By Louis Wong
SFPOA President
Assembly Bill 1537 is framed as a narrowly targeted measure related to immigration enforcement. But in reality, it is a sweeping and deeply flawed proposal that would have far-reaching consequences for SFPOA members and California’s peace officers—especially those serving in complex, high-demand environments like San Francisco.
That is why the San Francisco Police Officers Association has formally opposed this legislation.
At its core, AB 1537 would prohibit peace officers from engaging in any secondary employment with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its contractors, or any entity connected to immigration enforcement.
On its face, that may sound limited. In practice, it is anything but.
As the Legislature’s own analysis acknowledges, the bill is overly broad and includes agencies and important law enforcement roles that have little or nothing to do with immigration enforcement. These agencies include FEMA, the Coast Guard, TSA, and other DHS components that perform critical functions in disaster response, maritime safety, infrastructure protection, and national security.
For San Francisco officers, this is not theoretical—it is immediate and real.
Our city’s coastline, port activity, and emergency preparedness depend on close coordination with federal partners. Under AB 1537, officers could be forced to choose between continuing their careers in local law enforcement and serving in roles that support search and rescue, coastal protection, or disaster response. That is not just impractical—it is harmful to public safety.
The bill’s broad reach creates another serious problem: uncertainty. By extending to DHS contractors and any entity that “assists” with immigration enforcement, officers may have no clear way of knowing whether a job is even permitted. Legislative analysts have already flagged this ambiguity, noting it is unclear how far the prohibition is intended to reach. That kind of vagueness puts officers at risk of inadvertently violating the law.
And the consequences for doing so are severe.
AB 1537 treats violations as “dishonesty,” exposing our officers to decertification—the loss of their ability to serve as peace officers in California. Decertification is meant for serious misconduct, not lawful off-duty employment. Expanding it in this way is a drastic step that threatens careers, undermines morale, and makes recruitment and retention even more difficult in a profession already under strain.
The bill also raises serious safety concerns. It would require public disclosure of officers’ secondary employment, creating a new avenue for harassment or targeting of officers, their families, and their employers. Transparency is important—but it must be balanced against officer safety. AB 1537 gets that balance wrong.
Perhaps most troubling is that this bill singles out one federal department and imposes a blanket prohibition, regardless of whether any actual conflict exists. Peace officers already operate under well-established rules governing outside employment. AB 1537 ignores that framework and replaces it with a one-size-fits-all restriction that fails to reflect the realities of modern policing.
Even the state’s legislative analysis suggests the bill should be narrowed. That alone should give California lawmakers pause.
San Francisco officers understand the importance of accountability, transparency, and community trust. But we also understand the importance of flexibility, partnership, and common sense. AB 1537 does not strike that balance. Instead, it limits opportunities, creates confusion, and weakens the very interagency cooperation that keeps our communities safe.
For all of these reasons, the SFPOA has taken the step of formally opposing AB 1537 and urging lawmakers to reconsider their approach.
This bill moves California in the wrong direction—for officers, for public safety, and for the communities we serve.
Comments are closed.