How is it that ACLU and Law Enforcement Agree on Exempting Probation Officers from Jury Duty?

A new bill, AB 387, supported by law enforcement groups and the ACLU, would exempt probation officers from the jury selection process, also known as voir dire, for criminal cases. Probation officers are sworn peace officers tasked with supervising those convicted of crimes and subsequently released back into the population subject to law enforcement supervision.

Section 219 of the California Code of Civil Procedure states, “the jury commissioner shall randomly select jurors for jury panels to be sent to courtrooms for voir dire,” a preliminary examination to determine the competency of a witness or juror.

“Jury service, unless excused by law, is a responsibility of citizenship,” the Judicial Council says.

There used to be many classifications for exemption to jury duty in California: teachers, doctors, faith healers, merchant seamen, clergy, railroad employees, attorneys, peace officers, telephone and telegraph operators, firefighters, military personnel, and dentists. But as CalMatters reports, the Judicial Council of California, the policy-making body of the state court system, opposes any effort to further reduce the number of people eligible for jury duty, and rather wants those called to jury duty to prove a need to be excused.

Enter Assemblyman Juan Alanis (R-Modesto), a former law enforcement officer and author of AB 387, to exempt probation officers from jury duty. His bill is curiously sponsored by the ACLU and Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) labor union.

The Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) state in bill analysis:

Continuing to include probation officers as part of the eligible pool is both a waste of the courts’ time and resources as well as creates additional pressures on probation departments to pull officers away from core functions.

It’s a waste of courts’ time to consider probation officers for jury duty? The Judicial Council disagrees because they say that the existing jury duty structure contains enough flexibility for jurors whose lives would be unduly burdened if they had to serve.

So what is behind this bill? What is the motive? This bill seems really unnecessary, unless it is a professional favor to law enforcement.

Or was it conceived after spending quality time with fellow peace officers at Pebble Beach last July? Assemblyman Alanis enjoyed a two-day Pebble Beach excursion worth $4,480.72, with CCPOA providing a gift worth $337.50.

The people’s business conducted at political junkets doesn’t usually benefit the people.

We initially were curious about the motive behind AB 387, but found a lot of paid-for travel for Assemblyman Alanis, who clearly enjoyed numerous political junkets last year.

The Fair Political Practices Form 700, required by every elected lawmaker, is often a treasure trove of motive behind legislation. This is all from his Form 700 for 2024, filed 03/03/2025 (see below):

Assemblyman Alanis traveled to Napa with California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, February 8-9, 2024 worth $1,290.65 to give a speech.

Assemblyman Alanis traveled to Washington DC with National Retail Federation, February 2-5, 2024 worth $3,749.98, to give a speech.

Assemblyman Alanis traveled to Pebble Beach with Governor’s Cup Foundation Inc, and CCPOA July 18-20, 2024 worth $4,480.72, to give a speech.

Assemblyman Alanis traveled to San Francisco with California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, July 10-11, 2024, worth $890.29, to give a speech.

Assemblyman Alanis traveled to Coronado, CA with Alliance of California’s Farmers & Ranchers Community Fund, September 16-17, 2024, worth $2,520.86, to give a speech.

Assemblyman Alanis traveled to Hawaii with Independent Voter Project, November 17-22, 2024 worth $5,509.90, to give a speech.

Assemblyman Alanis traveled to Mount Shasta, CA May 16-17, 2024, worth $751.08 to give a speech.

This isn’t a good look. The total for Assemblyman Juan Alanis’s travel junkets is just under $20,000 for 2024.

Existing law prohibits the following peace officers from selection for voir dire for jury service in civil and criminal matters:

a) Any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff employed in the capacity by a county government;

b) Any chief of police, of a city, or a chief, a director, or a chief executive officer of a municipal public safety agency;

c) A police officer appointed by a person designated in b);

d) Any police officers or port wardens employed by the San Diego Unified Port District Police or the Harbor District of the City of Los Angeles;

e) Any marshal or deputy marshal of a superior court or county;

f) The Attorney General of California;

g) All special agents and investigators of the Department of Justice;

h) Any chief, assistant chief, deputy chief, deputy director, and division director of the Department of Justice designated as a peace officer by the Attorney General;

i) Any deputy sheriff from 32 counties, as specified, employed to perform duties related to custodial responsibilities at any county custodial facility;

j) Any member of the Department of the Highway Patrol provided that their duty is the enforcement of the law or the protection of state officers, state properties, and the occupants of state properties; and

k) A member of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Police Department provided that their duty is the enforcement of the law in or about the property owned by the District. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 219 (a).)

“This bill is supported by a unique coalition of organizations representing probation officers as well as criminal justice reform advocates,” bill analysis states.

“The success of individuals on probation is directly tied to the effectiveness of probation officers,” said Assemblyman Alanis on his website. “Pulling them away from their duties impacts their ability to effectively manage critical services for probationers.”

“Probation officers serve as direct ‘arms of the court.’ They are uniquely involved in the judicial process, working closely with the courts to fulfill court orders and ensure those on probation meet their requirements; in addition to ensuring compliance with court orders, probation officers’ duties include supervising individuals, conducting pre-sentence investigations, testifying in court, and providing counseling and post-trial rehabilitation.”

“If any member of our law enforcement community should be exempt, it should be probation officers,” added Alanis.

Why now?

We know the ACLU wants anyone remotely pro-law-enforcement off of criminal jury trials. Probation officers fit that profile, so that may be the ACLU motive.

Bill analysis says:

Although similar measures have been introduced and failed to progress in prior years, this bill is the first jury service exemption for probation officers to win the support of criminal justice reform organizations — who recognize the potential biases that probation officers may bring with them to the courthouse when evaluating a criminal trial.

Potential biases? Plenty of people in many different job classifications qualify for jury duty exemptions for “potential biases.”

ACLU California Action states in the bill analysis:

Ultimately, excluding California Probation Officers from jury duty will reduce the specter impropriety, decrease bias, and strengthen public trust in the fairness of trials and our judicial system.

Ah, so it’s the “specter of impropriety” and “bias.”

Here is the “REGISTERED SUPPORT” of AB 387, so far:

ACLU California Action

All of Us or None Los Angeles

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO

Bargaining Unit 702- SEIU 721 Joint Council

Chief Probation Officers’ of California

Courage California

Initiate Justice

LA Defensa

Legal Services for Prisoners With Children

Los Angeles County Probation Managers Association AFSCME Local 1967

Los Angeles County Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local 685

Rubicon Programs