1360 Van Ness Ave, Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 268-3372
A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
This section contains the latest news from Eric Schmidt, President of the Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association, as well as an archive of past newsletters.
NEWSLETTER ARCHIVE
A Message from the President, July 2019
Deputy John Erickson Recovers
A call for service on Tuesday, July 2, 2019 changed the lives of Deputy Sheriff John Erickson and his family forever. The events which took place that day, also greatly impacted Deputy Gary Davenport. Gary responded to the call with Erickson, engaged and immediately began caring for his injured deputy, until help arrived. Miraculously, a brave ride along, who was with Deputy Erickson that day, narrowly escaped bullets and followed the deputies instructions while ducking for cover. The area was remote and the armed suspect was firing repeatedly at them. Deputy Erickson was shot multiple times.
Before the deputies and ride along were faced with a barrage of bullets, the call and shift seemed routine. Deputy Erickson and Davenport were responding to a call in the area of Tollhouse in an attempt to solve a quarrel among neighbors. However, it was a day the suspect didn’t care about law and order. The suspect not only fired at the deputies, he also left Erickson’s patrol truck riddled with bullet holes. It was a blatant disregard for him and law enforcement in general. The neighbor quarrel was overshadowed by the efforts to kill a deputy sheriff.
Deputy Erickson was rescued from the scene by patrol deputies who put together a downed officer rescue. Under pressure and difficult terrain, deputies carried him for yards until they were able to get him to safety. Deputy Erickson was loaded in CHP H40 and flown to CRMC for care in the trauma unit.
Many sheriff’s personnel rushed to the hospital to support Erickson and his concerned family. It was a moment filled with nervousness and anxiety. We all felt it that day. Worry, hope, sadness, and tremendous gratefulness that Erickson’s life was spared.
The initial prognosis given to Sheriff Mims and Erickson’s family was a broken right leg. However, when doctors were able to take a closer look, they discovered internal damage. During an intricate surgery, that lasted about seven hours, surgeons repaired his broken leg and removed bullet fragments from his large intestine and liver. He also suffered a small amount of damage to his vertebrate, that was repaired.
Deputy Erickson is a survivor and a fighter and his valiant spirit has been shown over the past weeks. He was released from the hospital after nine days to recover at home with his family.
It’s been an emotional time, filled with laughter, tears, reminiscing and joy.
Please accept my heartfelt thanks to everyone of you, who has contributed in a big or small way to helping Erickson and his family over the past weeks. From the California Highway Patrol’s H-40 crew who assisted with an 8 minute flight to CRMC that day, to each deputy and friend who stopped in the hospital to say hi and offer a hug. It has all meant so much. Every phone call, flower arrangement, bag of candy, and card has been special. It reminded us we are all a large family. No one is left behind or forgotten in this family.
A special thank you to Deputy Sheriff Patrick Hanson, who selflessly spent each night with John. Some of you were so gracious and wanted Deputy Erickson to feel supported and loved, that you cancelled or postponed vacations with your own family to be there for him. Thank you.
Many of you have stepped up to help with meals for the Erickson family. They are forever grateful for this gesture of love. Your visits are feeding his family and nurturing his soul. They remind him we care and we are here for him.
I also want to thank everyone onscene that day. Whether you were on the radio, in the air, at the hospital or assisting the Erickson family in some way over the past weeks- they are grateful and we are grateful.
POST Certificate information
Since we have many newer employees, below is a chart that reviews the requirements to obtain your POST Certificate at the Intermediate and Advanced levels.
I field a lot of questions about educational incentives, including dollars for Masters and Bachelor degrees.
If you look at the chart below, you will see how those are factored into to how you can ultimately expedite your POST incentive pay from the County of Fresno.
Remember this POST pay is compensable – meaning it is computed into your final compensation for pension purposes.
Currently as it stands the Intermediate POST pays 2.5% and Advanced POST pays 5%.
Intermediate Certificate Award Requirements
Applicants for the award of an Intermediate Certificate shall:
(1) Satisfy the requirements specified in Regulation section 9070(d) for all certificates.
