behavioral Issues Warrant Fitness For Duty Examination