Bill Text: CA SB1347 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Amended
Bill Title: Electronic control weapons.
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2010-06-24 - Placed on inactive file on request of Senator Leno. [SB1347 Detail]
Download: California-2009-SB1347-Amended.html
BILL NUMBER: SB 1347 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 5, 2010
INTRODUCED BY Senator Leno
FEBRUARY 19, 2010
An act to add Article 6.1 (commencing with Section 12610) to
Chapter 6 of Title 2 of Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to
electroconductive electronic control
weapons.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1347, as amended, Leno. Electroconductive weapons.
Electronic control weapons.
Existing law regulates the use and possession of less lethal
weapons and stun guns, which are defined to include weapons able or
intended to stun or immobilize a person, like the electrical weapons
commonly known as tasers.
This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to
later amend the bill to codify the holding of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Bryan v. McPherson
, No. 08-55622 (2009) 590 F.3d 767 ,
relating to the use of tasers by law enforcement , would make
findings and declarations about electronic control weapons, and would
encourage law enforcement agencies to establish use of
force policies regarding those weapons, as specified. The bill would
provide that an electronic control weapon , as defined,
may only be used when objectively reasonable and compatible with
specified constitutional provisions and may not be used in the
absence of a threat of imminent physical harm to the officer or to
others .
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all
of the following:
(a) The use of electronic control weapons by law enforcement
officers can be an effective law enforcement tool to subdue persons
who pose an imminent threat of serious physical harm to the officer
or to others.
(b) It is important that law enforcement officers and agencies
recognize the risks of serious injury and even death that can result
from electronic control weapons use.
(c) Uniform minimum statewide standards regarding the use of
electronic control weapons by law enforcement officers will address
public concern regarding when officers may appropriately use this
type of force and will protect law enforcement officers against
unjustified allegations of excessive force.
(d) Law enforcement agencies are encouraged to establish use of
force policies for use of electronic control weapons that are
consistent with this section, and with best practices policies and
training procedures recommended by numerous national and
international bodies such as the Maryland Attorney General and the
Police Executive Research Forum.
(e) Prior to implementing an electronic control weapons program,
law enforcement agencies are encouraged to involve medical and mental
health experts to help ensure that policies and practices are
consistent with best practices for minimizing the need to use
electronic weapons or other force and assist with understanding,
identifying, and responding to mental health and medical issues
related to electronic control weapons.
(f) In order to ensure that public concerns are understood and
addressed, law enforcement agencies are encouraged to involve
community stakeholders before deciding whether to implement an
electronic control weapons program.
(g) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this measure
to codify the holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in Bryan
v. McPherson (9th Cir. 2009) 590 F.3d 767.
SEC. 2. Article 6.1 (commencing with Section
12610) is added to Chapter 6 of Title 2 of Part 4 of the
Penal Code , to read:
Article 6.1. Electronic Control Weapons
12610. (a) "Electronic control weapon" means any device used or
intended to be used as an offensive or defensive weapon that is
capable of temporarily immobilizing a person by the infliction of an
electrical charge.
(b) The use of an electronic control weapon by a peace officer
constitutes an intermediate, significant level of force and may be
authorized by the officer's employing agency only in circumstances
where that use is objectively reasonable and compatible with the
Fourth Amendment and Section 13 of Article 1 of the California
Constitution.
(c) Law enforcement agencies shall not authorize the use of
electronic control weapons for the purpose of obtaining compliance
absent a threat of imminent physical harm to the officer or others.
(d) Reasonableness, for purposes of this section, shall be
determined based on the totality of the circumstances, with the most
important factor being whether the suspect poses an immediate serious
physical threat to the officer or others.
(e) Additional factors that shall be considered in determining
reasonableness include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) The severity of the offense for which the suspect is being
arrested or detained.
(2) The nature and degree of any resistance by the suspect.
(3) To what degree the officer warned the suspect that an
electronic control weapon would be used.
(4) Whether the officer considered the use of any less intrusive
means of effecting the detention or arrest.
(5) Whether the suspect appeared to be mentally ill or emotionally
disturbed and whether the officer recognized this as a mitigating
factor against the use of this type of force.
SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature
to later amend this bill to codify the holding of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Bryan v. McPherson, No.
08-55622, relating to the use of tasers by law enforcement.
