Community Concerns About Law Enforcement in Sonoma County

Chapter 3

Law Enforcement Departments 

In addition to the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department, there are nine other local law enforcement jurisdictions in Sonoma County. There are police departments in Cloverdale, Cotati, Healdsburg, Petaluma, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Sonoma, and Windsor. The city of Rohnert Park has a Department of Public Safety, a combined police and fire department.

In 1996 the estimated populations in these cities were: 5,475 in Cloverdale; 6,500 in Cotati; 9,575 in Healdsburg; 47,700 in Petaluma; 38,350 in Rohnert Park; 125,700 in Santa Rosa; 7,525 in Sebastopol; 8,750 in Sonoma; 18,750 in Windsor; and 153,100 in the unincorporated areas of the county.[1] By January 1, 1999, the State estimated these populations had grown to: 6,075 in Cloverdale; 6,800 in Cotati; 10,000 in Healdsburg; 51,700 in Petaluma; 40,500 in Rohnert Park; 138,700 in Santa Rosa; 7,900 in Sebastopol; 9,275 in Sonoma; 20,400 in Windsor; and 152,800 in the unincorporated areas.[2]

Between April 1, 1995, and March 10, 1998, officers from the Santa Rosa Police Department shot and killed five people; deputies from the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department killed three; an officer of the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety killed one; and an officer of the Petaluma Police Department killed one.[3]

In addition to the complaints received by individual departments, the Sonoma County Grand Jury reported a total of 86 citizen complaints filed against law enforcement agencies in 1996, including: 15 against the Santa Rosa Police Department (1 sustained); 14 against the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department (4 sustained); 28 against the Rohnert Park Public Safety Department (8 sustained); 9 against Petaluma (0 sustained); 2 against Healdsburg (1 sustained); 9 against Sebastopol (0 sustained); 7 against Cotati (5 sustained); 1 against Sonoma (0 sustained); and 1 against the Cloverdale Police Department (0 sustained).[4] Between January 1996 and May 1997, the grand jury received 39 complaints against law enforcement agencies in Sonoma County.[5]

While the number of complaints may indicate a problem, it was the critical incidents resulting in death at the hands of a police officer that prompted citizen concern, protest, and calls for reform. Community organizations met with the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chief’s Association to initiate dialogue for constructive change.

The police chiefs, county sheriff, commander of the California Highway Patrol, and district attorney are members of the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chief’s Association, which meets monthly to discuss law enforcement issues, policy matters, and common concerns.[6] Those community members meeting with association representatives suggested to the Advisory Committee that the dialogue did not achieve community goals.

The Advisory Committee forwarded letters to the individual chiefs and the county sheriff requesting information and data about their departments for the period January 1993 to February 1998.[7] The time period was modified to July 1997 through December 1997 for arrest data. This chapter provides a summary of the data submitted in response.

Cloverdale

Cloverdale, about 19 miles from Santa Rosa, is the last town in the county as one travels north on Highway 101. It had no homicides in 1995, 1994, 1993, or 1992, one in 1991, three in 1990, and none in 1989 and 1988.[8] The Advisory Committee did not review the records of this department.

Cotati

Cotati, which straddles Highway 101 just south of the city of Rohnert Park, increased its population by 64 percent in the 1980s.[9] There was one homicide in 1995 and none in 1994. For the period January 1993 through March 1998, 39 individuals filled the 28 sworn[10] and reserve officer positions in the Cotati Police Department.[11] For the 5-year time period, 2 people have held the chief position, both male and white; of the 3 existing sergeants, 2 are white and 1 is Native American; 12 people have held the eight police officer positions (10 whites, 2 Hispanics, 10 males, 2 females, 1 bilingual in Spanish); the existing community services officer is a white female; the records/communication supervisor is a Native American female; 10 people have held the four dispatcher positions (7 white, 3 Hispanic, 3 males, 7 females, 2 bilingual in Spanish); 2 people have held the one police service aide position, both white females; the existing police reserve captain is a white male; the existing police reserve lieutenant is a Hispanic male; and all 6 reserve police officers are white (5 males, 1 female).[12] The Cotati Police Department has a written affirmative action plan, and no equal employment opportunity complaints have been filed against the department for the period January 1993 through March 1998.

