An act to amend Section 70 of the Penal Code, relating to peace officers.
Summary
AB 1537 would amend Penal Code Section 70 to restrict off-duty secondary employment for certain peace officers when that work involves immigration enforcement. The bill would bar covered peace officers from working, contracting, or volunteering for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, its contractors, or other entities that assist with or engage in immigration enforcement if the work includes arresting, detaining, transporting, or deporting individuals under federal immigration law.
The bill also creates reporting and transparency requirements. Peace officers would have to report any offer or request for such immigration-enforcement-related secondary employment to their employing agency, and agencies would have to keep records of secondary employers and the number of officers employed by each. Those records would be made public under the California Public Records Act. The bill further states that violating the new prohibition is an act of dishonesty for decertification purposes, and it includes a severability clause and a potential state reimbursement provision for mandated local costs.
Impact
AB 1537 would narrow the existing general rule that peace officers may engage in off-duty employment by carving out a specific prohibition on secondary employment tied to immigration enforcement. It would affect peace officers, their employing state and local agencies, and immigration-enforcement contractors or related entities by limiting outside work opportunities and exposing violations to professional discipline, including decertification. It would also impose new administrative duties on local law enforcement agencies to receive reports, maintain employer records, and disclose those records as public information, creating a state-mandated local program.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have support from a majority of the committee that first heard it, passing 5-3 on a do-pass motion with re-referral to Appropriations. The findings section frames the measure as protecting immigrant communities, public trust, and officer training, suggesting a strong policy rationale from the authors. The absence of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials limits insight into the full range of views, but the vote pattern indicates at least some opposition or concern among committee members.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on off-duty work for peace officers, especially work connected to federal immigration enforcement. Supporters are likely focused on conflicts of interest, public trust, and potential constitutional or training concerns, while opponents may view the bill as an overreach into officers’ outside employment, a burden on local agencies, or a limitation on cooperation with federal immigration-related functions. The public-records requirement and decertification consequence may also be contentious because they increase transparency and enforcement pressure on agencies and officers.