POST adopts clarifying training rules, saying change primarily clarifies who must take Regular Basic Course

The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training voted to adopt clarifying amendments to Regulation 105 on Sept. 17, saying the changes are intended to make explicit which peace‑officer classifications must complete the Regular Basic Course going forward.

Staff told commissioners the amendments do not create new law but clarify application of existing statutory categories — officers enumerated by Senate Bill 2, peace officers employed by POST‑participating agencies, and officers whom statute requires to take a POST‑prescribed course. POST Chief Counsel Toby Darden framed the change as an effort to remove ambiguity in cross‑references and definitions that had led some agencies to interpret the rule differently.

Darden summarized the problem with older language and read the current limited‑function definition, saying: “Limited functional officer is a deputy sheriff regularly employed and paid of a county police officer ... employed to perform duties other than the prevention and detection of crime and the general enforcement of the criminal laws of the state.” He said the proposed text removes obsolete references and clarifies who is subject to RBC training.

The discussion that followed was lengthy. County officials and park‑ranger representatives urged the commission to consider grandfathering or narrow carveouts for specialized park‑ranger programs that run in remote jurisdictions or operate under county funding constraints. David Stevens, chief deputy for the Kern County Sheriff’s Office, told commissioners the county had invested heavily in training its rangers and warned: “If rangers must complete the regular basic course, we cannot fund it.” Park‑ranger labor representatives and chiefs asked for an option that preserves both public safety and local program viability.

Commissioners debated prospective versus retroactive approaches to any carveouts and equivalency pathways for experienced employees. Several commissioners suggested including clearer grandfathering or transition timelines for agencies that would otherwise face new training costs. Staff proposed an effective date in mid‑2028 and said the final statement of reasons would note the commission’s intent that the regulation be declaratory of existing law.

In a roll call vote the commission approved the staff proposal and the addition of declaratory language; the motion passed eight to four. Commissioners instructed staff to continue outreach to stakeholders and to consider separate proposals addressing narrowly defined exemptions or alternative pathways (for example, public‑officer classifications under Penal Code §836.5 or specific supervisory arrangements) that could be brought back for future action.

The regulation change now moves into the Office of Administrative Law review process before it becomes final and effective on the date the commission specifies.