A police advisory commission was established in the mid-1970s to act as a liaison between citizens and the Cotati Police Department. The advisory commission was deactivated in 1995, but the bylaws still remain in the Cotati Municipal Code. The department wrote the Advisory Committee that “the City Council may decide sometime in the future to reactivate the police advisory commission.”[13] But, Pia Jensen, councilwoman wrote, “My initial attempts to have our police consider re-establishing our police advisory board were met with great resistance.”[14]

The department has a written discipline and citizen complaint policy and provides complaint forms for citizens wanting to file a complaint. According to the policy and procedure manual of the Cotati Police Department:

It is the policy of the Cotati Police Department to encourage citizens to bring to the attention of the department complaints about the conduct of its members. Whenever a citizen believes that a law enforcement act is improper and wishes to make a complaint, that complaint will be received courteously by on duty employees of the department.[15]

The Advisory Committee’s review of the policies of the other law enforcement jurisdictions found similar statements regarding citizen complaint procedures.

When a complaint is lodged against a Cotati police officer, the responsible command officer can deem the complaint unfounded, exonerated, not sustained, sustained, or conclude no finding.[16] For the period January 1993 through December 9, 1997, a total of 21 individual complaints, some with multiple allegations, were investigated by the department’s Internal Affairs Unit.[17] Among the 31 allegations within the 21 complaints were: 10 for unprofessional conduct; 3 unlawful use of force; 3 hostile work environment; 2 unlawful detention; and 1 each of false arrest, disturbing the peace, failure to investigate domestic violence, violation of civil rights, violation of department policy, and public intoxication while off duty.

The findings by year were: 1993, three were unfounded, one exonerated, one sustained; in 1994, two were not sustained; 1995, one was unfounded, one exonerated, one not sustained, one turned over to an attorney for the city and the employee is no longer with the department; 1996, two were unfounded, one not sustained (employee resigned), six sustained (one employee resigned); and in 1997, two were unfounded, six sustained, and one investigation was in progress at the time of the Advisory Committee’s inquiries.[18] The overall findings for the period resulted in one suspension, two counseled, seven written reprimands, two disciplinary actions pending, one investigation in progress, and three no longer employed.[19]

At times, individuals allege that police officers harass members of the community and charge them with resisting arrest when they attempt to assert their rights. Although the Advisory Committee did not hear such a complaint leveled at the Cotati department, it requested data from all the departments that would assist in determining the extent of such arrests. During the period July 1997 through February 1998, the Cotati Police Department recorded 14 arrests for resisting arrest, providing false information to a peace officer, and/or battery on a peace officer. Twelve of the reports resulted in charges being brought against the suspects, 1 case was rejected, and the disposition of the remaining case was reported as unknown. During the 5-year period, the department reported no accidental discharges of weapons by officers of the Cotati police force.

Healdsburg

Healdsburg is located north of Santa Rosa and just east of Highway 101. There were no homicides in 1995, one in 1994, and none in 1993, 1992, or 1991.[20] Mayor Harvey wrote:

Although Healdsburg is a nice, small, quiet community, we have had our share of violence. [The] homicide in 1994 was actually a body dumped in our hospital parking lot. There is strong evidence to suggest that this person was shot outside of our city. Prior to that, our most recent homicide was in the late 1980’s [when] a patron was stabbed in a local bar. Neither of these involved struggles with officers.[21]

Because of its location on the Russian River and the surrounding wine valley regions, Healdsburg offers a wide variety of recreation and scenic and historic attractions.[22] According to Chief Rick Alves, Healdsburg Police Department, the sheriff is the ranking law enforcement officer in the county, and the Healdsburg Police Department has jurisdiction within the city limits and responds when requested to assist other law enforcement agencies in their jurisdictions.

The Healdsburg Police Department has a chief, 1 detective, 4 sergeants, 10 officers, and 5 reserve officers, an administrative secretary, a technical services manager, a youth services person, 5 dispatchers, 1 reserve dispatcher, 1 community service officer, 1 reserve community service officer, and 6 explorer scouts. The department’s 31 sworn and nonsworn personnel include: 22 males (71 percent); 9 females (29 percent); 26 whites (84 percent); 4 Hispanics (13 percent); 1 American Indian (3 percent); and 3 employees bilingual in Spanish.[23] The 21 sworn personnel include: 17 white males, 2 Hispanic males, 1 American Indian male, and 1 white female. The 10 nonsworn employees include: 6 white females, 2 Hispanic females (both bilingual in Spanish), and 2 white males.[24] No underutilization analyses/reports were undertaken, requested, or deemed necessary by the department during the period reviewed by the Advisory Committee.[25] The department recruited for one police officer per year for the years 1993–1996.[26]

