Council pauses state bill on library officers’ limited peace-officer status after hourlong debate

The Los Angeles City Council on May 30 debated legislation that would grant limited peace-officer authority to Library security officers and agreed to continue consideration for one week while seeking a city analysis of local options.

Councilmembers and department officials framed the discussion around public safety, liability and local control. Library staff and security supervisors urged council support for narrowly defined arrest and transport powers; police officials said the proposal risked an unnecessary expansion of police powers and urged a local Memorandum of Understanding instead.

The debate began with testimony from Library staff and a library employee who described repeated incidents at branch libraries and said faster removals of disruptive patrons would protect staff and the public. “We are asking the council to support this legislation that would give the Library officers limited peace officer authority, not full peace officer stat, not the ability to carry firearms,” said Chris Marietta of the Library Department. Marietta described the requested powers as limited to on-duty hours and focused on arrest, transport and more-complete searches for officer safety.

Representing the Police Department, Mark Leep said the department had met with library staff but remained opposed to giving library security officers what he described as a “proliferation of police powers.” Leep said LAPD was committed to responding to incidents and preferred a formal local agreement between the departments to manage detentions and handoffs.

Council discussion touched on several themes: the scope of authority requested, whether the city could implement a local policy without state legislation, liability protection for employees who make arrests, and precedent for other quasi-police categories. Councilmember Walters said she opposed the legislation as written: “I rise in opposition to this legislation… The police department has assured us that the libraries and, the parks will be adequately policed.”

Several councilmembers called for local action instead of a state mandate. Councilmember Ridley Thomas moved that the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) prepare a report describing how the city could adopt the requested powers locally and propose uniform policy and Memoranda of Understanding with LAPD. The motion drew seconders and broad support for pursuing a local solution.

After extended debate, the council voted 11–2 to continue the item for one week to allow the CLA and city staff to return with recommended language and options, and to continue interdepartmental discussions. The council also received and filed the committee communication that recommended opposing the state bill, while instructing staff to work on a local approach.

Councilmembers stressed that any local policy should make clear the limits of authority and avoid creating new armed quasi‑police categories. Several members asked that staff include comparisons to other limited peace‑officer roles in the city and that any local program include training, a required Memorandum of Understanding with LAPD, and clarity on liability protections.

The council did not adopt new legal authority at the meeting; rather it directed staff analysis and delayed final action until the CLA’s report and further negotiations with LAPD and Library Department staff.

Looking ahead, councilmembers asked for a rapid turnaround so the city could consider a local ordinance or administrative approach before any statewide action took effect.