(2) Possess or be eligible to possess the Basic Certificate for the current position
(3) Satisfy one of the following eligibility combinations:
|
Degree or Education Points* |
Law Enforcement Experience |
Training Points |
||||
|
Bachelor Degree |
and |
2 years |
plus |
0 |
||
|
Associate Degree |
and |
4 years |
plus |
0 |
||
|
45 Education Points |
and |
4 years |
plus |
45 |
||
|
30 Education Points |
and |
6 years |
plus |
30 |
||
|
15 Education Points |
and |
8 years |
plus |
15 |
||
Advanced Certificate Award Requirements
Applicants for the award of an Advanced Certificate shall:
(1) Satisfy the requirements specified in Regulation section 9070(d) for all certificates.
(2) Possess or be eligible to possess the Intermediate Certificate.
(3) Satisfy one of the following eligibility combinations:
|
Degree or Education Points* |
Law Enforcement Experience |
Training Points |
||||
|
Master Degree |
and |
4 years |
plus |
0 |
||
|
Bachelor Degree |
and |
6 years |
plus |
0 |
||
|
Associate Degree |
and |
9 years |
plus |
0 |
||
|
45 Education Points |
and |
9 years |
plus |
45 |
||
|
30 Education Points |
and |
12 years |
plus |
30 |
||
Before I close this message, I want to remind you of our upcoming golf tournament on October 18th at Eagle Springs Golf Course. Already the annual event is sold out. This is our biggest fundraiser – that benefits the FDSA Peace Officer Memorial Fund. This fund supports families of the fallen and those injured in the line of duty. Over the past month, we have been reminded of our mission and our purpose- to serve our members, and assist each other. We are here always to help our law enforcement family and their families during difficult and tragic times.
Truly,
Eric
A Message from the President, April 2019
This year, the names of 371 fallen law enforcement officers will be added—158 of which are the names of officers we lost in the line of duty last year. Two hundred and thirteen are the names of officers who fell in years prior who are now being recognized.
On May 13, the names will be officially dedicated during the 31st Annual Candlelight Vigil. Those who can’t make it to Washington, DC to experience the Vigil in person can still honor a fallen law enforcement officer by lighting a Virtual Candle and leaving a personalized message.
Support for SB230
Paul Kelly, President San Jose POA and Rob Harris is President of Protect California.
We support Senate Bill 230, authored by Sen. Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, because this legislation is designed to reduce uses of force by mirroring policing best practices and training. It also modernizes California’s use of force law to fully comply with existing U.S. Supreme Court rulings on when force is legally allowed.
Creating good public policy begins with good data. The Washington Post’s fatal police shooting national database, started in 2015, is often cited as the authority for tracking the number of officer-involved shooting incidents. Nationally, between 2015 and 2018, the number of these incidents has remained stable at just under 1,000 each year.
To put these numbers in context, according to criminologist Justin Nix from the University of Nebraska Omaha, in 2015 there were 50 million occasions where officers engaged with the public. Of those 50 million occasions, 995 resulted in a fatal encounter. That is 0.00002 percent of interactions with the public.
In California specifically, there was a 40 percent decrease in fatal police shootings between 2015-2018. These incidents were tragic and many involved individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. Although this decrease is good news, we must strive to do more.
That is why we worked with Caballero on SB 230. It establishes a clear and enforceable standard for authorizing the use of force, standardizes use of force training and enacts evidence-based policies to minimize use of force in California. For example, SB 230 mandates that all law enforcement agencies adopt policies on de-escalation, mental health training and requirements that an officer intercede if they witness excessive force.
Protect California, a non-profit organization, believes we can reduce dangerous encounters and improve the safety of our neighborhoods by taking a more holistic approach to crime reduction. Our plan addresses the root causes of crime by pulling virtually every public policy lever available to ensure positive outcomes between public safety officers and the communities they serve.
Policing is complicated. We should stop pretending that there’s one single solution to reduce police use of force incidents. If we address the root causes of crime, provide officers with high-quality training and enact strong policies, and reduce access to guns by violent criminals and the mentally ill, we will make California safer for everyone.
I Was Shot and My Partner Died. Here is Why I Oppose AB392
But that’s precisely what Assembly Bill 392 would require. The lawmakers backing this misguided legislation are demanding that we do the impossible — or die trying. If we don’t, AB 392 threatens us with prison for making split-second decisions when lives are at risk. This is dangerous and unreasonable. I know from personal experience.
