Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Background Investigation Portability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
POST advisers weigh allowing transfer of peace‑officer background investigations between agencies
Summary
Staff reported a request to let hiring agencies reuse recently completed background investigations in lieu of a full new background check. Committee members supported limited portability but stressed narrow timeframes, mandatory updates and safeguards before any regulatory change.
POST advisers reviewed a request to permit hiring agencies to use another agency’s recently completed peace‑officer background investigation, a change staff said would require amending Commission Regulation 1953.
The matter was presented by Melanie Singley, staff services manager for strategic communication and research, who told the committee the request came from Tracy Avelar, chief of the Foster City Police Department and president of the California Police Chiefs Association. Singley said current Regulation 1953 permits limited exceptions — most commonly for officers returning to the same agency or interim chiefs — but does not allow a prospective employer to accept another agency’s complete background file except in narrowly prescribed circumstances.
Advisers and staff framed the proposal as a possible regulatory change rather than an immediate rule: staff will present the field request to the full commission and seek direction about whether to draft specific rule language. Committee members who spoke said they broadly supported allowing portability in tightly defined situations but urged safeguards. Several members recommended a short allowable window for reuse, mandatory ‘‘update’’ investigations that re‑check criminal, driving, credit and qualification information, and clear requirements that hiring agencies obtain and retain the originating file.
Sheriff Corey Hone (California State Sheriffs’ Association) and several advisory members said not all background investigations are equivalent and that reasons for a prior department’s separation (for example, failure in field training) should be fully documented and considered. Advisory member Alicia Rosa (San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office) asked whether portability would require at a minimum an updated personal history statement; staff replied that an update should be required in any portability approach. Assistant Executive Director Jim Grokow told the committee he would convey committee feedback to the commission the next day.
The advisory committee did not vote on a regulatory change; members instead provided input for staff and commissioners to consider in drafting any future amendment. If the commission directs staff to proceed, staff said they would return with proposed regulatory text and implementation details.
Ending: Committee members who supported limited portability emphasized three common guardrails: (1) require a documented update of the candidate’s personal history and re‑checks for new criminal or driving records; (2) restrict portability to a narrow recent‑investigation window; and (3) require the originating agency to transfer the full file to the prospective hiring agency and to document the reviewing hiring authority’s decision. Staff will report advisory feedback to the commission for possible rulemaking.
