Following the May 2020 murder of George Floyd, California’s Democratic-controlled legislature passed a wave of new laws to change the way officers do their jobs, from banning chokeholds to decertifying officers with misconduct and increasing investigations into deadly police shootings.

Despite those wins for progressives, law enforcement groups

last week increased their power by blocking

two controversial measures and securing amendments to other bills that aim to limit the scope of their work.

California Attorney General is launching teams to investigate fatal police shootings

Their victories underline the significant influence police unions and similar organizations still have in the Capitol, where moderate Democrats and Republicans regularly team up to destroy bills disliked by the police, despite continued push by activists for more sweeping reform.

Here are two bills that police organizations have blocked and another two that they successfully softened before a major June 2

deadline:

Failed: limiting the use of police dogs

Law enforcement introduced a bill to restrict when officers can use police dogs as their number one priority this year, and have lobbied hard in recent weeks to ensure it failed.

Assembly Bill 742 would have prohibited police from using fangs to arrest or detain people unless there is imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The proposal would still have allowed police to use the dogs for search and rescue and to detect narcotics and explosives.

California bill would ban police dogs from arrests and crowd control, citing racial trauma

In an opposition statement included in an analysis of the bill, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said

so long

some restrictions were justified,

but that

AB 742 “severely limits an officer’s ability to apply a proven, effective, and less-lethal force option that can de-escalate other potentially life-threatening situations.”

According to Justice Department data, black and Latino people were responsible for about 63% of violent incidents by dogs in 2021. Proponents of the bill, including the ACLU, argued that California should ban police use of dogs in part because of their association with historic acts of racism,

pointing

against police dogs used to hunt and capture slaves and against protesters during the civil rights movement.

Lawmakers were not convinced. The bill did not receive enough votes to pass, and Assemblyman Corey Jackson (D-Perris) pulled it out of consideration.

“At the end of the day, law enforcement is good at checking everyone but themselves,” Jackson said, adding that he received multiple death threats for drafting the bill.

Failed: Prohibit seeking permission during traffic stops

Assemblyman Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles) thought the third anniversary of Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer would be a good opportunity to pass a bill to ban cops from seeking consent.

Instead, Assembly Bill fell short by 93 votes, with more than two dozen Democrats opposing the measure or withholding their votes. The bill would have prohibited officers from seeking permission to search people and their vehicles during traffic stops without a warrant or other legal justification.

Bryan cited data showing that the searches are disproportionately used against black and brown people, who often don’t feel safe saying no to a consent inquiry even if they’re not doing anything illegal.

“Guess who always says yes,” Bryan said. “Guess what happens when you say no.”

The proposal was a top priority for the Legislative Black Caucus, and one of the recommendations of a high-profile criminal justice panel that advises state legislators on ways to reduce racial disparities in the criminal justice system and avoid longer prison sentences.

The criminal justice panel says California must repay victims and ban some traffic stops

Law enforcement groups worked hard to block the bill, which they characterized as the removal of an essential public safety tool that people voluntarily agree to.

California Police Chief Assn. President Alex Gammelgard said AB 93 was “a dangerous approach that would have made our communities less safe.”

“We can continue to improve public safety without these kinds of broad bans against legitimate police work,” Gammelgard said in a written statement.

Passed, with changes: limit when agents can stop people

The Legislative Black Caucus also prioritized limiting when officers can make so-called pretextual stops, that is, when an officer suspects drivers of illegal activity and uses a minor traffic violation, such as a broken tail light or expired license plates, to pull them over. to make.

Senate Bill 50 would still allow officers to reprimand people for minor infractions if they are also pulled over for more serious infractions, such as passing a stop sign or speeding. But Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) said SB 50 would ensure officers wouldn’t use minor infractions to target black and brown drivers with a racial bias that they are committing crimes.

New limits on ‘pretextual stops’ approved by LAPD officers, insurgent police union

“A broken tail light shouldn’t cause someone to lose their life,” said Bradford. “This is about making everyone safer, both law enforcement and the general public.”

Amid concerns from his Democratic colleagues and opposition from law enforcement, Bradford agreed to amendments that would relax SB 50 restrictions. The first change would allow officers to pull someone over in cases involving two or more minor infractions

like say, before

one driver had an expired license plate and a covered license plate. The second makes it clear that evidence collected during a stop can be used in court. That means if a cop stops someone illegally for a minor traffic violation, but also finds drugs or an illegal firearm, that evidence can still be used against them.

The bill narrowly passed on 11/22 and now goes to the General Assembly, which has until September 14 to vote on it.

Passed, with changes: Using mobile data

Police groups managed to secure an amendment to an abortion rights law that would still allow them to use warrants to obtain cell phone and caller location data to solve crimes. The measure is intended to protect people

seeking an abortion in California to be identified by surveillance measures of states that have banned abortions. Law enforcement officials claimed that without the amendment, the bill would remove an effective investigative tool in non-abortion cases.