As I’ve previously written, SB2 doesn’t appear that onerous to California police officers. The bill, which Gov. Newsom signed into law yesterday, is being called “police reform” but in fact it does not include the thing cops fear and dislike the most: ending qualified immunity.
The California Peace Officers Association, which is sort of the union of all California Police Departments, argued that had the tougher provisions originally proposed in SB2 survived the legislative process, it “was set to inflict way more harm than any good that the author or supporters surmised” because it “lowered the threshold for peace officer ‘misconduct’ to such a level that would open the floodgates of litigation…” through frivolous or vengeful lawsuits.
But due to CPOA’s “pushback,” those harsher provisions were removed, and California peace officers, says CPOA, “can rest a bit more soundly knowing SB 2 is not as harsh as it once was.”
That’s good news. California cops knew that some form of “police reform” was inevitable, and so they appear ready to adapt to SB2’s new requirements, while breathing a sigh of relief that it could have been worse.
And what are those new requirements? As the media has widely reported, the new law raises the minimum age of cops from 18 to 21 (nothing wrong with that, in my opinion), and subjects them to “lifetime decertification” in California if they’ve been found guilty of “serious misconduct”: things like excessive force, sexual assault, physical abuse, intimidating witnesses, tampering with evidence, participation in a law-enforcement gang (such as “The Riders”), tampering with body-camera data, knowingly making a false arrest, or racial bias.
Nothing wrong with any of that, in my opinion, although I have some concerns about the “racial bias” part. It’s hard to defend oneself against these kinds of “when did you stop beating your wife?” allegations. SB2 itself is remarkably reticent when it comes to defining “racial bias.” The law says merely that “Demonstrating bias on the basis of race…in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner” shall result in the revocation of certification.
Pretty vague and open-ended. In other words, the new law is going to have to be tested, and parameters are going to have to be established, before it’s clear what the “racial bias” language means, or if it will hinder cops from performing their duties. I hope not; we’ll be watching.
As a cop supporter, I’m heartened that CPOA is okay with SB2. I’m also glad that the Oakland Police Officers Association “didn’t get involved” in a fight over the legislation, according to its head, Barry Donelan. Had OPOA been majorly concerned, they would have put out a statement expressing that concern—although the weird and ongoing situation with the Negotiated Settlement Agreement may be making OPD (and OPOA) hesitant to say anything about anything that could conceivably be construed as controversial or recalcitrant.
So here we are, in the SB2 era. The anti-cop forces didn’t get everything they wanted. Neither did police departments. That’s how democracy works. Now, maybe the anti-cop crowd will shut up and find something else to devote their energies to; they, like the cops, have to accept SB2 and get on with their lives.
Steve Heimoff