by Tony Montoya – SFPOA President
Recently, significant amendments were agreed to by the author of AB 392. Without those amendments, we would have continued our strong opposition to the bill. The amendments to AB 392 were so substantive, every major law enforcement association in California that op-posed AB 392 has now withdrawn their opposition including the San Francisco Police Officers Association, Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, PORAC and the California Association of High-way Patrolmen. We have all now taken a neutral position on the bill.
It is important to state up front, the ACLU and the author of the bill did not succeed in changing the standard to evaluate the use of deadly force from reasonably objective to necessary. Here’s what’s changed. The amended bill does not expand criminal liability and the application of second-guessing to the actions of police officers who are forced to make split-second decisions. The definition of “necessary” in the previous version of the bill that would have required officers to exhaust a mental check-list of alternatives before using deadly force has been stricken.
The amended version of the bill that will be voted upon states that an officer can use deadly force:
“only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons – (c)(1)”:
“To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.” (c)(1)(A)
“To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately appre-hended.” (c)(1)(B)
The language above is consistent with current case law, but would now be codified in California law. This new language is no different than what we already are held accountable to by the Department.
Make no mistake about it, we would have never removed our objections if we felt that this legislation put you in greater danger of losing your life, job or freedom. The leaders in Sacramento listened to our concerns and that is reflected in the new version of the legislation.
Now, we will continue to push SB 230, which we support, that we believe will actually improve the likelihood of safe outcomes between law enforcement officers and the community. SB 230 will standardize and enhance training across the state in areas such as safely resolving mental health crisis situations and de-escalation tactics.
We will keep you updated on any significant developments related to AB 392 or SB 230. But you can rest assured that the ACLU was not victorious. No matter how much they spin in the media, they did not succeed. They pushed lies to support a dangerous bill and tried to bamboozle the legislature and we called them out on those lies and in the end, facts prevailed.
Comments are closed.