California 2023-2024 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1435

Introduced
2/17/23  
Refer
3/16/23  
Refer
3/16/23  
Report Pass
3/16/23  
Report Pass
3/16/23  
Refer
3/20/23  
Refer
3/20/23  
Report Pass
4/18/23  
Report Pass
4/18/23  
Refer
4/18/23  
Refer
4/18/23  
Refer
5/17/23  
Report Pass
5/18/23  
Report Pass
5/18/23  
Engrossed
5/31/23  
Engrossed
5/31/23  
Refer
6/1/23  
Refer
6/14/23  
Refer
6/14/23  
Report Pass
6/28/23  
Refer
6/28/23  
Refer
6/28/23  
Report Pass
7/12/23  
Report Pass
7/12/23  
Refer
7/12/23  
Refer
7/12/23  
Refer
8/21/23  
Refer
8/21/23  
Report Pass
9/1/23  
Report Pass
9/1/23  
Enrolled
9/13/23  
Vetoed
10/8/23  

Caption

Department of the California Highway Patrol: officers: age limit.

Impact

The bill is poised to have a significant impact on state laws governing public safety and law enforcement recruitment in California. By increasing the age limit for potential officers, the bill may help address staffing shortages in the CHP, attracting candidates who may have gained valuable life experience and maturity, critical qualities for law enforcement roles. However, the change will not be permanent, as the new age limit will revert to 35 years after 2027 unless further legislative action is taken.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1435, introduced by Assembly Member Lackey, amends the Vehicle Code to adjust the maximum age limit for examination candidates seeking entry-level positions with the California Highway Patrol (CHP). The bill raises the age limit from 35 to 40 years, allowing individuals within this age bracket to qualify for examination until January 1, 2027. This change aims to expand employment opportunities in law enforcement by allowing a broader age demographic to apply, thereby potentially increasing the number of qualified candidates available for these positions.

Sentiment

The discussion surrounding AB 1435 has generally been supportive among legislators who advocate for increased flexibility in recruitment practices, identifying the benefits of a diverse age range among law enforcement officers. Supporters argue that a broader age range can enrich the department with varied perspectives and experiences, which can be beneficial in community policing efforts. In contrast, some concern has been expressed by individuals wary of potential implications for physical fitness standards and the challenges that older entrants might face during rigorous training programs.

Contention

Notable points of contention within the discussions revolved around public safety implications and the balance between age-related experience and physical capability. Critics of raising the age limit might argue that younger officers can better meet the physical demands of the job and relate more effectively to younger communities. These discussions highlight the ongoing debate about how best to equip law enforcement agencies with officers who not only meet age and fitness standards but also reflect the diverse demographics of the communities they serve.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA SB236

Public postsecondary education: University of California: California State University: student financial assistance: tuition and mandatory systemwide fees: admission of out-of-state students.

CA SB308

Community colleges and the California State University: reports: elimination.

CA SB462

California Farmland Conservancy Program: conservation easements: funding.

CA AB1432

Health care coverage.

CA SCA6

Gambling: sports wagering.

CA ACA16

Gambling.

CA SB1434

Horse racing: wagering.

CA ACA18

Gambling.