California law that prevents someone from being a police officer

[Doug26]

Looking for some assistance, I recently met with my background investigator for the screening interview, I stated I have to DUI’s one was 15 years ago and the other 12 years ago, he stated I could never be a police officer because of a California state law that won’t allow person’s with two dui’s to carry a gun as police. I know for felony convictions that applies and I know I have an up hill battle with two DUI’s, but my DUI’s are only misdemeanor, no felony conviction and no injuries to anyone. Is anybody familiar with this California law, I have never hear of anything like this. Any insight anybody might have would be much appreciated.

[Aidokea]

Looking for some assistance, I recently met with my background investigator for the screening interview, I stated I have to DUI’s one was 15 years ago and the other 12 years ago, he stated I could never be a police officer because of a California state law that won’t allow person’s with two dui’s to carry a gun as police. I know for felony convictions that applies and I know I have an up hill battle with two DUI’s, but my DUI’s are only misdemeanor, no felony conviction and no injuries to anyone. Is anybody familiar with this California law, I have never hear of anything like this. Any insight anybody might have would be much appreciated.

Saved.

[Aidokea]

Your profile says you're 41 years old. The CHP web site says they don't hire anyone over 35 years old. What gives?

[clof2001]

Looking for some assistance, I recently met with my background investigator for the screening interview, I stated I have to DUI’s one was 15 years ago and the other 12 years ago, he stated I could never be a police officer because of a California state law that won’t allow person’s with two dui’s to carry a gun as police. I know for felony convictions that applies and I know I have an up hill battle with two DUI’s, but my DUI’s are only misdemeanor, no felony conviction and no injuries to anyone. Is anybody familiar with this California law, I have never hear of anything like this. Any insight anybody might have would be much appreciated.

Maybe he was just being nice and that was his way of saying get out of my office and apply somewhere else.

[Aidokea]

Sounds reasonable. I've done background investigations on applicants, and I don't know any background investigator that would give an applicant a reason for not being selected.

[NolaT]

This ^^^^^^^^^^

[Doug26]

I’m ok with not being selected, it is what it is. What I am questioning is that he is stating that there is a law that a person with more then one DUI can’t be a police officer because they can’t be issued a gun. This doesn’t make sense and I can’t find any law in the books that states that.

[GGD_CHP]

Aidokea the CHP explicitly tells every applicant they DQ why they are being DQd with absolutely zero ambiguity. Applicants receive a letter a couple weeks later putting those reasons in writing in case they forget, too.

[Aidokea]

I have to DUI’s one was 15 years ago and the other 12 years ago, but my DUI’s are only misdemeanor, no felony conviction and no injuries to anyone.

So were you charged with felonies and plead them down to misdemeanors?

How bad were the crashes?

[Doug26]

There was no crash, I was just pulled over, and no felony conviction. They were both misdemeanor’s, I didn’t plead anything down.

[NolaT]

Again with the mention of no felony Conviction, but you WERE ARRESTED for a felony charge, correct?

[Doug26]

No felony arrest, and no felony conviction. Just misdemeanor’s

[NolaT]

Agreed, when people claim that they have no felony “Convictions”, what they’re usually saying is that, even though they were arrested for a felony, it was plead / reduced down; the felony arrest remains,……

[Aidokea]

Yeah, that would make sense, because in background investigations, it's about what the offender actually did, not about how much he was able to mitigate the legal consequences of what he did.

And since convicted felons can't legally possess guns, no agency would be stupid enough to hire someone that committed a felony, regardless of whether or not they were able to plead it down to something less- it's just too much liability for an agency to assume.

[IroqouisB]

I’m sure your BI saw your CII printout, and knew right away. Save yourself some time and heartache and seek out another profession.

[L-1]

Looking for some assistance, I recently met with my background investigator for the screening interview, I stated I have to DUI’s one was 15 years ago and the other 12 years ago, he stated I could never be a police officer because of a California state law that won’t allow person’s with two dui’s to carry a gun as police. I know for felony convictions that applies and I know I have an up hill battle with two DUI’s, but my DUI’s are only misdemeanor, no felony conviction and no injuries to anyone. Is anybody familiar with this California law, I have never hear of anything like this. Any insight anybody might have would be much appreciated.

There are many laws that prohibit people from possessing weapons, so it is impossible to know which one the officer was referring to without speaking to him directly. With that in mind, here are a few for you to research -

Section 1029 of the California Government Code prohibits felons from being hired as peace officers. This includes felons who have had their records expunged or who have been pardoned.

Government Code Section 1031(d) prohibits hiring applicants who are not of "good moral character" as determined by a background investigation.

11 CCR § 1953(b) says background evaluation criteria shall include (among other things - Integrity, Impulse Control/Attention to Safety, Substance Abuse and Other Risk-Taking Behavior, Stress Tolerance, Confronting and Overcoming Problems, Obstacles, and Adversity, Conscientiousness, Interpersonal Skills, Decision-Making and Judgment, Learning Ability, and Communication Skills.

In addition, each agency has its own minimum requirements for their peace officer positions, which will vary from department to department. Applicants who fail to meet any one those criteria can be immediately disqualified. Those criteria often tend to be very vague and broadly worded, allowing agencies a lot of leeway to eliminate an applicant they don't want. My department's DQ criteria covers multiple pages so I won't try to list it here, but below is a small excerpt. Look at it and then use your imagination to see how easy it is to eliminate an applicant who made a mistake back in the day.

All candidates for, appointees to, and employees in the civil service shall possess the general qualifications of integrity, honesty, sobriety, dependability, industry, thoroughness, accuracy, good judgment, initiative, resourcefulness, courtesy, ability to work cooperatively with others, willingness and ability to assume the responsibilities and to conform to the conditions of work characteristic of the employment, and a state of health, consistent with the ability to perform the assigned duties of the class.

In my agency, two DUIs could be spun into the applicant lacking the traits of sobriety, dependability, and good judgement. It would also raise questions about Impulse Control/Attention to Safety, Substance Abuse and Other Risk-Taking Behavior, Stress Tolerance, Confronting and Overcoming Problems, Dealing with Obstacles and Adversity, and Decision Making.

[Doug26]

Thank you, that makes more sense as to why the investigator would say that.

[L-1]

Also when it comes to the background, the fact that someone was never convicted is meaningless. What counts is the person's actual conduct. I have told the story many times of an applicant I did the background on who raped his neighbor. The arresting agency screwed up handling the blood, semen and other physical evidence, causing them to all be thrown out in court. This made it a she said/he said case and the jury acquitted. While the applicant may have been found not guilty as a matter of law, he was still a rapist as a matter of fact and was disqualified on the background. It is one's conduct that counts and not the legal niceties.