County of Sacramento: sheriff and police security officers.
Summary
Under existing law a sheriff's or police security officer is a public officer whose duties are limited to the physical security and protection of properties owned, operated, controlled, or administered by a city or county, or by a municipality or special district contracting for police services, and specified other duties. This bill would expand the duties of a security officer employed by the Sheriff of the County of Sacramento or by a municipality with law enforcement jurisdiction in the County of Sacramento to include the security and protection of the property of an entity that contracts for security services from the County of Sacramento or a municipality in the County of Sacramento, whose primary business supports national defense, or whose facility is qualified as national critical infrastructure, or who stores or manufactures material that, if compromised, would compromise national security or pose a danger to residents of the County of Sacramento. The bill would provide that a contract entered into with the County of Sacramento or a municipality in the County of Sacramento for security services must provide for full reimbursement to the county or municipality for the actual costs of providing those services. The bill would require the county board of supervisors or the governing board of the municipality, prior to entering into a contract pursuant to these provisions, to discuss the contract at a duly noticed public hearing.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2010
Committee Review
May 2010
Assembly Passage
May 2010
Senate Passage
Aug 2010
Vetoed
Sep 2010
Introduced Feb 19, 2010
Vetoed Sep 29, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 9, 2010 · Assembly May 6, 2010
How they voted
33–1
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 38
Aug 9, 2010
D
Democratic25
88% Yea
R
Republican13
84% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
25
Key actions
6
Committee
5
Amendments
5
Sep 29, 2010
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
lower
Aug 12, 2010
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 6164.)
lower
Aug 9, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (33-1-4)
senate
Aug 9, 2010
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 11 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Jun 23, 2010
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
upper
Jun 22, 2010
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 15).
upper
May 20, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
May 6, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (67-0-6)
assembly
May 4, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (May 4).
lower
Mar 22, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Mar 18, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 18, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
lower
Feb 21, 2010
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
lower
Feb 19, 2010
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
0 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
No sponsor information available.
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2626
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2626. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline