Hate Crimes, Explicit Bias, and Implicit Bias: Evolution of Standards for Decertificationof Police Officers in California
*Please note: This webinar will be 1.5 hours, followed by a 30-minute post-webinar discussion.
On Wednesday, August 6, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. EDT, NACOLE will welcome a panel of experts to explore how recent laws in California are changing employment standards for what personal actions and/or beliefs are acceptable for police officers to hold or express and still be hired or continue as employees of law enforcement agencies. Panelists will examine the following recently enacted laws, each of which may bear on these issues:
The California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act (The CLEAR Act - AB 855, Assemblyman Kalra) – Enacted in 2022, The CLEAR Act prohibits the employment of an officer found to have “engaged in membership in a hate group, participat[ed] in any hate group activity or [advocated] any public expressions of hate.” The law requires agency investigations of such potential activity upon application for employment as an officer or following a complaint alleging such activity.
The Racial Justice Act (The RJA - AB 2542, amended by AB 256, Assemblyman Kalra)- First enacted in 2020 and amended in 2022,, the RJA prohibits the state from seeking or obtaining a criminal conviction, or from imposing a sentence, based upon race, ethnicity or national origin. Under the statute, an officer’s decisions based in part on implicit bias can serve as a basis to successfully challenge a criminal charge or conviction.
The Police Decertification Act (SB 2, Senator Bradford) – Enacted in 2021, the statute provides multiple bases for the decertification of a person from employment as peace officer in California due to “serious misconduct.” Among the example of serious misconduct defined by the Act is Demonstrating bias on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.”
The Racial Identity & Profiling Act (RIPA) (AB953, Senator Webber) – Enacted in 2015, the Act among other changes, revised the definition of racial profiling to instead refer to racial or identity profiling, and made a conforming change to the prohibition against peace officers engaging in that practice. The Act defined “Racial or identity profiling” as “the consideration of, or reliance on, to any degree, actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability in deciding which persons to subject to a stop or in deciding upon the scope or substance of law enforcement activities following a stop, except that an officer may consider or rely on characteristics listed in a specific suspect description. The activities include, but are not limited to, traffic or pedestrian stops, or actions during a stop, such as asking questions, frisks, consensual and nonconsensual searches of a person or any property, seizing any property, removing vehicle occupants during a traffic stop, issuing a citation, and making an arrest.”
Related state regulations issued by California DOJ and California POST.
The panel will be facilitated by Jerry Threet, an attorney and consultant in civilian oversight of law enforcement. Panelists will include:
D’mitra Smith, VP of Sonoma County NAACP: Founder of Save You VI; Originator of CLEAR Act; Former Chair, Sonoma County Human Rights Commission
Ed Obayashi, Attorney, Consultant, and Modoc County Sheriff's Office Deputy and Policy Advisor
John Alden, Inspector General, Sonoma County Independent Office of Law Enforcement Review and Outreach
REGISTRATION LINK IS COMING SOON
(please check back later)