Assemblywoman Introduces Bill to Create Guidelines for Peace Officer Interactions With Students

On January 13, Assemblywoman Dr. Shirley Weber introduced Assembly Bill 163 (AB163) that would require school districts to adopt policy regarding the scope of peace officer interactions on campus.

The bill would require that by the 2018-19 school year, as a condition of having a school police department to adopt specified policies, or as a condition of entering into or continuing an agreement with a local law enforcement agency to have one or more regularly assigned peace officers at any of its schools to enter into a memorandum of understanding containing specified policies, regarding the scope of peace officer interactions with pupils.

Under the bill:

• School staff can only call a peace officer when there is a real and immediate physical threat to pupils, teachers, or public safety or when mandated by existing law.
• A peace officer not arrest or discipline pupils for violations of school rules or for low-level misconduct
• A peace officer not interview or arrest a pupil on a school campus during school hours absent a real and immediate physical threat to pupils, teachers, or public safety.

According to the bill, during the 2013–14 school year, California K–12 schools reported 22,746 referrals of pupils to law enforcement and 9,540 pupil arrests. Pupils of color, pupils with disabilities, pupils in low-income households, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning pupils are disproportionately affected by these arrests and referrals to law enforcement.

From 2013 to 2014 in California, American Indian pupils were 3.4 times as likely, Black pupils were 2.7 times as likely, and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander pupils were 1.4 times as likely as their White peers to receive a school-based referral to law enforcement. Additionally, Black pupils were three times as likely, American Indian pupils were twice as likely, and Hawaiian/Pacific Islander pupils were 1.5 times as likely as White pupils to be subjected to school-related arrest.

In addition, in some large school districts in California, Latino pupils are significantly more likely than White pupils to be referred to law enforcement or arrested at school. Pupils with disabilities were three times as likely as pupils without disabilities to be arrested in school.

The average arrest rate in California schools where more than 80 percent of pupils were in low-income households was seven times the average arrest rate in schools where less than 20 percent of pupils were in low-income households.

AB 163 says that many school districts in California have conflicting, vague, or absent law enforcement policies that provide little to no meaningful guidance to school staff on when to call law enforcement to campus or how to interact with law enforcement. Most school districts in California give staff complete discretion to call law enforcement to address pupil misbehavior that should be handled by school staff such as administrators or counselors, including general school rule violations such as “disorderly conduct” or refusing to come in from recess, bullying and harassment, school “disruption,” and vandalism. Very few school districts in California have policies limiting law enforcement contact with pupils for rulebreaking or minor offenses.

AB 163 further noted that most school districts in California provide inadequate guidance to school staff on what they should do when law enforcement questions a pupil on campus. Very few school districts have policies ensuring that an adult other than a law enforcement officer is present during questioning to make sure the pupil’s civil rights are observed during the questioning or ensuring that school staff or law enforcement advises pupils that they have a constitutional right to remain silent. A large majority of school districts allow law enforcement officers to interview pupils immediately upon demand, stating that school staff “shall not hinder or delay” interrogations.

The bill also states that many school districts in California have no barriers to law enforcement removing a pupil from school–saying less than 20 percent of California school districts require a school administrator to determine why the law enforcement officer seeks to remove the pupil from school while  few school districts maintain any procedures governing the enforcement of arrest warrants on school campuses.

Under the Bill:

• School staff shall only call a peace officer when there is a real and immediate physical threat to pupils, teachers, or public safety, or when mandated by existing law.
• A peace officer shall not arrest or discipline pupils for violations of school rules or for low-level misconduct.
• Counselors and other school officials shall handle bullying, harassment, disruptiveness, vandalism, drug and alcohol abuse, and other nonviolent incidents.
• A peace officer shall not interview a pupil on a school campus during school hours absent a real and immediate physical threat to pupils, teachers, or public safety.
• When a threat necessitates that a peace officer interview a pupil on a school campus, the peace officer shall do all of the following:
  • (A) Notify the principal immediately when he or she arrives on campus.
  • (B) Provide identification, show proper credentials, and cite the legal authority for his or her actions when deployed to a school campus to question or detain a pupil. If the peace officer refuses to cite the legal authority for the interview, the principal or designee of the principal shall document the refusal, consult with the legal counsel of the school district, and receive approval from the legal counsel before allowing the interview to proceed.
  • (C) Explain to the school principal the reason for the interview and the reason the interview must be done at school, and obtain consent from the principal before proceeding.
  • (D) Conduct the interview in a private location outside of instructional time.
  • (E) Notify the pupil’s parent or guardian before the interview and ask for his or her consent before commencing the interview.
  • (F) Advise the pupil of his or her constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent, and explain to the pupil that anything he or she says can be used against him or her in court or otherwise.
  • (G) Allow the pupil to have his or her parent or guardian, or, if the parent or guardian is unavailable or if the pupil prefers, a school employee of the pupil’s choosing, present during questioning.
  • (H) Not restrain or handcuff the pupil during the interview.
• (3) A peace officer shall not arrest a pupil on a school campus during school hours absent a real and immediate physical threat to pupils, teachers, or public safety. When a threat necessitates that a peace officer arrest a pupil on a school campus, the peace officer shall do all of the following:
  • (A) Have a valid warrant.
  • (B) Explain to the school principal the reason for the arrest and the reason the arrest must be done at school.
  • (C) Conduct the arrest in a private location.
  • (D) Advise the pupil of his or her constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, and explain to the pupil that anything he or she says can be used against him or her in court or otherwise.
  • (E) Notify the pupil’s parent or guardian before the arrest. School staff shall also separately notify the pupil’s parent or guardian immediately upon the arrest, as required by Section 48906.

To view text of AB 163, click here.