LEGISLATIVE SWING
Cal Chiefs
at the Capitol
T
he 2015 legislative session wrapped up shortly after
midnight on September 11th. Legislation addressing physician assisted end of life, greenhouse gas
emissions, transportation funding, and unpaid family leave
resulted in long and emotional floor debates. Much of the
historically “left-leaning” legislation was either stopped or
heavily amended as a result of a strong cohort of moderate
Democrats, led by Assemblymember Perea, in the Assembly.
We continued to work with the Governor’s administration on medical marijuana regulation throughout
the morning and afternoon of the 11th, only to finalize
language shortly before a 5 PM policy committee hearing
on AB 266. In the end, the medical marijuana regulatory
model was split into three bills: AB 266, AB 243, and SB 643.
This division allowed both houses, the Senate and the Assembly, to get credit for their efforts. Despite attempts from
individual lobbyists working on recreational legalization
initiatives to derail the effort to regulate medical marijuana, we were able to pass a comprehensive package shortly
before midnight on September 11th. The package received
the Governor’s signature on October 9th. Together with
the League of Cities, our legislative team will embark on a
series of town hall meetings and webinars to prepare cities
for the new regulations.
Marijuana, however, was not the only issue on the
table this year. The events surrounding Ferguson, MO may
no longer be on the front pages of newspapers, but for the
California State Legislature and the actors in the national
political arena, things are just warming up. We began the
session with multiple post-Ferguson hearings on community-law enforcement relations, body worn cameras, and
more. These hearings set the stage for a slough of legislation in this area.
Legislation addressing body worn cameras and data
reporting came in two sizes: inflammatory or collaborative.
For body worn camera legislation, we saw AB 66, which
was strongly opposed by the law enforcement community
and sought to “catch” officers in the wrong. On the other
side of the conversation, we saw SB 175, which would
have granted local jurisdictions control over their
By Chief David Swing,
Chair of the Law and
Legislation Committee
body worn camera policies. One of the key distinctions
between the two bills was that the former envisioned body
worn cameras as a single faceted tool: to increase transparency. SB 175, on the