Posted as a courtesy by: David Sweigert Emergency Management Specialist CISA CISSP HCISPP

1. PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
Friday, April 4, 2014
10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Doubletree Hotel, 222 N. Vineyard Avenue, Grove Room, Ontario
AGENDA
SPECIAL ORDER: State Budget and Issues Briefing for all policy committee members
10:00 – 10:45 a.m., Harvest Room, Sacramento Convention Center
Upon adjournment, individual policy committee meetings will begin
I. Welcome and Introductions
II. Public Comment
III. Realignment: SmartJustice Offender Data Sharing Presentation
- Speaker: Linda Denly, Bureau Chief, Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Investigative
Services, California Department of Justice
IV. Moving Forward: Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
- Speaker: Neil Tyler, Executive Officer, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
V. State and Federal Legislative Update (Attachment A)
A. AB 1278 (Leno) Animal Control Officers Action
B. AB 1532 (Gatto) Motor Vehicle Accidents Action
C. AB 2200 (J. Perez) California Cyber Security Commission Action
D. SB 833 (Liu) Inmate Release and Transfer Action
E. SB 846 (Galgiani) Crimes: Violent Crime Information Center Action
F. SB 962 (Leno) Advanced Mobile Communications Devices Action
VI. Update on Concealed Carry Permit Litigation (Attachment B) Informational
VII. Next Meeting: Friday, June 20, 2014, Sacramento Convention Center
Brown Act Reminder: The League of California Cities’ Board of Directors has a policy of complying with the spirit of open meeting laws. Generally, off-agenda items may
be taken up only if:
1) Two-thirds of the policy committee members find a need for immediate action exists and the need to take action came to the attention of the policy
committee after the agenda was prepared (Note: If fewer than two-thirds of policy committee members are present, taking up an off-agenda item requires
a unanimous vote); or
2) A majority of the policy committee finds an emergency (for example: work stoppage or disaster) exists.
A majority of a city council may not, consistent with the Brown Act, discuss specific substantive issues among themselves at League meetings. Any such discussion is subject
to the Brown Act and must occur in a meeting that complies with its requirements.
NOTE: Policy committee members should be aware that lunch is usually served at these meetings. The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission takes the
position that the value of the lunch should be reported on city officials’ statement of economic interests form. Because of the service you provide at these meetings,
the League takes the position that the value of the lunch should be reported as income (in return for your service to the committee) as opposed to a gift (note that
this is not income for state or federal income tax purposes—just Political Reform Act reporting purposes). The League has been persistent, but unsuccessful, in
attempting to change the FPPC’s mind about this interpretation. As such, we feel we need to let you know about the issue so you can determine your course of
action.
If you would prefer not to have to report the value of the lunches as income, we will let you know the amount so you may reimburse the League. The lunches tend to
run in the $30 to $45 range. To review a copy of the FPPC’s most recent letter on this issue, please go to www.cacities.org/FPPCletter on the League’s Website.

2. ATTACHMENT A
PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
Legislative Agenda
January 2014
Staff: Tim Cromartie, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8252
Action Items
1. SB 1278 (Leno) – Animal Control Officers
Bill Summary:
This bill will require standardized training for animal control officers in the areas of powers of arrest and
serving of warrants pursuant to Penal Code Section 832, including training in the use of firearms. This
requirement also applies to directors, managers, supervisors, or any person in control of an animal control
agency, and includes fulfilling a 40-hour continuing education requirement every three years. There is an
exemption from the firearms training requirement for animal control officers for local agencies that
prohibit the use of firearms.
Background:
On November 28, 2012, Roy C. Marcum, a veteran animal control officer for Sacramento County, was
shot and killed during the performance of his duties by an irate animal owner.
The animal owner shot Marcum through a door using a large caliber rifle. Despite his years of service,
Officer Marcum had not been trained to address the full range of hazards he faced. Training such as that
required under this bill would include standing to the side of a door when approaching or waiting to enter
a residence.
Animal control officers routinely enter private property to seize animals where there is evidence of animal
cruelty, neglect, or the need for quarantine, often over the angry and violent objections of animal owners.
This places animal control officers (ACOs) in dangerous and potentially deadly situations. ACOs have
the authority to investigate felony crimes and make felony arrests. Despite the hazards to which these
duties expose them, there is no standardized training or in-service training for ACOs. Under current law,
security guards have stricter training standards than ACOs do, and many animal control agencies are not
located within municipal police departments that would require the necessary training as a matter of
routine.
Fiscal Impact:
The training mandated under this bill must be POST-certified (Peace Officer Standards and Training).
Unless local agencies opt to provide in-house training, which they may do if they have POST-certified
employees, this bill will entail significant additional costs for them, ranging from $500 to $750 per animal
control officer, not including the cost of range and/or materials fees in the case of firearms training.
Cities that have peace officers serving as animal control officers within a unit in local police departments
will be exempt from the bill; most others will have significant additional costs that will range from the
low thousands into low tens of thousands or more, depending on the number of animal control officers
employed by a given agency.
Existing League Policy:
There is no League policy with respect to animal control training.
Comments:
1

