Senate Public Safety Committee

Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, April 7, 2026. We do not yet have a quorum, but we will operate as a subcommittee. Just a few announcements before we start today's hearing. In terms of the public comment procedure, on each bill we'll take two principal witnesses in support of the bill and two principal witnesses in opposition of the bill. And then we invite any members of the public who wish to express their support or opposition to come forward to the microphone. Your testimony will be limited to just state your name, your organization, or your city that you're from, and whether you support or oppose the bill. But we are very grateful that you're here today for today's hearing. And with that, we'll begin with our first bill, which is filed in 1 SB 907 by Senator Archuleta. Good morning, Senator. And whenever you're ready, Senator, you may begin your presentation.

Thank you, Senator. Each witness will have two minutes to address the committee, and thank you for joining us today. Whoever would like to proceed.

he shouldn't escape a warning that driving drunk is dangerous, and if you continue to drive drunk and kill someone, you can be charged with murder. This is a preventative measure. It's designed to prevent tragedies in the future. So thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Archuleta, for taking the leadership on this. I'm happy to answer any questions, and thank you for your time. Thank you. Hi, good morning. Hi, can you hear me? Hi, I'm Jennifer Levy. I'm from L.A. County. I'm here because our son, our only son, Braun Levy, 18 years old, is dead. He's not a statistic. He's not just another name on a page. He was a real person, vibrant, beloved, magnetic, and the hole left by his death is so deep and violent that there are moments it still feels impossible to wake up and live my day. He suffered a death that was 100% preventable and heinous. Someone with a suspended license, repeat DUI offender, got behind the wheel of a dangerous weapon, a car, and it was that simple and selfish. Braun was killed instantly. Braun was called the Blonde Bomb because he was a pure force of life. He was full of energy, uplifting, inclusive, and joy. He had that rare kind of spirit that made every room, every gathering, every situation he walked into better just by being there. He made people feel seen. He made people laugh. He brought light. He brought connection. He elevated everything. He loved his friends, going to concerts, watching sports, eating steaks, laughing, spending time on the vibrant beaches of Southern California. He even ran the LA Marathon with no training. He was just that person who always did the unthinkable. You would have loved him. You would have wanted to know him. In fact, the week before he was killed, my husband and I received three phone calls. one was that he had earned a walk-on spot at university of virginia tennis team one of the best division one tennis teams in the country he was so ecstatic and happy he could not wait to live his life then we got a second call loyola high school called us to inform us braun was not only graduating in the top 10 in his class he's being awarded the scholar athlete of the year award and the Frank Callahan Award, the most coveted and prestigious award a young man can earn at Loyola High School. We decided to keep all this a secret. We wanted to watch with honor and pride as our son accepted these awards with surprise. And then we got the third phone call five days before graduation. Ma'am, your son's been hit by a car and I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but he didn't make it. That was five days before high school graduation. I wanna show you, before I got here, I decided to go on my camera and look for the last picture I had of Bron. This is Bron and my husband, Dan. And they're sitting in bed together, eating cereal, watching ESPN. It's such a simple, ordinary, beautiful moment. A father and son safe in their rituals, in their love, in the assumption there'd be another morning and another game and another bowl of cereal. I did not know that one day this picture would be sacred. He died a few hours after this photo was taken. That is what drunk driving does. It does not just kill a person. It annihilates a family's future. It takes the ordinary precious moments that make up a life and turns them into artifacts of grief. That is our life right now. People call DUI a mistake, an accident. No, it's a choice. A person chooses to drink. A person chooses to get behind the wheel. And when that choice ends a life, we cannot keep minimizing it with soft language and weak consequences. I have been lobbying for change since the day my son was killed, talking to everybody we know. Our life is braided from northern to southern California. And this is what I hear over and over. Oh, if you want to get away with murder, go to California and use a car. That's not funny. That's what people say. That's California. That's not a joke to us. Mandatory minimums don't work. This bill is more than deterrence. A person in prison can't get behind the wheel and kill another person. There's racial disparities. The solution to inequity is fair application of the law. Victims of drunk driving don't get to choose. Braun didn't choose. I didn't choose. DUI does not discriminate. It's too expensive. Ask me what it costs to lose our son and bury him. I dare you ask me. I'll tell you because I have to live with it every single day, morning, to