Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Training Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
POST staff, advisory committee recommend two‑tier approach to PC 832 limited‑peace‑officer training; full rulemaking expected
Summary
POST staff and the advisory committee proposed splitting PC 832 into two training tracks — a more robust track for limited officers who perform general law‑enforcement duties and a shorter introductory track for narrowly limited functions — and recommended a modular approach with more workshops and stakeholder outreach.
POST staff and the advisory committee presented a multi‑stakeholder proposal to redesign Penal Code 832 (Introductory/basic PC 832) training into two levels to address the growing number of limited or “non‑traditional” peace‑officer classifications that carry varying duties.
At workshops held in January and February stakeholders — including Cal Chiefs, Cal Sheriffs, probation, corrections, jail and academy presenters, and subject-matter experts — recommended creating two separate PC 832 pathways: (1) a more robust course for limited officers who may perform general law‑enforcement duties (park rangers, airport security, harbor patrol, some reserves), and (2) a shorter introductory course for very limited functions (certain code-enforcement and security assignments). The group agreed the current 64‑hour structure (40‑hour arrest + 24‑hour firearms) is outdated and that certain topics (use of force, firearms, cultural‑competency modules) would increase total hours in either pathway.
Nut graf: The recommendation responds to practical concerns — inconsistent duties and training among agencies with PC 832 appointees — and proposes a modular/regulatory approach that preserves participation options while raising minimum training where public‑safety duties require it.
Key takeaways: - Legal view: Assistant Executive Director and counsel Toby Darden advised the Commission that regulations can prescribe different 832 course requirements for POST‑participating agencies and for officers appointed under specific penal‑code sections; POST’s authority is stronger for agencies that opt into POST participation. - Advisory committee consensus: Stakeholders supported more robust training for limited officers who exercise general enforcement powers but raised concerns about access (course availability) and agency funding/retention impacts. Workshop participants recommended a modular approach and additional annual CPT for limited functions. - Timeline and process: Staff estimates the project will require more workshops and stakeholder engagement and likely will extend into 2026–2027; legislative change would be a preferable long‑term fix but is not required for POST to craft differential regulations for participating agencies.
Ending: Commissioners and advisory members stressed the need for careful outreach to smaller agencies and community stakeholders before changing minimums; staff will continue workshops and aims to return with draft regulatory language in the coming year.