Perhaps the shooter would have simply left. Of course he might also have shot every other person in the store, then continued his deadly rampage in neighboring stores. I had seconds to decide without the luxury of hindsight, under deadly and chaotic circumstances in which people were dying.
By slowing police decision-making in deadly situations when split seconds count, AB 392 endangers the lives of police and the safety of the people and communities we protect. AB 392 pretends to be about reforming the system. Instead, what it really does is ask officers to protect the public with both hands tied behind their backs.
I commend the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, who on April 9, took a position and adopted a resolution in favor of SB230 and opposition of AB392. Similarly, the Fresno City Council passed the same resolution on April 25. The hope is these two resolutions send the message to Sacramento - the Fresno region doesn’t agree with your political rhetoric in the leftist party. Their message is all cops are corrupt and commit homicides. I’m sorry, but if Assemblywoman Ms. Shirley Weber sat as an elected in our region – this association would create a special project to get her unseated and expose her real agenda.
I hope to see many of you at the Peace Officer Memorial in Courthouse Park – Noon May 2, 2019 honoring our fallen officers. Also remember the FDSA will host our annual Peace Officer Memorial Event at the FDSA that same day from 5:30pm-8:30pm. This is a time for family of our fallen and co-workers to come together in our own special remembrance.
Take care,
Eric
Each April, the National Peace Officer Memorial Foundation begins the process of intricately engraving new names of fallen officers onto the marble walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. It is a solemn time, for each new name carved on the wall is another tragic story of an officer who made the ultimate sacrifice for their community. Those stories will always be remembered on this wall.
This year, the names of 371 fallen law enforcement officers will be added—158 of which are the names of officers we lost in the line of duty last year. Two hundred and thirteen are the names of officers who fell in years prior who are now being recognized.
On May 13, the names will be officially dedicated during the 31st Annual Candlelight Vigil. Those who can’t make it to Washington, DC to experience the Vigil in person can still honor a fallen law enforcement officer by lighting a Virtual Candle and leaving a personalized message.
After you light a virtual candle in honor of a special officer make sure to register to watch the Vigil webcast with your friends and family on May 13. The Vigil webcast will be available live on Monday, May 13, at 8:00 pm ET.
Help us honor the 900,000 law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day for the safety and protection of others.
Support for SB230
Paul Kelly, President San Jose POA and Rob Harris is President of Protect California.
A safe and respectful encounter. Every single time. California public safety officers have this goal in mind whenever they interact with a member of the public or respond to an emergency. Period. To continue to improve outcomes for officers and the community, we believe that the best path forward is to modernize police training, establish clear use of force standards, and create holistic policies to ensure neighborhood safety.
Currently, there are competing bills in the California Legislature focused on use of force. Only one of those bills is part of a comprehensive plan that will reduce uses of force and officer involved shooting incidents. The other is focused on further criminalizing split-second decisions made by public safety officers in crisis situations. One is based upon factual data and science with the goal of preventing as many tragic incidents as possible, while the other is based upon retribution and second guessing after a tragic incident has occurred.
We support Senate Bill 230, authored by Sen. Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, because this legislation is designed to reduce uses of force by mirroring policing best practices and training. It also modernizes California’s use of force law to fully comply with existing U.S. Supreme Court rulings on when force is legally allowed.
Creating good public policy begins with good data. The Washington Post’s fatal police shooting national database, started in 2015, is often cited as the authority for tracking the number of officer-involved shooting incidents. Nationally, between 2015 and 2018, the number of these incidents has remained stable at just under 1,000 each year.
To put these numbers in context, according to criminologist Justin Nix from the University of Nebraska Omaha, in 2015 there were 50 million occasions where officers engaged with the public. Of those 50 million occasions, 995 resulted in a fatal encounter. That is 0.00002 percent of interactions with the public.
In California specifically, there was a 40 percent decrease in fatal police shootings between 2015-2018. These incidents were tragic and many involved individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. Although this decrease is good news, we must strive to do more.
That is why we worked with Caballero on SB 230. It establishes a clear and enforceable standard for authorizing the use of force, standardizes use of force training and enacts evidence-based policies to minimize use of force in California. For example, SB 230 mandates that all law enforcement agencies adopt policies on de-escalation, mental health training and requirements that an officer intercede if they witness excessive force.