3. Although this bill represents a mandate on local agencies, there is no question that animal control officers
would benefit from heightened, standardized training given the frequently hazardous nature of their job.
Staff Recommendation:
OPPOSE. While this bill would require admittedly valuable training for animal control officers that will
enhance their level of preparation for hazardous situations, it does not contain a funding mechanism and
will entail additional costs that will be borne exclusively by local agencies.
Support and Opposition:
Support: California Animal Control Directors Association (Co-Sponsor); Humane Society of the United
States (Co-Sponsor)
Opposition:
2. AB 1532 (Gatto) – Motor Vehicle Accidents
Bill Summary:
This measure would require an automatic six-month suspension of a motorist’s driver’s license in cases
where the motorist hits a person with their vehicle and leaves the scene without stopping to offer to
provide contact information, including insurance information.
Background:
Hit and run accidents typically receive little attention, but have increased significantly in cities such as
Los Angeles in recent years. A recent investigation by L.A. Weekly found that nearly 20,000 hit-and-run
collisions – everything from fender benders to multiple fatalities – are recorded annually by the Los
Angeles Police Department. These incidents made up an astonishing 48 percent of all vehicle crashes in
Los Angeles in 2009, compared to an average rate of just 11 percent nationwide.
There are two categories of hit-and-run charges that prosecutors can pursue based upon the outcome of
the accident. The first, hit-and-run resulting in death or bodily injury, is a felony offense that results in
the immediate revocation of driving privileges for one year, and the possibility of significant fines and up
to four years in state prison. The second, hit-and-run involving property damage, is a misdemeanor
offense that results in fines but allows for an individual to retain his or her driving privileges after
prosecution.
Unfortunately, the two categories of hit-and-run charges that prosecutors may pursue fails to acknowledge
instances in which a driver commits a hit-and-run offense, strikes someone with his vehicle, and that
person suffers non-fatal injuries that also do not amount to permanent or serious injury. Although the
offense that the driver committed is more serious than property damage, many prosecutors decide to
pursue only the property damage charge because the injuries are minor. This creates a situation in which a
person who strikes and injures a pedestrian or cyclist, and immediately leaves the scene, can retain
driving privileges.
AB 1532 will encourage more drivers to take responsibility for striking another person with their vehicle,
by adding to the Vehicle Code an additional deterrent for hit-an-run behavior. It will create a new
category of hit-and-run that is an interim offense, not as severe as when people are killed or maimed, yet
more severe than a hit-and-run that causes property damage, which often receives a slap on the wrist. This
measure would require that, in the case hit-and-run offenses involving minor injuries, the driver would
lose his or her driver’s license for six months upon being found guilty.
Fiscal Impact:
2

4. There could be additional but indeterminate costs to cities if additional police reports regarding motor
vehicle accidents are filed as a result of this measure.
Existing League Policy:
The League supports a local government’s ability to double the fine for traffic violations in school zones
in an attempt to reduce the speed of drivers and protect our youth. The League also traffic safety
enhancements such as motorcycle helmets, child restraints, seat belt and speed limit laws.
Comments:
This measure provides a meaningful deterrent to driving behavior that is in conflict with the League’s
related policies in the Public Safety and Transportation arenas. There is no foolproof means for a
motorist, upon a casual visual examination following a collision in which his or her vehicle has struck
someone, to determine with certainty whether that person is seriously injured. Therefore, there can be no
justification for not stopping to offer contact and insurance information as required by current law.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT. This measure enhances road safety consistent with League policy in the Public Safety and
Transportation arenas.
Support and Opposition:
Support: California Association of Highway Patrolmen; City of Los Angeles; City and County of San
Francisco; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; Los Angeles Police Protective League; California Bicycle
Coalition
Opposition: CA Public Defenders Association
3. AB 2200 (J. Perez) – California Cyber Security Commission
Bill Summary:
This bill would establish the California Cyber Security Commission consisting of members representing
state, local, and federal governments, universities, the Legislature, and private industry. The Commission
would meet on a monthly basis, and would be charged with crafting cyber-attack response strategies and
defining a hierarchy of command within the state to execute them. Quarterly reports to the Governor and
the Legislature, detailing California’s cyber security status, and any progress in improving it. The bill
would sunset on January 1, 2020.
Background:
The national market for cyber security is estimated to be over $70 billion in 2014. Of that amount, $67
billion is estimated to be spent nationally by private companies for computer and network security. The
United States Department of Defense is planning to four billion six hundred million dollars
($4,600,000,000) on cyber security this year, with a planned total expenditure of $23 billion over the next
five years. Overall spending is expected to increase rapidly as recognition of threats becomes more
pervasive. Due to the concentration of software companies in Silicon Valley, the California economy
stands to benefit greatly from the anticipated growth in this industry.
The State of California has already invested in the purchase of cyber security, examples of which are
research funding for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and funding to augment a security
assessment and response team within the California National Guard.
The California Cyber Security Task Force was established in May 2013 for purposes of identifying
critical threats, assembling primary stakeholders, and highlighting the growing importance of the issue.
This has increased awareness of the state’s compliance with the new federal National Institute of
3