night. And how do you think it trickles down to the survivors and our extended family? My husband goes to work every day, employee of the state for the past 30 years. He goes to work every day as a pediatric surgeon to save the lives of other children while his child is dead. How does he do it? I don't know, but it has cost him. Our daughter, who's trying to finish her college education, she lost her little brother and best friend. How has this cost her? No 20-year-old should carry this burden. To say this is too expensive is insulting. Removes judicial discretion. This bill targets cases where discretion already failed. The discretion argument is weakest exactly where this bill is strongest. We should focus on treatment, not punishment. You can believe addiction is a problem and disease and believe the state of California deserves better. We deserve protection. We deserve better. There is no sentence strong enough to describe what it means to wake up every day and remember that your child is dead. Just think about that for five seconds. If every morning you woke up and the first thing in your head was, my son is dead, my only son is dead, and now I have to live this day again. There's no punishment that can restore the sound of his voice, the way he filled a room, the way he made people feel. But the law can decide whether this state takes these crimes seriously. Too often DUI is treated like an unfortunate last instead of what it truly is, a completely preventable act. of violence. Criminals should not fall between cracks because it's their first offense. I am here asking so the next parent does not have to stand at this microphone. Bronze death left wounds that do not heal and not just for me My wounds remain open and my soul was not broken it mutilated Please make change and protect those that are still alive Thank you for listening and taking the time Thank you very much. Okay, we invite any members of the public who wish to express support for Senate Bill 907 to please come forward. Your testimony is limited to your name, organization, and position on the bill. Good morning, Chair and members. Tamar Tokat on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, proud co-sponsors, in strong support. Thank you. Nicole Wordleman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support. Gia Chen on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, in support. Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support. Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Good morning. Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support. Brandon Epp on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff in support. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Mike Sharif with Fans Law Government Affairs on behalf of co-sponsors of the Safe California Roads Coalition. Thank you and your staff for your work on this bill. Appreciate it. Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Riverside County District Attorney's Office and the California District Attorneys Association in strong support. Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 907? Seeing no one else, we'll now invite up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill if they would like to present. I believe we have a quorum at this time, so please call the roll. Aragin? Here. Aragin here. Searto? Here. Searto here. Caballero? Cortese? Here. Cortese here. Perez? Wiener? Wiener here. Okay, thank you very much, and good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee. Thank you. Good morning. I want to express my incredible, heartfelt sympathy for your pain. I have lost a family member to drunk driving. He was a school principal and had a 5-year-old child. He was 35 years old. I, too, understand that pain. I think that all of us may have been touched in one way or another by either our friends or loved ones and the pain that this brings. But even given that, I don't think the emptiness can be filled by putting people away for longer periods of time. I believe that what is necessary is to prevent drunk driving. And I believe there's research and evidence that have brought to us what are now proven methods to do that. And I want to turn it over at this point to my colleague Ignacio Hernandez. But I do want to say that the California Public Defenders Association respectfully asks for your no vote. Good morning Mr Chair and members Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice We are a statewide association of criminal defense lawyers in private practice and also work in the public defender offices and we are respectfully in opposition Let me start by saying I have a lot of respect for the author. I've worked with him on other bills with other clients. A lot of respect for the witnesses that testified earlier about their family tragedy, really have no words to address the pain. and a lot of respect for the prosecutor who testified. Our position at CACJ in policymaking is that all voices need to be heard in the decisions that you make and when we craft policy. I've been involved in lobbying and being a part of this capital and policymaking for over 25 years, and I've always appreciated hearing all sides. And I think that we can take into consideration the tragedies, because I think in some ways we are more alike than we're different. Nobody wants to see these tragedies. I've had to testify on public safety bills for over two decades, some tough ones. At the end of the day, we don't want these tragedies. But we can care about the families and victims