We can do more
Protect California, a non-profit organization, believes we can reduce dangerous encounters and improve the safety of our neighborhoods by taking a more holistic approach to crime reduction. Our plan addresses the root causes of crime by pulling virtually every public policy lever available to ensure positive outcomes between public safety officers and the communities they serve.
As a state, we must do more by:
- Creating economic and educational opportunities in communities disproportionately impacted by crime and poverty.
- Adequately funding the delivery of treatment and services for those diagnosed with mental illness.
- Equipping public safety officers with the necessary tools and training to safely respond to and manage dangerous situations and individuals with mental illness by adopting the rigorous training standards set forth in SB 230.
Policing is complicated. We should stop pretending that there’s one single solution to reduce police use of force incidents. If we address the root causes of crime, provide officers with high-quality training and enact strong policies, and reduce access to guns by violent criminals and the mentally ill, we will make California safer for everyone.
I Was Shot and My Partner Died. Here is Why I Oppose AB392
Julie Robertson is a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy.
Bullets travel 2,500 feet per second. That doesn’t leave much time for police to debate various response scenarios and second-guess their decisions when confronted by deadly force.
But that’s precisely what Assembly Bill 392 would require. The lawmakers backing this misguided legislation are demanding that we do the impossible — or die trying. If we don’t, AB 392 threatens us with prison for making split-second decisions when lives are at risk. This is dangerous and unreasonable. I know from personal experience.
I’m a Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputy who survived a “split-second” encounter in which I was shot and my partner was killed. It happened fast, but it’s a nightmare that will haunt me for the rest of my life.
My partner and I had responded to a call about a disturbance at a local auto store, in which an unruly customer was causing trouble. When we arrived on scene, we approached the subject inside the store. There was no indication he was armed or had a weapon.
As we approached, he immediately backed up and began moving erratically, as though he were preparing to run. My partner headed toward the front door to block him, while I tried to stop him from the opposite side. Suddenly, there was a gun, followed almost immediately by a deafening boom as the suspect fired.
What followed was a terrifying and deadly firefight. The subject shot my partner in the head and back, then continued firing. I immediately returned fire and took action to defend my partner, the store’s employees and customers, and people in the neighboring stores. I was shot but kept fighting. Like every cop I know, I take my sworn oath to protect and serve seriously.
But under AB 392, my decision to stay and protect customers and other “innocents” could be challenged and second-guessed, with criminal prosecution a very real possibility for me. Why didn’t I retreat? That was clearly an option.
Perhaps the shooter would have simply left. Of course he might also have shot every other person in the store, then continued his deadly rampage in neighboring stores. I had seconds to decide without the luxury of hindsight, under deadly and chaotic circumstances in which people were dying.
AB 392 is Monday-morning-quarterbacking at its worst — legislation that second-guesses public safety decisions based on emotion rather than reality. Rather than helping police make better decisions by improving training and clarifying use-of-force policies, AB 392 takes a punitive approach that turns cops into criminals while eroding our fundamental right to defend ourselves.
By slowing police decision-making in deadly situations when split seconds count, AB 392 endangers the lives of police and the safety of the people and communities we protect. AB 392 pretends to be about reforming the system. Instead, what it really does is ask officers to protect the public with both hands tied behind their backs.
I have shared many articles about SB230 and opposition to AB392 over the last couple months. These two bills are some of the most important we have dealt with in our profession in many years. Its sad to think – that politicians with a political agenda are willing to forego the safety of the people who elect them. Their political bank accounts intimidate others in their party to just ‘go along,’ with the majority. We must organize and stand up against that.
I commend the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, who on April 9, took a position and adopted a resolution in favor of SB230 and opposition of AB392. Similarly, the Fresno City Council passed the same resolution on April 25. The hope is these two resolutions send the message to Sacramento - the Fresno region doesn’t agree with your political rhetoric in the leftist party. Their message is all cops are corrupt and commit homicides. I’m sorry, but if Assemblywoman Ms. Shirley Weber sat as an elected in our region – this association would create a special project to get her unseated and expose her real agenda.
