Law Might Disarm Some Officers : Legislation: Those convicted of certain misdemeanors are affected under sweeping state gun statute. Police and sheriff's agencies are searching records to identify them.

By CARL INGRAM

April 22, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

SACRAMENTO —

State and local law enforcement agencies throughout California are searching employee records to determine if any of their officers are on the wrong side of a wide-ranging new gun-control law that could cost them their weapons and even their jobs.

At issue is a provision of the statute that prohibits purchase or ownership of a firearm for 10 years by anyone with a history of certain misdemeanor crimes. The prohibition covers such offenses as assault, battery and brandishing a gun.

In a check of the state’s largest law enforcement agencies, only the Los Angeles Police Department has confirmed that because of the law, an officer had been reassigned to a job where possession of a firearm is not required. Others are reviewing the records of their officers and thus far have found no offenders.

Peace officer management and rank-and-file organizations want the law changed, contending it was never intended to prevent an officer from carrying out his law enforcement duties.

Advocates say it is right to excuse peace officers from the prohibition because they are the only group of Californians whose careers depend on carrying a gun. While an officer can be assigned to a non-enforcement desk job, these positions are limited and can be a career dead-end.

Frank Grimes, vice president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, argued that peace officers charged with a misdemeanor eight or 10 years ago had no way of foreseeing that a plea of guilty or no-contest might affect their jobs years later.

“In the case of a police officer, the punishment that was given by the Municipal Court judge was appropriate, but (the officer) was unaware that the plea could affect his ability to make a living,” Grimes said. “There are those who say this was the intent of the Legislature. I don’t believe it was ever the intent to take away the career of a peace officer in the pleading of a case eight or 10 years ago.”

Peace officer employers--cities, counties and state government--fear the filing of massive liability lawsuits if an officer in violation of the law continues to carry a gun.

“The liability issue could bankrupt an employer in no time unless this statute is cleaned up,” said an official in the state Department of Justice, who asked not to be identified.

No agreement has been reached on how to amend the law. But it is likely that a bill that gives even the appearance of providing preferential treatment to peace officers would face trouble in the wake of controversy over the beating of Rodney G. King by Los Angeles police officers.

The unforeseen problem for law enforcement officers and their employers arose from widely publicized legislation that as of Jan. 1 imposed a 15-day wait on the purchase of virtually all guns. Specific provisions that significantly toughened purchase and ownership restrictions received far less publicity, including the ban that applies to anyone with a history of these misdemeanor crimes.

The potential impact on law enforcement is at least the second instance in which the Legislature’s 1989-90 drive to enact new gun controls has had unforeseen consequences. The other, involving a privacy issue, was brought to light with the disclosure that the names of nonviolent mentally ill people voluntarily admitted to hospitals were being reported to the state Department of Justice.

The intent of the 15-day wait law was to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. In doing so, the Legislature and governor last year included as “prohibited persons” anyone who had been convicted or pleaded guilty to gun or violence-related misdemeanors. Previously these individuals would not have been prevented from owning or possessing a firearm.

The attorney general’s office is reviewing the constitutionality of the law and has not come to a conclusion. But Deputy Atty. Gen. Paul Bishop, an expert on gun laws, said: “On the face of it, the law applies to all persons. It doesn’t matter whether they have a badge or not.”

Some lawyers have questioned, among other things, whether the statute violates a constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws and whether it applies to police or others who may have had their misdemeanor records expunged.

In a Times survey of 11 major law enforcement departments statewide, some officials said they were unaware of the past-crimes feature of the law and expressed surprise at its potential impact on their officers. Others reported they only recently had been alerted to it and were examining thousands of internal reports to learn whether any of their officers with previous misdemeanors might be affected.

Some agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, have informally asked the state Department of Justice about using its computerized systems to determine whether the names of officers show up on rap sheets.

“I have been told, and it’s hearsay from friends in major police agencies, that there are cops who have pled guilty,” said Fred Wynbrandt, assistant director of criminal identification and information for the state Department of Justice. “What are they going to do with these officers?”

In the case of the 8,100-member Los Angeles police force, Don Lawrence, a spokesman for Chief Daryl F. Gates, first confirmed reports that “a few officers have been affected by that law . . . and have been taken out of (armed) duty.” Later, he said further checking revealed “only one individual” was told to turn in his gun and assigned to a non-enforcement job. The officer was not identified.

At the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Lt. Bill McSweeney of the internal affairs bureau said that “sheer numbers (more than 7,000) would indicate that . . . we would have some. We are concerned, but at this point we are not certain that we have anyone who may have a conviction.”

In Orange County, Sheriff’s Lt. Dick Olson said officials have surveyed law enforcement records and “didn’t come up with anyone” in the department who would be disqualified from carrying a weapon.

San Diego Police Sgt. Joyce Edgar said the gun law has prompted “some discussion” among personnel officials there, but no action had been taken.

In Sacramento County, one deputy sheriff involved in a spousal abuse case “may very well be in a position of losing a job,” said Sheriff Glen Craig. Craig, who helped write the 15-day wait law, wants to craft a remedial bill that would hold offending officers accountable but not cost them their jobs.

Most law enforcement participants who helped write and push the legislation by Assemblyman Lloyd Connelly (D-Sacramento) said they fixed their attention on criminals and the dangerously mentally ill and were stunned to learn of the potential consequences for peace officers.

Other law enforcement representatives and a top Connelly assistant, Gene Erbin, agreed that the issue surfaced briefly as the fiercely opposed bill cleared one hurdle after another. Rather than jeopardize the chances of passage, they said, the issue was put aside as a technical matter that could be cleaned up later, a common lawmaking practice.

“It kind of slipped through and included some misdemeanor things that you (ordinarily) wouldn’t lose a job over,” Craig said. “It appears that a whole bunch of us didn’t look at it closely enough.”

Spokesmen for police chiefs, sheriffs and peace officer unions said it is unlikely that many law enforcement personnel would run afoul of the gun law. First, many departments will not hire applicants with any kind of misdemeanor record. For officers who commit misdemeanors while on the force, stiff disciplinary actions can be invoked, including possible firing and suspension without pay.

Further, a peace officer who had committed a misdemeanor such as brandishing a gun or assault against a spouse may have had his or her criminal record expunged after successfully completing probation. In such cases, it is unclear whether the crime could still be held against the officer for purposes of the new gun-control law, said state prosecutor Bishop.

Assemblyman Connelly, although undecided about carrying remedial legislation, has circulated among peace officer organizations a preliminary proposal that would give judges discretion to apply the gun ban based on the officer’s on-duty performance and off-duty behavior.

Erbin said in the case of an officer who committed one of the gun prohibition crimes since the law took effect, a judge might waive the full 10-year prohibition and impose it for only three months with the condition that “in the next five years, if you get in any trouble at all, the prohibition is going back on.”

For officers sentenced before the law took effect, Erbin said they might petition a court to lift the prohibition based on their otherwise clean records and a favorable recommendation from their chief or sheriff. “Or the judge could say: ‘You had an offense eight years ago; you had a bad record as a cop, and I’m not going to do it,’ ” Erbin said.

GUN OWNERSHIP LIMITS

Under a tough new law that took effect Jan. 1, any person who has been convicted or pleaded guilty to violating these misdemeanor offenses is prohibited from owning, possessing or having under his or her control any firearm for 10 years. Previously, these crimes alone would not have made guns off limits to Californians. Assault or battery

Assault with a stun gun or Taser

Assault with a deadly weapon

Assault with a deadly weapon on a school employee

Discharging a firearm in a grossly negligent manner

Threatening exhibition (brandishing) of a firearm

Threatening exhibition (brandishing) of a replica of a firearm

Use of a deadly weapon to dissuade a witness from testifying

Threatening a witness to, or a victim of, a crime

Possessing a weapon in a courtroom

Possessing a loaded firearm in state Capitol, state office, governor’s office or constitutional officer’s residence

Discharge of a firearm at unoccupied vehicle, building or dwelling

Possession of a firearm on school grounds