Peace officers: theft.
Vote required
Majority
Fiscal committee
No
Appropriation
No
Current location
In Floor Process
Take action
Record your position on this measure.
Create an account to record your position, submit testimony, or contact your legislator.
Progress
Where this bill stands in the legislative process.
- Introduced
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Overview
This bill amends California law to allow the Peace Officers’ Commission (POST) to suspend or revoke a peace officer’s certification if they commit certain theft offenses, specifically those committed under color of authority with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of property. The bill also clarifies the definition of ‘serious misconduct’ that POST can use to justify disciplinary action, including theft, and outlines procedures for investigating allegations of misconduct and protecting due process rights. It establishes a process for agencies to investigate misconduct and provides for the temporary suspension of certifications upon arrest or indictment.
Key provisions
- POST can suspend or revoke a peace officer’s certification for theft committed under color of authority with intent to permanently deprive the owner.
- The bill clarifies and expands the definition of ‘serious misconduct’ to include theft, among other offenses.
- Law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating allegations of serious misconduct.
- The division must promptly review grounds for decertification and can conduct additional investigations.
- A majority vote is required to initiate a review of potential decertification.
- Peace officers can voluntarily surrender their certification permanently, which is treated as revocation.
- POST can initiate revocation proceedings for certain theft offenses that occurred before 2022.
- Records of investigations must be retained for 30 years.
Who is affected
Bill text
Read the latest version inline or switch to a previous version.
Text extraction is in progress. View the official source.
Sponsors
Official sponsors from legislative records.
1 on record
Primary sponsor
Arguments
Reasons offered for and against this legislation.
Arguments in favor
No arguments in favor have been submitted.
Submit yoursArguments opposed
No arguments opposed have been submitted.
Submit yours