For training, the department provides the Peace Officer Standards and Training Manual (POST); its own manual; a field training manual; and a written, comprehensive inservice training guide. There are policies within the department’s training manuals on special needs areas, such as domestic violence, complaints involving mentally ill suspects, language minorities, and possible gang activity.[27]

The city council passed a resolution on December 15, 1975, establishing an affirmative action program[28] and designated the city manager as affirmative action coordinator.[29] The council also adopted a policy against discrimination and harassment in the workplace.[30] The department has received one complaint alleging that it discriminated against a prior employee based on disability,[31] and it remained unresolved at the time of the Advisory Committee’s factfinding meeting. Through April 17, 1998, no employee grievances had been filed against the department.

The Healdsburg Police Department has a citizen complaint procedure pamphlet that provides information in both English and Spanish and includes a preaddressed form that may be submitted by mail.[32] Mayor Harvey wrote, “The citizens of Healdsburg have every opportunity to provide input, observations and criticisms for our police department.”[33] For the period 1993–1998, 17 complaints were filed with the department: 6 alleging harassment, 3 unlawful arrest, 3 civil rights violations, 1 stalking, 1 rude behavior, 1 procedure, 1 damaged property, and 1 assault with a deadly weapon (ADW). None was sustained (two were withdrawn).[34] The time between the filing of the complaint and its disposition varied from 2 to 50 weeks, and the average disposition of all complaints was 12.5 weeks. All citizens were notified of the disposition of their complaints by letter. There were no complaints during calendar year 1996 and none reported between January 1 and April 17, 1998.[35] While no officers were disciplined for conduct related to the Advisory Committee’s inquiry, there were discipline actions during the reporting period, but these were not specified.[36]

For the period July 1 through December 28, 1997, the Healdsburg Police Department reported 60 arrests for drunk in public, 4 arrests for obstructing a police officer, and 2 for resisting arrest.[37] Twenty percent (12) of the arrests for drunk in public were made by one officer. Of the arrests for obstructing a police officer and resisting arrest, one was dismissed, one held in abeyance, one parole violation hold, and one disposition unknown.[38] No accidental discharge of weapons by a Healdsburg police officer was reported for the period under review. Mayor Harvey wrote:

Our officers do share in some of our county’s traumatic events. In the last two years, we had an officer wrestle for his life when a Pelican Bay parolee struggled for the officer’s gun. Two shots were discharged. Fortunately, no one was struck and the suspect was taken into custody. That was the first time since the late 1970’s that a Healdsburg Police Officer fired a gun while on duty.

Another incident [in 1997] involved a situation when less than lethal force (a beanbag from a shotgun) was used in a traumatic incident where officers faced with an unstable knife wielding suspect which placed the officers in jeopardy. It is commendable that our officer training provides them with this alternative to lethal force and that when presented with this situation they took the opportunity to use it.[39]

The Advisory Committee notes that during its factfinding meeting community representatives had suggested that such alternatives to deadly force be considered and used by law enforcement. The Healdsburg department should be supported for its use of an option that saved both the suspect and the officers.

Petaluma

Petaluma is the second largest city in Sonoma County and is located near the county’s southern border. There was one homicide in 1995, two in 1994, two in 1993, none in 1992, one in 1991, none in 1990 or 1989, and one in 1988.[40]

As of February 25, 1998, the Petaluma Police Department had 90 filled positions and 4 vacancies (1 administrative services captain position, 3 patrol officers).[41] The sworn positions included: the chief, 1 captain, 3 lieutenants, and 46 police officers (2 percent Asian, 11 percent Hispanic, 87 percent white). Only 3 of the police officers were female, while all 13 of the public safety dispatchers in the communications section were female.[42] Five of the department’s employees are Spanish speaking, including four patrol officers. The six community service officers are all white (five females, one male).

