Court Opinion

ID: 9745026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:28:57.218277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:54.876463
License: Public Domain

BENKE, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion. I write separately because I do not share my colleagues’ perplexity over the language and relationship of Education Code1 section 89560 and Penal Code section 830.2, subdivision (c).
*516Section 89560 authorizes the trustees of the state college system to establish a police department and grants peace officer status to the state campus police within that jurisdiction. Under section 89560, if a campus police force is established, its primary duties lie within one mile of campus boundaries.2
The trustees of the state college system of course have no power to establish a statewide police force. Nor do they have the power to grant their campus police statewide jurisdiction. Any extension of jurisdiction for state police beyond their primary responsibilities must be left to the Legislature. Section 89560 acknowledges the possibility that the Legislature may choose to establish, limit or expand the jurisdiction of campus police beyond their primary responsibilities.
Penal Code section 830.2, subdivision (c), is a mirror image of section 89560. It allows campus police statewide peace officer status with primary responsibility as may be set forth by the state college trustees in section 89560.
It is perfectly consistent, and at least not to me confusing or extraneous, for the Legislature to instruct the state college trustees that, whatever power and authorities they may grant to their police, that power shall not be exercised except as to primary duties within the one mile radius of a college campus and as may be further delineated by the Legislature through Penal Code section 830.2. One consequence of this language is that should the Legislature choose not to add any jurisdiction beyond the primary responsibilities set forth in the Education Code, campus police officers would be confined to jurisdiction solely within the one mile radius. In short, the Legislature intends that Penal Code section 830.2 operate as the mechanism by which it will expand or choose not to expand campus police jurisdiction beyond their primary responsibilities. The language of the statutes expresses the clear intent of the Legislature and that intent is controlling. (People v. Herman (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1369 [119 Cal.Rptr.2d 199].) There is nothing inconsistent in a campus police officer having primary peace officer responsibilities within boundaries and peace officer status if needed throughout the state. Any doubt on the issue was resolved in People v. Baughman (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 182, 189 [45 Cal.Rptr.2d 82].
*517Because I find the relationship between the statutes clear and their language unambiguous, I concur in the result reached by the majority.
A petition for a rehearing was denied June 30, 2005, and the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied October 12, 2005. Kennard, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

 All further statutory references are to the Education Code unless otherwise specified.

 These duties have at times been discussed in terms of custodial responsibilities. (See People v. Dickson (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 409, 414 [154 Cal.Rptr. 116, 26 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 61, 66-67] (Aug. 15, 1955).)