I hope to see many of you at the Peace Officer Memorial in Courthouse Park – Noon May 2, 2019 honoring our fallen officers. Also remember the FDSA will host our annual Peace Officer Memorial Event at the FDSA that same day from 5:30pm-8:30pm. This is a time for family of our fallen and co-workers to come together in our own special remembrance.
Take care,
Eric
A Message from the President, March 2019
The governor's orders to "close" the execution chamber and repeal the execution protocol are more legally problematic. Nearly all currently effective death penalty statutes were enacted via ballot initiative, most recently by Proposition 66 in the 2016 election. FDSA had an active roll in helping with the passage of this Proposition. This was subsequent to Prop 62 in 2012 – again and active roll with the campaign.
Proposition 66 also provided broad standing for sentencing courts, district attorneys and victims of crime to enforce this provision. It added Penal Code Section 3604.1 which provides in subdivision (c), "If the Department [of Corrections and Rehabilitation] fails to perform any duty needed to enable it to execute a judgement, the court which rendered the judgement of death shall order it to perform that duty on its own motion, on motion of the District Attorney or Attorney General, or on motion of any victim of the crime as defined in article I, section 28, subdivision (c) of the Constitution."
As for "repealing" the lethal injection protocol, the protocol is a regulation memorialized in writing that describes all the steps to be taken to perform an execution. It is a document that has been publicly published on the internet. "Repealing" it is without practical effect when the document is readily available and can just as quickly be reinstated as a regulation. This is particularly true now that the execution protocol is, due to Proposition 66, exempt from the public commentary requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
The concerns the governor articulated about the death penalty have long been part of the debate over capital punishment. But those issues were part of the public debate that occurred during the 2012 and 2016 elections. The voters weighed those considerations and chose to keep the death penalty. Prior to being elected, Gov. Newsom promised that although he does not support the death penalty, he would not interfere with the will of the voters. He has violated that promise by issuing an executive order that usurped the legislative authority of the voters.
At last count, there were 43 cop killers on death row in California. Granted, this is small percentage of the 740 convicted killers who currently are awaiting execution. The families are the ones left holding the burden and the wiping tears. Co-workers and departments will always remember those officers killed at the hands of another. However, nobody pardoned our fellow cops from death as they each took their last breath.
This move by Governor Newsome has taken a complete shot across the bow of all law enforcement in California. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not – it is the law in this state. As law enforcement officers we have to follow the law – if not, there will be consequences. Governor Newsome needs to follow the law, specifically this law, what the will of California voters who elected to keep punishment by death in our state.
— Eric
Governor Newsom and the death penalty
Governor Gavin Newsom's recent executive order declaring a moratorium on the death penalty is a test of the boundaries of executive privilege. California Constitution Article 5, Section 1 states, "The supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor. The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully enforced." But does the governor have the authority not to enforce laws?
The governor's moratorium consists of three provisions. The first is a reprieve for all currently condemned inmates. Although the language of the written order does not include the word "temporary," the governor represented in his comments that he intends the reprieve to be for the term of his office. The second provision of the governor's order is to repeal California's lethal injection protocol. The third provision is the immediate closure of the execution chamber at San Quentin (the order refers to it as the "death chamber").
California Constitution Article 5 Section 8 grants the governor nearly unlimited authority to issue reprieves, pardons and commutations of sentenced persons. Using his constitutional authority, the governor could have taken more drastic measures. He could have made permanent and irrevocable orders of commutation or clemency for every person on death row. He could even have granted full pardons. But there are some limits to his authority. The governor cannot prospectively issue reprieves or pardons in future cases, so prosecutors are still able to pursue death sentences in court. To pardon or commute the sentence of a person who has two or more felony convictions, the governor requires a majority recommendation from the Supreme Court.
The governor's orders to "close" the execution chamber and repeal the execution protocol are more legally problematic. Nearly all currently effective death penalty statutes were enacted via ballot initiative, most recently by Proposition 66 in the 2016 election. FDSA had an active roll in helping with the passage of this Proposition. This was subsequent to Prop 62 in 2012 – again and active roll with the campaign.
Any change to those laws, which were enacted by voters, require more than a simple majority vote of the legislature or executive order. The language of each initiative generally calls for at least a two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature or a new ballot initiative. An amendment to Proposition 66 requires a three-fourths vote of the Legislature.