5. Standards and Technology (NIST) standards and the Office of Emergency Services establishing
Emergency Function 18 (EF 18), created particularly for cyber security. EF 18 is specific to cyber
security and was a reaction to the President's Feb 2013 Executive order. It was added this year to
California’s existing 17 other contingency plans that detail response strategy and capability alignment.
These were part of CalEMA's 2009 state emergency plan. The California Office of Emergency Services
is now responsible for it, but it remains unfinished due to a lack of resources and direction, which AB
2200 is expected to provide.
Over 50,000 new malicious online activities are identified every day, according to the United States
Department of Defense. Incidents of sophisticated and well-coordinated attacks and data breaches are
occurring more regularly, the average cost of which amount to more than $10 million. In 2012, a data
breach to the State of South Carolina required more than $20 million in response and restitution. The
State of California is vulnerable technically, legally, and financially to these threats.
Fiscal Impact:
This measure will have no fiscal impact on cities. Although the composition of the Commission will
have three representatives from local government, the bill does not specify that any of them must be from
municipalities.
Existing League Policy:
The League currently has no policy on cyber security.
Comments:
Cyber security has become so important that it not only affects the financial information of businesses and
private individuals, but it has national security implications – as evidenced by the fact that the U.S.
Defense Department has taken a leading role, in part due to concerns about potential cyber-attacks from
nations such as China and North Korea. Closer to home, California has much larger scale and points of
vulnerability with respect to cyber activity than South Carolina, the state cited in the Background section,
above. To the degree cities are digitizing their financial and other information and engaging in electronic
transactions (and it is an increasing trend), they too are at risk, so this will be a critical issue for them in
the near future.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT. This measure will add both resources and direction to California’s efforts to significantly
improve cyber security under the direction of the Office of Emergency Services.
Support and Opposition:
Support: None on file.
Opposition: None on file
4. SB 833 (Liu) – Inmate Release and Transfer
Bill Summary:
Current law requires that county jail inmates must be released by midnight on the last day of their
sentence. As a practical matter, given jail overcrowding in the wake of Realignment and normal
administrative delays, this means that many jail inmates are released late at night or in the early hours of
the morning. This presents a public safety hazard in that public transit often is not running in these time
frames, during which the possibility for criminal activity, either committed by or upon the recently
released inmate, is stronger. SB 833 would remedy this by providing county sheriffs with statutory
authorization to hold inmates, on a voluntary basis, for up to an additional sixteen hours so that they can
be released during normal business hours in a safer environment.
4

6. Background:
There is a greater likelihood that an inmate released late at night will be victimized or will himself
commit another crime. In the City of Eureka, a priest, Father Eric Freed, was beaten to death in the early
morning hours of January 1, 2014. Evidence strongly implicated a man jailed by police for drunkenness
hours earlier and subsequently released.
Fiscal Impact:
Since this measure is not a mandate, and will primarily affect Sheriffs’ offices and county jail systems, it
will have no fiscal impact on cities.
Existing League Policy:
The generally supports strategies that reduce violence, but has no specific policy on the issue of the time
frame for release of county jail inmates.
Comments:
The practice of releasing inmates late at night constitutes a public safety hazard to them and to others.
Senator Liu attempted this measure in 2009 with SB 153, but it took the form of a mandate on county jails
and was opposed by the State Sheriffs Association. SB 833 is purely permissive, and would require the
inmate’s consent to remain in custody for the additional time period. Counties that do not wish to hold
inmates for the 16-hour period beyond the completion of their sentences would not be required to do so.
Under SB 833, the voluntary custody scheme will apply only if a County Sheriff decides to offer the
option. The inmate must meet one of the following requirements:
• Complete their court-ordered sentence.
• Be released on their own recognizance.
• Have charges dismissed by the court.
• Be acquitted by a jury.
• Be cited and released on a misdemeanor charge.
• Post bail.
• Have charges dropped by the prosecutor.
Inmates must also provide expressed written consent that they are voluntarily remaining in county jail
custody pending transfer or travel arrangements.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT. This bill will enhance public safety by providing county jails with an alternative to late-
night inmate releases.
Support and Opposition:
Support: Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Sponsor)
Opposition: None on file
5. SB 846 (Galgiani) – Crimes: Violent Crime Information Center
Bill Summary:
This bill would clarify that, notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency is authorized to
request a copy of information or data maintained by the Department of Justice relating to the Violent
Crime Information Center, for the purpose of linking an unsolved miser or unidentified person case with
another case, or for the purpose of resolving an unsolved missing or unidentified person case.
5

