San Diego Union-Tribune (Sunday)
POLICE REFORM BILLS STILL IN MIX AS SESSION DRAWS TO CLOSE
As deadline nears, rush of legislation shows lawmakers’ responses to protesters calling for change
George Floyd died in another state, but shock waves from his death under the knee of a Minneapolis officer roiled the country. Since his Memorial Day death, thousands have taken to the streets in palpable frustration, and months of protests decrying police violence and racial injustice, and calling for equity and reform, followed.
California felt it. So did San Diego County, where thousands marched.
Protesters demanded change. State lawmakers took notice. Soon, in Sacramento, several policing reform bills were in play.
“That tells you that this is a year of great change, and that people who have been marching the streets and bringing signs and speaking out are being heard,” said Assemblyman Todd Gloria, a San Diego Democrat, earlier this month. Some police reform advocates see the rush of bills as ushering in necessary change. And some in law enforcement worry there was a lot of public pressure to make changes, too little deep discussion among stakeholders, and that the bills could have unintended consequences.
The California Legislature’s annual session is about to draw to a close. Monday marks the deadline to get bills to the governor’s desk. And while lawmakers consider their final votes as they work over the weekend, a shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, by a White officer in recent days — this time in Kenosha, Wis. — had sparked protests anew.
Some of the public safety bills were shelved in the final days of the session, including a duty-to
intervene bill backed by the state’s attorney general. But several are still in the mix.
Among them is a bill Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez brought in the wake of La Mesa’s fiery night — two banks burned, several stores were looted — and the demonstrations that followed in San Diego. In some of those incidents, police and sheriff ’s deputies used tear gas and fired rubber bullets or other less-lethal projectiles — one of which seriously wounded a La Mesa woman who was shot in her face.
Gonzalez’s AB 66 would regulate when officers can use rubber bullets and other less-lethal weapons, as well as bar them from using tear gas to gain crowd control.
The San Diego Democrat said getting people to listen was easier this year — a “stark” change, she said — thanks to the “heavy lift” last year by another San Diego Democrat, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, who won passage of AB 392 to narrow when police can use deadly force.
With Weber’s bill, peace officers can use deadly force only when “necessary,” when their life or the lives of others are in imminent danger. For years, the standard had been “reasonable” fear of imminent harm. The change gave California one of the highest use-of-force standards in the nation.
An awakening
Gonzalez also said she found that people up and down the state “really did have an awakening” about disparities in the way deadly force is used.
A review by the Uniontribune found that since 2000 in San Diego County, 220 people have died at the hands of police. More than half of them — 115 people — were Black or Latino. Black people make up 4.4 percent of the region’s population as per census data, but died in 14.7 percent of the fatal encounters with police over the last two decades.
Police say race is not a factor in the split-second decisions to use force, but rather an officer considers the totality of circumstances.
“We don’t have to explain to people why these things are necessary anymore,” she said. “People are telling us they are necessary.”
She said bills that had languished in prior sessions suddenly got a fresh look this year, such as AB 1506, which calls for independent investigations into police use of deadly force at the request of the police or district attorney.
NAACP encouraged
Kamaal Martin, the political action chair for the San Diego NAACP, said his organization is “very hopeful that a number of these bills will make their way to the governor’s desk, and can play a role in addressing the long-held grievances and injustices that so many of us in the community have had and continue to deal with.”
He also noted that some of the bills had been introduced in the previous session, which he said “shows a recognition from our legislators that these problems are long existing, long lasting, and not a new phenomenon.”
“At the same time,” he said, “we have a moment to capture people’s attention, and to push and propel positive legislation through, and get these to the governor’s desk.”
Reforms in action
Some reforms happened this year before they could be codified into law. On June 1, San Diego Police Chief David Nisleit announced that his department would no longer use the carotid restraint — also called the sleeper hold — a controversial move that when used correctly can render a suspect unconscious. Two days later, every major policing agency in the region followed suit.
By the end of the week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom had ordered that the hold would no longer be taught during police training. A bill to ban its use statewide followed. Gloria and Gonzalez are among the legislators whose names are on the bill.
Brian Marvel heads up the Peace Officers Research Association of California, the state’s largest law enforcement labor organization. He said Friday that most years bring a handful of big public safety bills, such as Weber’s use-of-force bill.
But in 2020, he said, there’s been more than two dozen — and nearly all hit or gained speed over the last few months.
“It just adds increased pressure in trying to create good policy,” said Marvel, who in years past had served as president of San Diego’s police union.
The COVID-19 pandemic prevented in-person sitdowns, and made it even tougher for stakeholders sit together and work through the bills. “They’re being created in silos,” Marvel said.
“I think you have a group of elected officials and their sponsors who are taking advantage of the moment to get legislation through without thorough vetting of the consequences,” he said.
The right kind of change
Chula Vista Police Chief Roxana Kennedy, who leads the region’s police chiefs association, said she has no problem with discussions regarding reforms, and taking a deep look at law enforcement. But she said eleventhhour changes to the bills could have unintended consequences.
“I am not opposed to change,” she said. “I just want to be sure it’s the right change.”
San Diego Police Officers Association President Jack Schaeffer echoed the same concern.
“A lot of times, it’s well-intentioned authors (who write the bills),” Schaeffer said, “but they need to talk to us to find out what they mean in reality.”
Bills have big impact
Changes made in Sacramento can have real consequences. Take Weber’s 2019 use-of-deadly-force bill.
It’s rare for prosecutors to file charges against local law enforcement officers when they shoot someone under color of authority. For several years, prosecutors found the deaths at the hands of the policing agencies in the region had been justifiable homicides.
But in May, authorities say, a sheriff ’s deputy fatally shot a f leeing suspect who he saw escaping from custody. Prosecutors charged the deputy with second-degree murder. And in doing so, prosecutors pointed to the change in use-of-force standards brought by Weber’s bill.
Among the public safety bills the Legislature considered this year:
• AB 66 from Gonzalez calls for regulating how and when officers can use rubber bullets and other less-lethal weapons, as well as barring them from using tear gas to gain crowd control.
• AB 1022 from Assemblyman Chris Holden, Dpasadena, would have required peace officers to intervene if they saw another officer using excessive force. It also would have required officers to be fired if they used such force to the point of serious injury or death. It was shelved earlier this month.
• AB 1196, from Assemblyman Mike Gipson, Dcarson, would ban law enforcement agencies from using chokeholds or carotid restraints.
• AB 1506 from Assemblyman Kevin Mccarty, Dsacramento, would create a special division inside the state Department of Justice to investigate — at the request of a local law enforcement agency or district attorney — when officers use deadly force. Investigators would have to provide written findings, and the state could also prosecute if it finds violations of law.
• SB 203 by Sen. Steven Bradford, D-gardena, would require minors age 17 or younger to speak with an attorney before police can question them or waive their Miranda rights.
• SB 480 from Sen. Bob Archuleta, D-pico Rivera, would bar law enforcement officials from wearing military-style uniforms.
• SB 731, also by Bradford, would allow the state Department of Justice to revoke the certification of officers if they are fired for misconduct or convicted of certain crimes, to prevent them from getting new law enforcement jobs elsewhere.
• SB 776 by Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-berkeley, would expand on a 2019 law that lifted some of the nation’s most secretive police records by requiring public access to disciplinary records involving investigations into officer shootings, use-offorce incidents and incidents involving officer misconduct.
Most of the bills were still alive as of Friday.