Bill tightening police use of force standard passes Assembly committee

SACRAMENTO — Police groups signaled Tuesday they might sue if the Legislature passes a proposed bill changing the use of force standard in California as the Assembly Public Safety Committee approved AB 392 on a party line vote.

The bill would change the standard from “reasonable” to “necessary” for officers to use deadly force. Police groups oppose it, instead favoring SB 230, a state Senate bill that would call for new guidelines for officer training but would not change the legal standard.

AB 392’s lead author, Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, D-San Diego, opened her testimony by emphasizing the extent of the problem with police use of force in the state.

Weber said police in California kill people at rates far higher than the national average, especially in the jurisdictions of five police departments that rank in the top 15 nationally in terms of shootings by police. She added California’s current use of force statute, which dates to 1872, is “the oldest in the country.”

“These tragedies disproportionately impact communities of color,” Weber said. “Studies show that police kill young, unarmed black men at more than 20 times the rate they kill young white men.”

But Kathleen N. Mastagni Storm, a partner Mastagni Holstedt in Sacramento who represents police officers, said the bill would put officers in danger.

While Mastagni Storm said she recognized the need to “strike a balance” between the safety of officers and those they interact with, she said the bill was the wrong solution and could be challenged on constitutional grounds.

“AB 392’s proposed changes do not aid in striking that balance,” Mastagni Storm said. “Rather, they criminalize police use of force and incentivize disengagement in criminal prosecution.”

“All Californians have the right of self-defense,” she added. “This bill proposes an inferior right of self-defense for law enforcement officers, violating the equal protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment.”

The committee analysis for the bill repeatedly emphasizes officers will retain the self-defense rights enjoyed by all citizens. It adds the officers would continue to have a greater right in that they would have a presumption of “not being the aggressor” in many situations, such as preventing escape by a suspect.