7. Background:
The intent of the bill is to ensure that there are no restrictions on law enforcement’s ability to obtain
information from DOJ’s Violent Crime Information Center, particularly in the context of missing persons
or unidentified persons cases.
Fiscal Impact:
This measure will have no fiscal impact on cities, as it contains no mandate on local government.
Existing League Policy:
The League supports information sharing among law enforcement agencies generally, particularly in the
wake of Public Safety Realignment, but has no policy with respect to missing persons.
Comments:
This is a productive public measure that will enhance information sharing among law enforcement
agencies in the missing persons context.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT.
Support and Opposition:
Support: None on file.
Opposition: None on file
6. SB 962 (Leno) – Advanced Mobile Communications Devices
Bill Summary:
SB 962 will require any smartphone or tablet sold in California to include a technological solution that
renders the essential functions of the device inoperable when stolen. This technological solution, or “kill
switch,” would be activated remotely by the consumer using another electronic device (another
smartphone, laptop or personal computer), and would require the consumer to enter his or her unique
password, chosen at the time the smartphone was purchased, to activate this feature.
Such solutions remove the incentive for thieves by eliminating the device’s value on the secondary
market. As a result, this legislation will go a long way towards ending the epidemic of smartphone theft
and ensuring Californians are safeguarded from theft.
Background:
California is experiencing an increase in smartphone thefts, many of which turn violent. As the e scope of
this problem grows, the need for effective theft deterrence features on mobile devices has also increased.
According to the author, the theft of mobile communications devices now accounts for one third of all
robberies in the United States, making it the number one property crime in the country. This trend is
reflected in most major cities in California today, with smartphone theft now accounting for over 50% of
all robberies in San Francisco and as much as 75% in Oakland. Los Angeles has experienced a 12%
increase in this type of crime since 2012. Policing and prosecution are an essential component of crime
reduction, but this epidemic is simply too widespread to be addressed by enforcement alone.
Fiscal Impact:
This measure will have no fiscal impact on cities, as its mandate affects telecommunications companies.
6

8. Existing League Policy:
In the Telecommunications and Public Safety arenas, the League has no specific policy on this issue. In
general, the League supports the concept of having state consumer protection laws in the
telecommunications area apply as a minimum standard.
Comments:
The increase in smartphone theft is in part an issue of personal responsibility, as there are numerous
instances of persons being so absorbed in texting, reading email or performing some other function on
their devices that they lose all situational awareness, including any potential threats to their personal
safety. This factor alone does not account for the extent of the spike in related crimes, however.
The author argues with some justification that the wireless telecommunications industry, via related
insurance policies, earns an estimated $30 billion annually from lost and stolen devices, and therefore
may not have strong motivation to act to address the growing problem of smartphone theft. The
technology to render stolen devices useless already exists, but the author maintains that the industry has
been slow to embrace it. Consumer Reports magazine estimates that 1.6 million Americans were victims
of smartphone theft in 2012.
Staff Recommendation:
SUPPORT. Government action to require technological solutions such as that proposed by this bill, by
removing incentive for such theft, will be a significant deterrent that will enhance public safety.
Support and Opposition:
Support: San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon (Sponsor), California Police Chiefs Association,
California District Attorneys Association, City of Los Angeles, City of Oakland, Consumers Union, City
of San Diego, City of Santa Ana, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Los
Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan, Oakland Police Chief Sean Whent,
Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, Oakland City Councilman Dan Kalb
Opposition: None on file.
7

