Regulations Implementing the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act (AB 655)

The Department of Justice (Department) proposes to adopt sections 941-954 of Title 11, Division 1, Chapter 11, of the California Code of Regulations concerning the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act, Assembly Bill 655 (2022), codified at Penal Code sections 13680-13683 ("AB 655"), which took effect on January 1, 2023, and was amended effective January 1, 2024.

A summary of the proposed regulations, a copy of the public notice, and related documents are provided below.

Notice Register Publication Date: January 24, 2025

PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Department will hold two public hearings to provide all interested persons with an opportunity to present statements or comments, either orally or in writing, with respect to the proposed regulations, as follows:

Wednesday, March 12, 2025, 3:00-5:00pm
Junipero Serra Building, Carmel Room
320 West 4th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Remote participation: https://doj-ca.zoomgov.com/j/1619080203
Phone participation: (669) 254 5252, access code 161 908 0203

Friday, March 14, 2025, 3:00-5:00pm
Elihu M. Harris Building, Auditorium
1515 Clay Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Remote participation: https://doj-ca.zoomgov.com/j/1616685630
Phone participation: (669) 254 5252, access code 161 668 5630

The locations of these hearings will be wheelchair accessible. If you need information about or assistance with accommodation requests, please contact Department of Justice, Civil Rights Enforcement Section, P.O. Box 160608, Sacramento, CA 95816-0608, (213) 269-6766, CLEARACT@doj.ca.gov, at least seven days before the scheduled meeting. At the hearing, any person may present statements or comments orally or in writing relevant to the proposed action. The Department requests but does not require that persons who make oral statements or comments at the hearing also submit a written copy of the comment made at the hearing.

WRITTEN COMMENT PERIOD

Any interested party, or their authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action to the contact persons listed below. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile (FAX) at (213) 897-7605 or by e-mail to CLEARACT@doj.ca.gov. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2025. The Department will consider only comments received by that time. Please address comments to:

Any interested party, or their authorized representative, may submit written comments relevant to the proposed regulatory action. The written comment period closes at 5:00 p.m. on March 14, 2025. The Department will consider only comments received by that time. Comments may be submitted via facsimile, email, or mail to:

Fax: (213) 897-7605

E-mail: CLEARACT@doj.ca.gov

Mail:

Department of Justice
Civil Rights Enforcement Section
P.O. Box 160608
Sacramento, CA 95816-0608
(213) 269-6766
CLEARACT@doj.ca.gov

NOTE: Written and oral comments, attachments, and associated contact information (e.g., address, phone, email, etc.) become part of the public record and can be released to the public upon request.

The information below relates to recent rulemaking activity, including links to the regulations text and associated documents. Any person who has submitted a comment regarding a proposed action has the right to request a copy of the Final Statement of Reasons. The Final Statement will also be posted to this webpage upon completion of this rulemaking.

Summary of Existing Laws and Regulations:

Effective January 1, 2023, the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act, Assembly Bill 655 (2022), codified at Penal Code sections 13680-13683 ("AB 655"), identifies three categories of misconduct by peace officers that, if sustained after an investigation and adjudication of complaints regarding this misconduct, will result in their termination: membership in a hate group, participation in hate group activity, and public expressions of hate (together, "Covered Misconduct"). (Pen. Code, § 13682; see also, id., § 13680, subds. (d), (e), (g).) The categories of misconduct are defined in AB 655 and are narrow in scope. For example, a "hate group" is an organization that supports, advocates for, threatens or practices genocide or the commission of "hate crimes," a term that is defined in another California statute, Penal Code section 422.55. Likewise, a "public expression of hate" is also defined in the statute and refers to a statement made to another, including in an online forum, that explicitly advocates, threatens, or supports the commission of a hate crime or genocide or explicitly advocates for or supports a hate group.

Public agencies are required to determine whether any candidate for a peace officer position has engaged in such Covered Misconduct during the previous seven years and since 18 years of age, and to deny employment if so. (Pen. Code, § 13681, subds. (a), (b).) Likewise, if a public agency receives a complaint that one of its peace officers has engaged in Covered Misconduct, the agency must investigate, or cause to be investigated by an appropriate oversight agency, the complaint and, where a sustained finding of misconduct is reached, must terminate the peace officer's appointment as a peace officer. (Pen. Code, § 13682, subds. (a), (b).) Records of investigations pursuant to the statute that result in a sustained finding of misconduct are exempted from certain existing confidentiality protections. (Pen. Code, § 13683.)

The Department is directed to "promulgate guidelines for the investigation and adjudication of a complaint" that "alleges, with sufficient particularity to investigate the matter, that a peace officer" has engaged in Covered Misconduct, whether such complaint is internal or received from the public. (Pen. Code, § 13682, subds. (a), (c).)

In fulfilling its obligation to promulgate such regulations, the Department must ensure that affected agencies are provided with clear rules to facilitate the acceptance of complaints in all forms, the effective and efficient investigation of such complaints, and their fair adjudication. In so doing, the Department must balance the statute's interest in promoting effective, efficient, and timely investigation and resolution of covered misconduct with the need to protect due process interests and avoid undue burden on affected agencies.

Effect of the Proposed Rulemaking:

The proposed regulations establish rules for the investigation and adjudication of complaints involving the specific conduct addressed by AB 655 – namely, membership in hate groups, participation in hate group activity, and public expressions of hate, as those concepts are defined in the statute.

