March President's Message

Staying Vigilant Beyond the Holidays: PORAC's Unwavering Commitment

This holiday season, while folks celebrated with their families and took much-needed time to rest and recharge, I want to assure you that the pace of PORAC’s commitment to protecting the rights and benefits of our members never slowed. Amid the festive cheer, several crucial developments demanded PORAC’s attention.

First and foremost was the recent implementation of new regulations concerning Racial & Identity Profiling Advisory (RIPA) reporting. The Department of Justice (CADOJ) implemented a policy mandating that peace officers disclose their gender identity along with other very personal demographic details. While this is all part of the RIPA data collection, this shift necessitates a careful examination of its implications on privacy and procedural documentation.

Simultaneously, the specter of Senate Bill 2 loomed large. This proposal, bordering on a near-total ban on Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) gun carry within the state, stirred concerns within law enforcement circles. The potential impact on officer safety and the delicate balance between public rights and security make this an issue that demands our continuous scrutiny.

Furthermore, post-holiday insights brought news of amendments to last session's canine bill, AB 742 (Jackson). As the legislation undergoes modifications, we stand vigilant to ensure that this misguided bill does not further erode our ability to keep the communities we serve safe. The bill will remain a top priority as we move into the second year of the two-year session.

Throughout this holiday season, PORAC stayed vigilant and addressed these and many other critical issues impacting our profession. We understand that our dedication to you, our members, extends beyond festive seasons, and we remain steadfast in navigating the evolving landscape of regulations and legislation that impacts us all – both in 2024 and beyond.

RIPA Regulation Requiring Self-Identification of Officer Gender

As you know, RIPA requires officers to report their perception of personal characteristics of each person they stop such as age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender. These data are submitted to the DOJ without the officer’s name or other unique identifying information (Code § 12525.5.) because they eventually become a public record. Recently, Attorney General Rob Bonta enacted new regulations that now require officers to report personal information about themselves, including their own gender identity. Not only does this put officer safety at risk, but it also conflicts with anti-discrimination protections afforded to all employees in California.

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), it is illegal for an employing agency to require any employee to disclose the above-mentioned information. The DOJ claims the regulation is meant to determine if there is a link between an officer’s identity and their decision making, but it ironically forces the most vulnerable officers to disclose private information protected by law. Both law enforcement labor and management jointly oppose the new reporting requirements.

We have spent years trying to work with the RIPA Board to correct its flawed data collection process. This is the most recent example of how the Board does not understand basic law enforcement practices and, in this case, fundamental California employment law. That is why in December, a coalition of law enforcement organizations – including PORAC and other law enforcement labor and management organizations – sent a letter to Attorney General Bonta demanding that RIPA suspend these new invasive regulations. After receiving no response, we filed an injunction on Friday, January 19th, I advise that in the meantime, peace officers and public safety unions confer with their agency on whether these disclosures are voluntary or mandatory so that peace officers can do their jobs without fear of personal information being shared publicly.

CCW Restrictions of Senate Bill 2

Senate Bill 2, which went into effect on January 1, places severe restrictions on CCW authorization with exemptions for peace officers and retired peace officers. Private citizens vetted by a rigorous background check process and licensed by the state regularly carry a firearm for personal protection. Some have done so for years. SB 2 uprooted longstanding rights of CCW holders to carry in the places now designated as “sensitive” and thus off-limits.

I have been actively supporting the litigation, May v. Bonta, that has resulted in the issuance of an injunction against the carry restrictions in SB 2. In short, SB 2 designates nearly every public place a sensitive area where carrying is prohibited. The new statute and the implementing regulations also increased the costs and training requirements for obtaining a CCW and therefore severely limits the pool of eligible CCW instructors.

Although SB 2 currently has minimal impact on active duty or retired peace officers, I remain concerned that the Legislature will eventually extend these restrictions to retired officers. The Legislature began clawing back peace officer exemptions to gun laws such as the Unsafe Handgun Act (SB 377) and outright refused to exempt peace officers from other noxious gun legislation – such as SB 505, which would have imposed strict liability even on justified use of a firearm in self-defense and required firearm insurance. That’s why I filed a declaration in support of the injunction against SB 2, just as I had done previously in Boland v. Bonta to support an injunction against the Unsafe Handgun Act. Thankfully, on January 6, 2024, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved a stay of a district court’s injunction against Senate Bill 2’s near-total ban on CCW gun carry in the state. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit has largely restored the status quo prior to the SB 2 ban on licensed concealed carry in nearly all public places.

Canine Working Group

Last year, Assemblymember Corey Jackson introduced a bill (AB 742) that would have prohibited the use of unleashed police canines by law enforcement for arrests or crowd control. PORAC was strongly opposed to the bill as it would severely limit the tools at an officer’s disposal to protect their own safety and apply the appropriate use of force. I firmly believe that police canines play a crucial role in ensuring public safety and preventing the loss of life during escalated situations. These highly trained and skilled animals and handlers serve as invaluable assets in apprehending suspects swiftly and effectively.

This was a two-year bill, and our partners at Aaron Read & Associates are closely tracking the changes being made to the legislation as Assemblyman Jackson prepares to reintroduce his bill this year. This is an ongoing effort involving a working group comprised of legislators, community groups, and law enforcement representatives. The intent is to strike a balance between ensuring the humane treatment of individuals and preserving the essential role of police canines in law enforcement operations. Rest assured that PORAC will take a firm stance against any bill that could infringe on a peace officer’s ability to do our job to the best of our ability with all available resources.

Several of the bills we take positions on or work to amend have never been vetted from a law enforcement perspective, so PORAC is incredibly diligent about reviewing each and every one to determine its impact on public safety. We will continue to advocate strongly with our elected leaders in Sacramento to encourage them to use common sense and pass practical bills that will truly make a positive impact.

Thank you for your continued support and commitment to our shared mission.