Proposition 66 added subsection (e) to Section 3604 of the Penal Code. That subsection requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to "maintain at all times the ability to execute such judgments." The governor's orders to repeal the execution protocol and "close" the execution chamber are in direct contradiction of that law.
Proposition 66 also provided broad standing for sentencing courts, district attorneys and victims of crime to enforce this provision. It added Penal Code Section 3604.1 which provides in subdivision (c), "If the Department [of Corrections and Rehabilitation] fails to perform any duty needed to enable it to execute a judgement, the court which rendered the judgement of death shall order it to perform that duty on its own motion, on motion of the District Attorney or Attorney General, or on motion of any victim of the crime as defined in article I, section 28, subdivision (c) of the Constitution."
Realistically, the governor's second two orders are without practical effect given the first order. "Closing" the execution chamber means what? Taking a gurney out of a room that has windows for viewing? Disassembling the unused gas chamber for a method of execution that the state no longer uses? Unless the governor directs the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to tear down the entire building in which the execution chamber is contained, the execution chamber remains there as a room with windows.
As for "repealing" the lethal injection protocol, the protocol is a regulation memorialized in writing that describes all the steps to be taken to perform an execution. It is a document that has been publicly published on the internet. "Repealing" it is without practical effect when the document is readily available and can just as quickly be reinstated as a regulation. This is particularly true now that the execution protocol is, due to Proposition 66, exempt from the public commentary requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
If the second and third items of the governor's executive order are, as some have argued, within the governor's authority, then the governor has absolute authority to declare or invalidate any law by executive order. He could, for example, unilaterally outlaw paper towels.
The concerns the governor articulated about the death penalty have long been part of the debate over capital punishment. But those issues were part of the public debate that occurred during the 2012 and 2016 elections. The voters weighed those considerations and chose to keep the death penalty. Prior to being elected, Gov. Newsom promised that although he does not support the death penalty, he would not interfere with the will of the voters. He has violated that promise by issuing an executive order that usurped the legislative authority of the voters.
At last count, there were 43 cop killers on death row in California. Granted, this is small percentage of the 740 convicted killers who currently are awaiting execution. The families are the ones left holding the burden and the wiping tears. Co-workers and departments will always remember those officers killed at the hands of another. However, nobody pardoned our fellow cops from death as they each took their last breath.
This move by Governor Newsome has taken a complete shot across the bow of all law enforcement in California. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not – it is the law in this state. As law enforcement officers we have to follow the law – if not, there will be consequences. Governor Newsome needs to follow the law, specifically this law, what the will of California voters who elected to keep punishment by death in our state.
The frightening part of all this, and the fear many of us will wonder - by essentially freezing executions, will this give criminals the green light to kill cops in California knowing there is life without parole under our current administration rather than punishment by death? We will continue to support groups like COPS and Crime Victims United – who urge the Governor to follow the law in California when it comes to capital punishment. The voters of California have spoken – not once but twice.
— Eric
A Message from the President, February 2019
California law enforcement is engaging in an important effort to deal with the issue of our law enforcement officers' ability to use appropriate force when facing dangerous encounters. PORAC, along with nearly every law enforcement association in California, have introduced Senate Bill 230 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Salinas). In addition to Senator Caballero, we have 17 legislators who have signed on to co-author our measure. You will see these names on the attached bill.
Fresno DSA is taking a position to conduct a full court press on our local delegation, and taking it a step further to assist other jurisdictions who need the support we can lend them. As I receive the materials from PORAC, I will be disseminating it out to the FDSA membership.
Update to SB1421
As of the 28th, no records pre-Jan 1, 2019 can be released related to personnel in regards to use of force, dishonesty, sex harassment, and officer involved shootings. As we get more information in the future, I will pass on the information to the membership so everyone is updated to potential changes. The stay order is effect until September of 2019.
Thank you and please stay safe.
Attachment: February 2019 President Message
SB230 PORAC Legislation
I have attached the below a link to this newsletter, as well as two bills, as a single PDF for all you to review. Late 2018 PORAC was able to defeat AB930. Many of you remember the bill from my August 2018 newsletter. The intent of this bill was taking the use of force decision making away from cops throughout the State of California. Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (San Diego) essentially wants a free society — meaning no law enforcement unless it is needed by the People of the State. Her bill then named AB931 reflected a substantial change to PC 835a.