9. ATTACHMENT B
Status of Litigation on Concealed Carry Permits
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Peruta v. County of San Diego
Peruta Ruling Alters Criteria for Concealed Carry Permits: Good Cause Requirement Struck
Down
On February 13, 2014, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a surprise ruling, reversed the
district court’s summary judgment and held that a responsible, law-abiding citizen has a right
under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. It held further that a
citizen who applies for a concealed carry permit would not have to show “good cause” as to why
it was necessary – eliminating a requirement that has led to the denial of the overwhelming
majority of concealed carry applications by many county sheriffs.
In San Diego County, the sheriff's office holds the power to issue concealed weapons permits,
and it requires "all applicants to 'provide supporting documentation' in order 'to demonstrate and
elaborate good cause,'" according to court documents. The case was brought by Edward Peruta
after the San Diego County Sheriff's Office denied him a concealed weapons permit in 2009 due
to the "good cause" requirement.
NRA Campaign Triggered Court Challenges
The ruling arises from a nationwide National Rifle Association legal campaign to scale back
gun-control laws that was launched after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 struck down
Washington D.C.'s handgun ban and ruled that every law-abiding citizen has the right to possess
a handgun in the home.
Plaintiffs challenged a County of San Diego policy which interpreted California’s restriction on
carrying handguns in public. California generally prohibits the open or concealed carriage of a
handgun, whether loaded or unloaded, in public locations, absent the showing of, among other
things, good cause. Under San Diego’s policy, concern for one’s personal safety alone is not
considered good cause.
Peruta v. San Diego is a landmark case that follows and expands upon the 2008 Washington,
D.C. v. Heller decision.
The panel first held that a law-abiding citizen’s ability to carry a gun outside the home for self-
defense fell within the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-
defense. Applying the analysis set forth in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008),
the panel then held that it did not need to apply a particular standard of heightened scrutiny to the
San Diego policy because the “good cause” restriction amounted to a destruction of the Second
Amendment right altogether. The panel concluded that San Diego County’s “good cause”
permitting requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in
lawful self-defense.
Dissent
Dissenting, Judge Thomas stated that San Diego County’s “good cause” policy fell squarely
within the Supreme Court’s definition of a presumptively lawful regulatory measure. Judge
Thomas stated that in dealing a needless, sweeping judicial blow to the public safety discretion
invested in local law enforcement officers and to California’s carefully constructed firearm
8

10. regulatory scheme, the majority opinion conflicted with Supreme Court authority, the decisions
of sister circuits, and Ninth Circuit precedent.
On February 21, 2014 San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore announced he would not seek further review
of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
California State Attorney General Kamal Harris Weighs in
Harris' office noted that if the ruling is allowed to take effect, sheriffs all over California --
including the Bay Area, where counties are rather tightfisted about concealed-carry permits --
could be required to issue permits based on nothing more than the applicant's stated wish to carry
a gun for self-defense. Prior to the ruling, about 56,000 Californians had a concealed-weapons
permit in a state of 38 million residents.
Aftermath
Since the Peruta ruling, the Ninth Circuit has again struck down a “good cause” provision that
was part of a concealed carry permitting scheme. On March 6th
, the court deemed “good cause”
unconstitutional in the case of Richards v. Prieto arising out of a dispute in Yolo County.
Alameda County Sheriff Greg Ahern, head of the California State Sheriffs' Association, said
application requests increased statewide in the days after the Peruta ruling. But Ahern said the
association is not tracking the number of applications, and the state attorney general's office,
citing law enforcement needs, declined to disclose how many applications have been received
statewide since the ruling.
The Orange County Sheriffs Department, for instance, said it has received a little more than
1,000 applications since the ruling, which is about double the applications it receives annually.
Ventura, San Joaquin, San Diego and several other smaller and rural counties also reported
surges of hundreds of applications, which cost between $150 and $300 depending on the issuing
agency. Those three counties reported receiving hundreds of applications since Feb. 13, far
exceeding the numbers of requests for permits each county receives annually.
Ventura and San Joaquin have joined Orange in changing their permitting policy to make it
easier to obtain a license to carry a concealed gun. The San Diego County Sheriff's Department
said it is accepting applications under the looser policy, but is awaiting a final ruling before
reviewing the applications.
Next Steps
After the San Diego County Sheriff announced he would not appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision,
on February 28th
, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Police Chiefs
Association, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Legal Community Against
Violence, and the California Peace Officers Association, filed petitions requesting an en banc
hearing. The State of California represented by Harris and the Brady Campaign also filed
motions to intervene in the case as full-fledged parties.
The Ninth Circuit has since issued an order to the existing parties to the case, giving them a
deadline of Wednesday, March 26th
to respond to the above pleadings. There is no word yet as
to the next hearing on this case.
9