Relates to peace officer training; repealer

Summary of provisions

Sections 1 and 2 of the bill consolidate the provisions regarding the peace officer and police officer registries by, respectively, repealing Executive Law §845-a and amending Executive Law §845.

Section 3 of the bill amends Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) §2.30 regard- ing peace officer training requirements and raises the maximum required training program from 35 hours to 180 hours.

Sections 4 and 5 of the bill amend General Business Law §89-n and Public Officers Law §92, respectively, to make conforming changes.

Section 6 of the bill provides that it shall take effect on the first January 1 following enactment, but that the enhanced training require- ments shall apply only to peace officers appointed on or after the effective date of the act.

Existing law

Executive Law §845 contains provisions regarding the police officer registry and Executive Law §845-a contains provisions regarding the peace officer registry. While the sections are similar, they are not identical.

CPL §2.30(1) limits the length of the training program that can be prescribed by the Municipal Police Training Council, which all peace officers must successfully complete as a condition of their continued employment, to 35 hours. CPL 2.30(4) further limits the length of the training program for part-time peace officers to ten hours.

CPL 52.30(1) provides that an employer may not allow any peace officer to carry or use a weapon on-duty unless the officer has satisfactorily completed a course of training approved by the Municipal Police Training Council in the use of deadly physical force and firearms and other weap- ons, and annually receives instruction in deadly physical force and the use of firearms and other weapons as approved by the Council. In addi- tion, peace officers exempt from the criminal responsibility imposed by Penal Law §265.01(1) for the possession of a firearm without a license must satisfactorily complete a course of training approved by the Munic- ipal Police Training Council in the use of deadly physical force and firearms and other weapons, even if their employer does not allow them to carry a weapon on-duty.

Legislative history

This is a new proposal. A similar proposal was submitted last year (departmental bill #289), and was introduced as S.7512/A.11540, but did not pass either house.

Statement in support

The requirements of the police officer and peace officer registries, as set forth in Executive Law 5§845 and 845a, are similar, but not identical. This proposal will consolidate the require- ments for each registry in section 845, thereby ensuring a consistent registry process for both classes of officers. Such standardization also will facilitate more efficient processing of the information by staff of the Division of Criminal Justice Services (the Division). The current peace officer training requirements were enacted in 1980. The environ- ment in which peace officers carry out their functions, powers, and duties has changed drastically since that time, and the 35-hour limita- tion on training is now anachronistic. Peace officers are increasingly expected to enforce a variety of local and State laws. Peace officers are authorized to use force and make warrantless arrests and searches and, within their special duties, can be assigned to perform most of the same functions as police officers. But while police officers receive almost 500 hours of training and at least 160 hours of supervised field training, peace officer training is limited to 35 hours (ten hours in the case of a part-time peace officer) by CPL §2.30 (1) and (4). While peace officers do not necessarily require as much training as police officers, it is apparent that the current 35-hour and ten-hour training courses are grossly inadequate to prepare peace officers to safely carry out their functions.

Governor Paterson vetoed numerous bills conferring peace officer status on particular titles that were passed during the 2008 session, just as former Governor Spitzer had vetoed the vast majority of peace officer bills passed in 2007. Both Governors indicated their concern that the minimum training requirements for peace officers were not commensurate with the powers such officers are authorized to exercise. In 2007, former Governor Spitzer directed the Division to work with the Legisla- ture and interested parties to develop legislation to address this defi- ciency. As a result, departmental bill #289 was introduced during the 2008 session, but did not pass. In his 2008 veto messages, Governor Paterson directed the Division to continue working to reach an agreement that would be acceptable to stakeholders on the issue of peace officer training. This proposal attempts to address the objections that were raised regarding departmental bill #289, and thereby carry out the Governor's directive.

This proposal would require peace officers to complete a training course prescribed by the Municipal Police Training Council consisting of no more than 180 hours. This is the number of hours of training reasonably needed for peace officers to exercise the powers enumerated in CPL 2.20. This will enhance public safety generally, protect peace officers, safe- ty, and ensure that the Council is able to maintain the peace officer basic training course in a mariner consistent with contemporary condi- tions. The bill also eliminates the limitation on part-time peace offi- cer training. Peace officers possess the same powers and are responsible

for the same duties regardless of whether they are employed full-time or part-time. There is no logical reason to provide a peace officer with reduced training merely because he or she works less than 40 hours per week. Moreover, there can be no question that the current limitation for-part-time officers - a mere ten hours of training -is wholly insuf- ficient, and places both the officer and the public at risk.

The proposal also would modify the current firearms training require- ments for certain peace officers. Currently, peace officers may not carry a firearm on-duty unless they have successfully completed firearms training. In addition, however, peace officers exempt from the criminal responsibility imposed by Penal Law 5265.01(1) for the possession of a firearm without a license must complete firearms training, even if their employer does not allow them to carry a weapon on-duty. See County of Orange v. Division of Criminal Justice Services, 3 A.D.3d 206 (3d Dept. 2003). Peace officers who are exempt from the criminal' responsibility imposed by the Penal Law include, for example, probation officers and correction officers. See CPL 52.10(24), (25). Peace officers who are not exempt from criminal liability pursuant to the Penal Law, such as inves- tigators designated by the State Inspector General, must obtain a license pursuant to Penal Law 5400.00 to carry or possess a firearm. See CPL 52.10(68). Firearms training is generally not required as a prereq- uisite for obtaining a firearm license pursuant to Penal Law 5400.00. Thus, the proposal would treat peace officers exempt from criminal responsibility under the Penal Law, but who are not allowed to carry a firearm on-duty, in a manner comparable to those who carry a firearm pursuant to a license issued under the Penal Law. For peace officers not permitted to carry firearms on-duty, such as many county correction officers and probation officers, the bill would allow their employers to avoid the cost of providing them with firearms training. The bill would thus eliminate a significant unfunded mandate currently borne by many county governments.

In recognition of the fact that the new requirements may have fiscal implications and/or other adverse impacts on some peace officer employ- ers, the proposal would "grandfather" existing peace officers. Thus, the new training requirements would apply only to peace officers appointed on or after the effective date. Peace officers appointed prior to the effective date would continue to be subject to the training requirements in place at the time of their appointment.

Budget implications

There may be increased costs to peace officer employers associated with enhanced training requirements, but these costs are not expected to be prohibitive. First, many employers of peace officers already provide training that is far in excess of the 35 hours specified in the current statute, and which is likely to be fully or nearly compliant with any new standards that would be set under the bill. For example, the Department of Correctional Services, which employs a large number of peace officers, already requires extensive training that is closely tailored to the specialized needs of the offi- cers in that agency. Other employers which currently provide less rigor- ous training may face additional training costs that are necessary to

achieve the intended goal of the bill. Yet even then, there will be no large initial cost burden, because any new training requirements will apply only to officers appointed subsequent to its effective date, and not to officers currently employed. Finally, there will be a cost savings associated with the elimination of firearms training for peace officers who are exempt from criminal responsibility imposed by the Penal. Law for the possession of a firearm without a license, yet who are not authorized to carry on-duty.

Effective date

This bill would become effective on the first January 1 following enactment, but the enhanced training requirements would apply only to peace officers appointed on or after such effective date.