The department phased out its sworn reserve police officer program in 1996 and does not intend to use that program in the future.[43] It currently operates, however, a Reserve Community Service Officer Program consisting of 15 community volunteers who serve without compensation. Of the 15, 10 are male (66 percent) and 5 are female (33 percent); 14 are white (93 percent) and 1 is Hispanic (6 percent); none is multilingual.[44]

The city of Petaluma has an affirmative action plan, and the city council has passed annual resolutions with goals.[45] The department has a procedure in place to handle equal employment opportunity concerns. In the 5-year period 1993–1997, three formal and informal complaints were filed against the department. In two of the cases the complainants were issued right to sue letters from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and in the remaining case the department was working with the employee to deal with an alleged lack of accommodation and insensitivity in the work environment.[46] At the time of the Advisory Committee’s inquiry, the Petaluma police administration was aware of several employee grievances involving labor contract issues and these have been resolved.[47]

The police department in 1993 issued a policy to streamline and increase the efficiency of the recruitment, application, testing, and background processes coordinated through the administration sergeant.[48] Employment training is outlined in the department’s General Orders/ Policy Memorandum Manual and Field Training Manual.[49]

According to Chief Patrick T. Parks, the Petaluma Police Department maintains compliance with the continuing professional training requirements of POST. He wrote:

The Petaluma Police Department meets [the advanced officer course] by enrolling all sworn personnel in POST certified courses that meet or exceed the number of hours required. The Petaluma Police Department hosts/sponsors POST approved training in addition to sending officers to multiple locations throughout the State of California to receive continuing training.[50]

The department’s policy memorandum 91–1 details a “continuous, updated in-service training program” which “all supervisors will provide” on child abuse, domestic violence, code 3 vehicle operations, sexual harassment, vehicle pursuits, and use of force, during each shift rotation.[51] In September 1997, the entire department, including sworn officers, dispatchers, records technicians, and community service officers, attended a 16-hour course on domestic violence investigations taught by the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department and subject matter experts from other departments and community organizations.[52]

The department has a general order regarding its internal investigations procedure[53] and provides citizen commendation and complaint procedure pamphlets in both English and Spanish which may be filled out and mailed to the department.[54] For the period March 6, 1993, through February 11, 1998, the department received 27 separate complaints, some with multiple allegations, for a total of 39. Of these 39, 10 alleged excessive force, 9 conduct unbecoming, 3 racism/harassment, 2 harassment, and 1 alleged refusal to enforce a restraining order. Three complaints were sustained, 1 counseled, 2 not substantiated, 5 unfounded, 8 not sustained, and 16 exonerated.[55] The department notified 18 complainants by letter, 2 in person and letter; 2 complainants were not contacted; and 5 methods of notification were unknown.[56] Six officers were disciplined for conduct-related matters in 1997, with four receiving written reprimands and two suspended for a total of 60 hours.[57]

For the period July through December 1997, the department arrested 159 individuals for disorderly conduct, drunk in public. In 99 of those cases, reports were filed by the district attorney; in 44 of those cases, the arrestee was held for detoxification and then released by the officer; 2 cases were rejected by the district attorney; 13 were referred to juvenile probation; and 1 arrestee was transported to a detoxification center. For the same time period, 27 individuals were arrested for resisting or obstructing an officer. In those, the district attorney filed reports in 19 cases, 4 cases were rejected by the district attorney, 3 were referred to juvenile probation, and there was no filing in 1 case because the suspect was unknown.[58] 

Between 1993 and 1997, three officers of the department have been involved in separate incidents of an accidental discharge of a weapon, none of whom were involved in more than one instance. In one case, there was an injury to the officer involved and in another case, disciplinary action was taken.[59] The city of Petaluma offers an employee assistance program, and the police department has a general order providing a peer counseling program.[60]

Rohnert Park

Rohnert Park, located between Petaluma and Santa Rosa, is the home of California State University, Sonoma, commonly referred to as Sonoma State. Although the campus has a separate police force, the Advisory Committee did not seek any information from that department. The city had no homicides in 1995 or 1994, one in 1993, and none in the prior 8 years.[61] Rohnert Park’s Department of Public Safety oversees police and fire fighting functions.

Rohnert Park reported 60 sworn public safety officers and line command as of March 11, 1998, including: 56 males (93.3 percent); 4 females (6.6 percent); 50 whites (83.3 percent); 1 black (1.6 percent); 3 Hispanics (5 percent); 5 Asian/Pacific Islanders (8.3 percent); and 1 Native American/Alaska Native (1.6 percent).[62] Only one public safety officer was bilingual in Spanish. The department also reported 22 full-time positions and 2 half-time positions as nonsworn staff including: 4 community service officers (1 white male, 1 Hispanic male, 2 white females); 1 white male evidence and property specialist; 3 white female secretaries; 1 white female records supervisor; 10 dispatchers (7 white females, 1 Hispanic female, 2 white males); 3 white female office assistants; 1 white female evidence technician/property specialist; 1 Hispanic female public safety clerk; and 4 youth and family services staff (1 white male, 3 white females).[63]

