POST advisory committee weighs allowing agencies to reuse recent background investigations

The advisory committee for the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) discussed whether agencies should be permitted to accept a background investigation completed recently by another agency when hiring a peace officer.

Staff services manager Melanie Singley told the committee the conversation began at the request of Tracy Avelar, chief of Foster City Police Department and then-president of the California Police Chiefs Association. Current POST regulation 1953 allows only limited exceptions for using a previously completed background investigation—most commonly when an officer returns to the same agency after a break in service or when an interim police chief is being hired. A 2019 subsection permits transferability of an interim chief’s background investigation under specific criteria: the interim chief must have been investigated for that role by a POST-participating agency, have served as an interim chief within the last 24 months, and have had the initial background conducted within the prior five years. Singley said any transferred file must be determined compliant by POST and kept with an updated background file.

Committee members described field concerns that the current rule forces agencies to repeat a full background investigation even when the candidate was recently screened elsewhere and did not have disqualifying misconduct. Several members supported a narrowly tailored change that would permit portability only with a mandatory update at hiring, with the hiring agency required to review the prior file and to check for any new information (local, state and national criminal records, driving, credit checks and a new personal history statement). Detective Alicia Rosa (San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office) said that "a lot can happen in a couple months," and recommended at least an update rather than wholesale reuse without fresh checks. Advisory member Tammy Morrell (California Academy Directors Association) urged narrow time frames and insisted any change require inquiries into why a candidate left prior employment so agencies can assess public-safety risk.

Assistant Executive Director Jim Grokow and Executive Director Manny Alvarez told the committee the item was being placed before the POST commission for initial feedback and that POST staff would carry the advisory committee’s concerns to the commission meeting the next day. Grokow said presenters in the field sometimes raise significant issues through consent items and that those items give the commission an opportunity to direct staff to draft regulatory changes if desired. Alvarez said he supported the concept in principle but emphasized the need for an update and careful limits on the allowable timeframe for a transferred file.

Committee direction: members asked POST staff to pass back concerns to the full commission—especially (1) that any portability include a documented update with a new personal history statement; (2) that time limits be narrowly tailored; and (3) that agencies be required to provide the originating agency’s reasoning for a candidate’s separation so hiring authorities can assess whether the separation signals disqualifying misconduct or a non‑disciplinary probation failure.

The committee did not take a formal vote. POST staff will present the advisory committee’s feedback to the commission and, if directed, return later with proposed regulatory language.