With respect to investigations, the proposed regulations establish uniform standards for the receipt of both public and internal complaints, the initial evaluation of complaints to determine whether they are governed by the statute, and the conduct of investigations. These rules will ensure that investigations are conducted effectively and are able to address the unique needs of the cases governed by AB 655. With respect to adjudications, the proposed regulations establish uniform standards for evaluation of evidence, with the aims of ensuring that investigation subjects receive due process and that agencies fully consider evidence collected during investigations.

Anticipated Benefits of the Proposed Regulations:

AB 655 requires the Department to promulgate rules governing the investigation and adjudication of complaints of Covered Misconduct. The overarching benefits of the proposed regulatory action are anticipated to give effect to the expressed purpose of the statute, namely, "[t]o increase public trust in law enforcement" and to "root out those who would jeopardize public safety with their extremist and violent behavior." Broadly speaking, such efforts should also be expected to reduce incidences of bias in law enforcement activity, to reduce the number and severity of use-of-force incidents, and to promote efficiency in law enforcement agencies by removing from service peace officers who may be prone to more frequent or more severe misconduct. As a result, the implementation of AB 655 through the proposed regulations will benefit public health and welfare and promote worker safety among personnel of law enforcement agencies.

Within these broad aims, the proposed regulations are specifically anticipated to promote the quality of law enforcement internal investigation and adjudication processes. The proposed regulations clarify terms and concepts presented in the statute in order to avoid inconsistency, arbitrariness, and confusion in investigations and adjudications conducted pursuant to AB 655. The regulations also clarify the relationship between Covered Misconduct and "serious misconduct" that must be reported to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training at certain stages following receipt of a complaint. (See Pen. Code, §§ 13510.8, 13510.9.) These clarifications will help to establish law enforcement agency reporting obligations and avoid uncertainty or duplicative processes.

The author of the bill identified its purpose as follows:

Comparable Federal Regulations:

There are no existing federal regulations or statutes comparable to these proposed regulations.

Determination of Inconsistency/Incompatibility with Existing State Regulations:

The Department has determined these proposed regulations are not inconsistent or incompatible with any existing state regulations, because there are no existing regulations that address the specific subject matter of the proposed regulations, namely, the requirement that agencies that employ peace officers (as defined) are required to investigate and adjudicate complaints regarding certain misconduct and terminate officers if findings regarding that misconduct are sustained.

There are existing state regulations that address civilian complaints, but none specifically regarding complaints about Covered Misconduct. Moreover, the statute explicitly provides that its scope overrides any existing and potentially conflicting laws, other than two provisions of the Peace Officer Bill of Rights concerning appeals of disciplinary actions (see Pen. Code, § 13680, subd. (h)). (See Pen. Code, § 13682, subd. (a) [overriding Government Code section 19635 "or any other law" regarding the investigation of complaints of Covered Misconduct]; Pen. Code, § 13683, subd. (a) [overriding Penal Code section 832.7, Government Code section 6254, "or any other law" regarding the non-confidentiality of records regarding investigations in which a finding of misconduct is sustained].) Accordingly, the proposed regulations comport with the statute's mandate that the statute overrides any existing laws or regulations regarding the investigation and confidentiality of records related to the investigations where findings are sustained.

Regarding civilian complaints about peace officer misconduct generally, and about certain categories of peace officers, there are state laws and regulations that provide for different timelines than what is permitted by the statute (the regulations simply restate these timelines, namely, that a complaint can be investigated for conduct that occurred up to seven years prior, and that termination can be based on this misconduct).

Below are examples of state laws, regulations, and potential policies that broadly address the intake of civilian complaints and investigation of police officer misconduct which may vary from the statute and proposed regulations implementing the statute:

• Gov. Code, § 3303, subds. (b), (c) (notice to subject in advance of interview)
• Gov. Code, § 3303, subd. (b) (limit of two interrogators)
• Gov. Code, § 3303, subd. (g) (subject access to evidence during investigation)
• Gov. Code, § 3303, subd. (i) (absolute right to counsel during interview)
• Gov. Code, § 3304, subd. (d) (no disciplinary action if investigation not completed within one year)
• Gov. Code, § 19635 (notice of adverse action against state employee must be served within three years after the cause for discipline—which is the basis for the action—first arose, except that action based on fraud, embezzlement, or the falsification of records must be brought within three years after the discovery of such)
• Pen. Code, § 148.6, subd. (a)(2) (requiring advisory to complainants that false complaints may be prosecuted)
• Pen. Code, § 832.7 (regarding confidentiality of records relating to civilian complaints)
• Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 3417 (setting forth procedure for non-inmate civilians to submit complaints against correctional officers, stating that "[c]itizen's complaints alleging misconduct of a departmental peace officer shall be filed within twelve months of the alleged misconduct.")
• Any policy or collective bargaining agreement requiring, in all circumstances, that administrative investigations be postponed pending resolution of any related criminal investigation
• Any policy or collective bargaining agreement preventing an investigative or adjudicative authority from drawing an adverse inference from a subject's refusal to answer questions or provide evidence in the context of an administrative investigation

Public Notice and Related Documents

• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
• Text of Proposed Regulations
• Initial Statement of Reasons
• Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement (STD 399)
• STD 399 Attachment
• Tips for Making Effective Comments

NOTE: Regulation documents prepared by the Department may contain markup including underline, strikethrough, or highlight. While these documents are ADA-compliant, upon request, the Department can prepare a more screen reader-friendly version of these documents with annotations that explain the marked changes. Please submit all requests to regulations@doj.ca.gov.