The city of Rohnert Park does not have a formal affirmative action plan. On May 12, 1992, the city council unanimously passed a resolution reaffirming the city’s commitment to equal employment opportunity.[64] The city council has also passed resolutions establishing policies against discrimination based on disability and against harassment in the workplace. There has been one equal employment opportunity complaint filed by a job applicant alleging discrimination based upon perceived disability and the city responded with a motion to dismiss, and one grievance filed that did not meet the definition of a grievance and was referred to the appropriate government agency.[65]

The department provides, on average, 450 hours of in-house training annually, and each public safety officer receives approximately 120 hours of police-related in-house training each year.[66] Although POST requires ongoing training and 24 hours of advanced officer training biannually for a myriad of topics, the Rohnert Park department exceeds the recommendations in most categories. The department provides 2–4 hours of biannual training in domestic violence, 12 hours annually in use of force, 1 hour annually in sexual harassment, 12 hours annually in firearms qualification, 4 hours in cultural diversity, 2 hours in critical incident scene management, 6 hours in verbal judo, and 12 hours in critical incident stress management.[67] Nonsworn personnel classified as dispatchers and community services officers receive 24–32 hours of ongoing inservice training annually. According to the department’s response, domestic violence is one of the department’s “threshold policies” and must be reviewed on a regular basis during shift briefings.[68]

The department has a citizen commendation and complaint procedure pamphlet in both English and Spanish with a blank form and information on how to complete it,[69] and a written “policy for prompt and efficient investigation of complaints involving employees of the Public Safety Department.”[70] Five categories of complaints are outlined in the policy: misconduct, procedure, informal, policy, and criminal misconduct.[71] Table 1 provides a breakdown of the citizen complaints against public safety officers for the period 1993–1997.

There were 17 noncriminal complaints in 1996 and 8 in 1997. The four sustained complaints in 1996 resulted in counseling for the officers. According to the department, about one-third of the complaints investigated are internally generated, and these account for nearly all of the serious discipline resulting in suspension, demotion, and termination. For example, in 1995 one investigation resulted in the suspension of one officer and the demotion of another.[72] The number of days needed to resolve the complaints ranged from 1 day (three cases) to 255 days (one case).[73] There are no records of the number of days it took to process citizen complaints before January 1996 due to a change in the department’s filing system.[74] The department has a written policy to identify troubled or at-risk officers.[75]

During the period July through December 1997, there were 54 reports written for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Of this figure, 47 had charges filed against the individual arrested.[76] However, no information was provided that would assist the Advisory Committee in determining the final disposition of the charges, and as a consequence, we could not ascertain whether charges were ultimately sustained, dismissed, or settled in some other fashion.

Between 1993 and 1998, there were two separate cases of accidental discharge of a firearm by an officer. Both officers received disciplinary action.[77] The use of deadly force on the early morning of April 29, 1997, by an officer of the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety was the catalyst for the Advisory Committee’s inquiries into law enforcement practices in Sonoma County. At the time in the county, it was the last officer-involved shooting in a 25-month period resulting in deaths of eight citizens and findings of justifiable homicide by the district attorney that galvanized community outrage and protest.

Santa Rosa

Santa Rosa, the county seat and largest city in the county added about 30,000 people to its population in the 1980s.[78] San Francisco is approximately 50 miles south and within a 1-hour commute. The city had four homicides in 1995, five in 1994, seven in 1993, two in 1992, six in 1991, one in 1990, five in 1989, five in 1988, and two in 1987.[79] Between April 1, 1995, and March 10, 1998, officers of the Santa Rosa Police Department have shot and killed five individuals.[80] Santa Rosa has experienced 7 officer-involved shootings in the years 1993–1997, and in the period 1987–1992 there were 11 such incidents.[81] Chief Dunbaugh wrote, “It is clear that the numbers of these incidents have actually decreased.” He added:

Furthermore, on March 31, 1991, the newspaper Press Democrat actually researched this issue and compared Santa Rosa to eight police departments that serve populations near the size of Santa Rosa which demonstrated that the guns of Santa Rosa police officers are fired, either accidentally or purposefully, during an arrest about twice a year, an average generally in line with that of comparable California cities.[82]