After PORAC was able to defeat the bill at the Capital, the clock was ticking to introduce our own bill to fix some outdated statutes and remain solvent with the citizens of California. Law enforcement must get in front and take an offensive position in order to essentially maintain peace officer status in regards to protecting PC 835a.
California law enforcement is engaging in an important effort to deal with the issue of our law enforcement officers' ability to use appropriate force when facing dangerous encounters. PORAC, along with nearly every law enforcement association in California, have introduced Senate Bill 230 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Salinas). In addition to Senator Caballero, we have 17 legislators who have signed on to co-author our measure. You will see these names on the attached bill.
At the same time, Assembly member Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) has re-introduced her use-of-force bill from last year, which would criminalize an officer's split-second decisions if a judge or jury later deems the force was unwarranted or excessive. Assembly member Weber's bill is AB 392 and poses a serious threat to both our officers and the public. There is not a shadow of a doubt — Weber and all her co-authors are here to turn law enforcement officers into criminals. You will read in her introduced bill I have attached.
To begin this effort, PORAC is creating a Chapter Outreach Program for the month of March, wherein, all 14 chapter and association leaders set meetings with their legislative representatives to discuss these very important issues. Our team, which includes PORAC staff, Aaron Read & Associates, and our communications consultants, Fiona Hutton & Associates, will put together packets that will include the bills, our talking points, and position letters. Furthermore, if associations feel they need additional support with meetings, contact information, or materials, members of our team may be able to assist.
Fresno DSA is taking a position to conduct a full court press on our local delegation, and taking it a step further to assist other jurisdictions who need the support we can lend them. As I receive the materials from PORAC, I will be disseminating it out to the FDSA membership.
Update to SB1421
Fresno DSA filed a stay order (Temporary Restraining Order essentially) to block the many Public Records Request (PRA) being submitted since Jan 1, 2019. Again, as I mentioned in my previous newsletter, the bill was silent to the retroactivity of the information being requested. Many agencies were, along with the Sheriff's Office, being asked for documents relating to many employees who are no longer working here. As long as they were meeting the criteria set forth in the bill, the information was being asked for.
After consulting with our firm, Messing, Adam, and Jasmine — the decision was made to move forward with language requesting a stay order from Fresno Superior Court. The motion was filed on Friday, February 22, 2019. The court hearing was Thursday, February 28, 2019. At this hearing the stay order was granted by Judge J Hamilton. This is a glimpse of good news for the DSA and the agency itself.
As of the 28th, no records pre-Jan 1, 2019 can be released related to personnel in regards to use of force, dishonesty, sex harassment, and officer involved shootings. As we get more information in the future, I will pass on the information to the membership so everyone is updated to potential changes. The stay order is effect until September of 2019.
Please see the attachments below for SB230 and AB 392. I have also attached the petition for the TRO and order under the SB 1421 issue.
Thank you and please stay safe.
— Eric
Attachment: February 2019 President Message
A Message from the President, January 2019
One time reopener effective no sooner than July 2018:
The Fresno POA’s labor contract expires July 30, 2019.
As has been reported in the media, law enforcement unions in both Northern and Southern California have been filing actions to enjoin the release of police personnel records on a retroactive basis. For those actions that have already gone to hearing, the courts have granted temporary restraining orders to prevent pre-2019 records from being released until full litigation of the issue can occur. At least one city, Berkeley, is also taking the position that SB 1421 does not apply retroactively.
Stay safe out there.
I have had inquiries from some of you in recent months regarding the salary reopener that is written in our current MOU. I have attached the language as a refresher;
One time reopener effective no sooner than July 2018:
Salary Comparison: County of Fresno top-Step Deputy Sheriff III will continually be compared to Top-Step of City of Fresno Police Officer through the term of the contract. If base salary for Deputy Sheriff III should go below that of a top step Police Officer, both parties agree they will meet and agree if changes or adjustments shall take place. This agreement is only for increases. If the salary were to decrease, there would be no reason to meet by either party. Any increases, if they should occur, both parties agree the salary will not exceed that of an addition 5%. Consideration will be given of recruitment and retention of Deputy Sheriffs at that time.
Having this language in our contract gives protections to the salaries of all personnel – and basing it off the classification of deputy sheriff vs police officer with the City of Fresno. The purpose of the language at the time of the finalizing of our contract, was to ensure protection since Fresno POA was at the bargaining table during the time we were concluding our negotiations with the County of Fresno. There was still an unknown, as to what Fresno POA would be finalizing with the City of Fresno. The intent of the above language, was to put specific salary language in our contract in an effort to protect what we had just negotiated for all of our salaries. Since Fresno POA was still negotiating a labor contract with the City of Fresno.
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors were clear in their message - they wanted the base salary of a top step deputy sheriff to be the same or more with that of a top step police officer who works at the City of Fresno.
Fresno POA negotiated a successful contract with the City of Fresno. However, that contract fell short of what Fresno DSA negotiated with the County of Fresno.
The salary increases were as follows;
City of Fresno: 2 year contract (June 2017 – June 2019) worth 3% and an increased step for senior officers.
County of Fresno: 2 ½ year contract (March 2017 – December 2019) worth 15% in salary enhancements. (5%, 5%, 5%)
The Fresno County Board of Supervisors recognized the County of Fresno was behind in salary when comparing with the City of Fresno. The BOS voted to authorize the increases, in an attempt to put us all on a level playing field when it came to recruitment specifically, and retention as well for the employees working in the trenches.
Since the passage of our current contract, we have had meetings with County Labor to monitor the salaries enhancements within our contract, and where they compare to the City of Fresno. Below is a salary comparison based on the current salaries of Deputy Sheriff III and Police Officer II.
Police Officer Top Step at their new step increase at the end of their contract will be $7290.00
Deputy Sheriff III top step at the end of FPOA contract and our last increase will be $7338.00
FDSA Board of Directors will be sending something out to all members in the coming months regarding bargaining with the County of Fresno. We will be looking for feedback from our membership in regards to bargaining. Your participation plays a key part in how we negotiate in 2019.
The Fresno POA’s labor contract expires July 30, 2019.
Fresno DSA’s labor contract expires December 15, 2019.
SB 1421 Update
Last September, then-Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1421 into law. SB 1421 provides that, effective January 1, 2019, certain police personnel records will now be available to members of the media and the public by request under the California Public Records Act. As expected, law enforcement departments throughout the state have received a wave of requests for records created prior to January 1, 2019. However, the law on its face does not provide for retroactivity.
Last September, then-Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1421 into law. SB 1421 provides that, effective January 1, 2019, certain police personnel records will now be available to members of the media and the public by request under the California Public Records Act. As expected, law enforcement departments throughout the state have received a wave of requests for records created prior to January 1, 2019. However, the law on its face does not provide for retroactivity.
As has been reported in the media, law enforcement unions in both Northern and Southern California have been filing actions to enjoin the release of police personnel records on a retroactive basis. For those actions that have already gone to hearing, the courts have granted temporary restraining orders to prevent pre-2019 records from being released until full litigation of the issue can occur. At least one city, Berkeley, is also taking the position that SB 1421 does not apply retroactively.
To date, the City of San Jose has received a substantial number of requests for SB 1421 records but has not yet taken a position on when or whether the City will provide retroactive records. We are observing the situation carefully and monitoring the City's response to SB 1421. At this time, the City Attorney's Office has not yet taken a position on the question of retroactivity. It is tracking developments in other cases.
We, too, await to see if a decision issues that will provide guidance on whether the law operates retroactively. That said, we are prepared to take action similar to that taken by our law enforcement brothers and sisters should the City decide it plans to release pre-2019 records before the courts interpret its obligation under the statute.
Your safety and your privacy matter to us and we take that very seriously when it comes to your personnel records. As more information arises from all of this, I will be updating the membership. Should you have any further questions please direct them to me, as I can get the answers for you.
Lt. Ron Hayes has been directed by the Sheriff to handle all such inquiries coming from the public. As those come in and as we get further into this SB 1421 issue there will be updates to how these are being processed. Please do not reach out directly to Lt. Hayes, as he will be directing folks to the FDSA.
Stay safe out there.
Eric Schmidt
To Top
© Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association
Website built and maintained by NEP Services
NEP IS A UNION WORKPLACE!
PROUD MEMBER OF CWA L-9003