The Advisory Committee notes the date of the Press Democrat’s research preceded by 2 years the seven officer-involved shootings in the period 1993–1997. The Advisory Committee also agrees with Chief Dunbaugh’s statement at the factfinding forum in regard to officer-involved shootings that “one is too many.” Dunbaugh wrote in December 1998, “Time has passed since you visited our community and circumstances have changed considerably,” [for example,] “the Department has introduced less than lethal weapons (ammunition consists of bean bags and plastic projectiles) in the field for officer use as an option to deadly force when circumstances permit.”[83] In August 1999, the Santa Rosa Police Department received the Dr. James Q. Wilson Award for excellence in community policing,[84] and was notified that it was 1 of 10 finalists for the 1999 Community Policing Award.[85]

The Santa Rosa Police Department’s mission statement outlines its purpose and values:

The Santa Rosa Police Department is dedicated to working in partnership with the community in the protection of life and property. We will strive to improve the quality of life and feeling of safety among our citizens. We are committed to a creative process which develops mutual respect and pride in ourselves and the community. To this end, we value: providing quality service; encouraging accessibility, open communication and participation in decision-making; developing an environment of mutual trust, fairness, sensitivity and dignity; promoting confidence in individual capabilities and cooperation; adapting to changing circumstances.[86]

The Santa Rosa Police Department has a work force of 154 males and 77 females for all job categories, including: 1 official/administrator (a white male); 6 professionals (1 white male, 1 Hispanic male, 4 white females); 34 technicians (8 white males, 1 Hispanic male, 1 American Indian/Alaska Native male, 21 white females, 2 Hispanic females, 1 Asian/Pacific Islander); 146 police protective services officials (5 black males, 120 white males, 10 Hispanic males, 1 American Indian/Alaska Native male, 8 white females, 1 Hispanic female, 1 Asian/Pacific Islander female); 31 paraprofessionals (1 black male, 3 white males, 26 white females, 1 American Indian/Alaska Native female); and 13 office clerical workers (1 white male, 11 white females, 1 American Indian/Alaska Native female).[87] The department does not operate a police reserve program, however, it has created a Volunteers in Police Service program for those graduates of the citizens police academy.[88] In December 1998 there were approximately 50 volunteers in the program.[89] See tables 2 and 3 for a breakdown of sworn and civilian personnel in the Santa Rosa Police Department.

The city of Santa Rosa adopted an equal employment opportunity policy on August 12, 1997,[90] and the police department has an affirmative action plan. For the period 1993 to April 1998, the department had no formal equal employment opportunity complaints and only three informal complaints.[91] The police department has conducted underutilization analyses, and its comparison statistics indicate underutilization of ethnic minorities and women in the police protective services category.[92] This fact was acknowledged by Chief Dunbaugh at the factfinding meeting and he also wrote that the department goal is to increase ethnic minority and female representation in the Santa Rosa Police Department’s patrol force.[93] The chief wrote that since the Advisory Committee’s factfinding meeting, the “department has made strong efforts to recruit minority and women personnel and will continue these efforts, including pursuing new and innovative methods and areas of recruiting.”[94]

The city council adopted an antiharassment policy in July 1991 (modified in 1992),[95] and a policy memorandum was distributed to all city employees by the city manager in 1993.[96] The police chief distributed a general order on antiharassment in June 1992.[97]

The police officer classification requirements are written and available for applicants. Minimum qualifications for a police officer include: 21 years of age, high school diploma or GED equivalency, possess a valid California driver’s license, show proof of birthplace, be a citizen of the United States or a permanent resident alien who has applied for citizenship, verification of eligibility to work in the United States, no felony convictions, and provide evidence of successful completion of a POST approved basic law enforcement academy.[98]

The department wrote that the selection process involves four parts which may lead to an offer: (1) application process with a basic application, supplemental questionnaire, department of motor vehicle history, and POST reading and writing examination; (2) testing to evaluate interpersonal and communication skills and judgment, including a confidential questionnaire, written exercise, spelling recognition test, and a video test that requires the candidate to respond to eight scenarios on a television monitor; (3) appraisal interview; and (4) a background investigation, including a police record check, driving record check, personal history statement, polygraph examination, interview with the chief of police, and psychological and medical examinations.[99] If successful, the candidate is hired into a temporary nonsworn position while enrolled in the 20-week law enforcement program at the police academy. Graduation from the academy is followed by a 18-week field training program, outlined in an administrative general order,[100] and ongoing training throughout a sworn officer’s career.