and tragedies, and concurrently we can also care and try to be stewards of core legal and constitutional principles. And that is the challenge. I would not want to sit where you sit every Tuesday morning where I've been coming in for the last 20 years to figure out how do we craft laws in a way that address the tragedies that you heard today, but also address the entire spectrum of cases that you may hear. And how do we also address the core constitutional principles to have a balanced system? It's difficult. I'm going to mention a couple things in the bill, but let me just say this. I have been saying this entire year that what we need to do, because there are over 20 bills dealing with DUIs and reckless driving this year, is we all need to sit together at the table and figure out where the gaps are and figure out how these bills can fit together in a more uniform, holistic approach to prevent DUIs in the first place and to fill gaps on sentencing where it makes the most sense. And so I reiterate that today, my commitment. I've been telling authors and telling offices for the last few weeks and working with colleagues to come up with a game plan on what laws can look like. And so I will share that with you, and I'll reach out. If I haven't reached out to your office already, to you individually, I will do that. Let me just mention, if I have any more time, I'm not sure that I do, but just on the bill itself. I do appreciate the amendments that were accepted by the author today and provided by the committee. We do have some legal concerns with the consecutive sentencing. As was stated earlier, it is unique and not in a lot. It's only in one area of the law where you allow consecutive, even at the discretion. And we think there may be some core legal principles that may be problematic in applying it here, even though I think when we look at the tragedies, it would make sense. We think there's some core legal principles that may be problematic. I know my time is wrapping up. I'm available for questions. On the Watson advisement, I'll just mention one of the challenges is that there may be someone who was driving with alcohol and then it was pled down. They were saying to hit and run, I think is what was mentioned. And the concern is that if it turns out the evidence that someone was not drinking and driving, we're now imposing a drinking and driving Watson advisement on them for the future, even if it turns out that they did not engage in a DUI. And so that problematic for us to treat a non as if it were a DUI If the evidence shows that it was pled down for that reason that it turned out it was not a DUI But I happy to answer questions I know I out of time and I appreciate the time Thank you very much. Now take any of the members of the public who wish to express opposition to SB 907. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. George Pramthu on behalf of ACLU California Action and Respectful Opposition. Thank you. Liz Blum-Guterres on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 in respectful opposition. Good morning, Mr. Chairmembers. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 907? Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments at this time. Vice Chair Ciaro. offer right first to the author thank you for bringing this forward this is on yeah it's about time that we start taking this a lot more seriously than we have you know if you worked at any position in public safety for any amount of time you realize that this problem isn't getting better It's getting worse. And the I think a lot of the pain from the victims is knowing that the person that has caused them so much pain that it's irreversible. We'll be able to continue to do that. And I do believe that the best way to prevent a DUI is through prevention and keeping people from doing that. But when that fails, there should be consequences for that failure. And that failure needs to be borne on the person that decided to disregard all of the consequences that they know are out there for doing a DUI, for being that person. And they go out and do it anyway. There is no bringing back the person that they have maimed, killed, injured, psychologically damaged forever. Somebody needs to have justice. And sometimes we forget that part. We forget the part where, you know, this isn't just about rehabilitating people. This is about people needing their justice for the damage that has been incurred by somebody who knows darn well that what they're doing can result in that type of damage. I'm a co-author on this bill. I would have been more than glad to carry it as well. I'm sick and tired of this. I'm sick and tired of, well, fortunately, I don't have to go on those calls anymore. Hundreds of calls. Most of the calls I went on in my 35-year career were the horrendous accidents were DUI-related. And yet we just continued to allow the same thing to occur over and over and over. And we make excuses for people. and we talk about, oh, well, you know, they need rehabilitation. Yeah, great. If you can't, then focus on that. For Pete's sake, focus on that rehabilitation. Because if you can do that, then the DUI will never happen and we don't need justice for somebody who's dead, nor do we need justice for their families. So, bring bills that help people not do DUIs but once they've done it they need to pay the price and that price that they're paying is substantially less than the price that the people that they have victimized it's paying so yes I will be supporting this and I will support whatever efforts we can to prevent DUIs because I don't want them to happen. And I don't want to see another parent burying their children. I've seen too many. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Senator Cortese. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make a couple of comments before we move on here. first of all it's my understanding if I'm understanding the briefing I received regarding prospective amendments that the authors agreed to take an amendment regarding eliminating the strike provision in the bill is that correct? That's correct I would have liked to have seen more done and let me just say as a somewhat of a qualifier I'm a full-time legislator and I have been for a long time at the local and state level and I haven't practiced criminal law actively in the courts for um for some time but you know clearly I'm I'm trained to do that and um there there's there's some fundamental some fundamental lines that have been crossed in the bill in my humble opinion and and That doesn't mean we don't need to do this. We need to move this along, I think, today. And we need to do something in this year, this year of 2026 in the legislature, to deal with this problem. We just conducted a very, very compelling hearing between my committee, Transportation and Public Safety. I think most people in this room are aware of that. Listeners may not be aware of it. there's nothing you could say after that hearing other than changes need to be made, changes need to occur not only on the criminal side but on the transportation side as well. That said, I think it's important that if we're not going to be amending the violent felony language in this bill today that we do that going forward. If we don't do that, it would present a problem for me, you know, supporting the bill either in a subsequent committee hearing or probably more importantly on the floor. And again, let me go back to what I started to say. There's no way that I'm going to say that any kind of legal technicality should stand in the way of justice consequences. I do agree and I appreciate very much Senator Saracto's comments about we also need committees like Senator Wiener's Select Committee and others to keep working on rehabilitation and keep working on, you know, preventing much, much more of this kind of behavior, addictive behavior than what we're currently preventing, basically. We have an epidemic of serious substance abuse addictive behavior and alcoholism out there obviously which is at the root and foundation of all of this That said I also agree with Senator Sarato there needs to be consequences so we in agreement there But without getting into the way I was trained on the law, you know, in terms of any deep dive, I do want to say that for hundreds of years of me going all the way back to the British system that we're based on, the purpose of of having a manslaughter category if you will for this kind of harm was so that you had some place to put cases where that were really lacking what they teach us in latin the mens rea but the criminal intent that would rise to the level of of of a more serious uh homicide basically So to cross that line, you know, to sit here in a committee as a as an attorney who knows that, who knows better and say, hey, we're just going to vitiate. And we could. I mean, it's the power that we have here is that we could actually set the precedent to to change all that in the California legislature. and set some kind of precedent that would not only affect this particular body of law, but also become something that's relied upon in other areas of criminal law. I'm not prepared to do that. And so part of the message is always with these kinds of comments from the dais, as Senator Archuleta knows, he's made his share of them, not as an author, but as somebody voting in committee. I just have to urge you to to if this bill gets out of committee today to work on that aspect of it. It's it's it's not it's it's not it's it's a very, very significant consequence to the way that we apply the law to the way we've adopted criminal law in this country going back to the foundation of the country. It's not just this would this will send a message. You know, it would. It would send a message if we if we left those violent felony language in there. But it also sends a message to perpetrators, people who fall into this behavior intentionally or not, that it doesn't matter anymore if it's intentional. If you do it, we're going to treat it as if it was absolutely intentional every step of the way. And that's just not the way our legal system works. We have to have a place to put those cases where it's either unprovable and probably because it's unclear as to whether or not that level of criminal intent has been has been reached. So I don't want to be redundant. And also, again, I try not to be, you know, legalese or technical. There's a lot of smart people in here that know exactly what I'm talking about smarter than I am. But I want to explain that concern. And Senator Archuleta, I'm more than happy as a colleague, you know, to help flesh out my concerns on a one on one basis more with you. In fact, I would be honored to help, you know, get the bill in final form in a condition where we didn have any of those kind of problems because I do think we need action And I commend you for not only your passion about this but for your commitment to making sure something happens this year We're seatmates for those of you that don't know and he's been telling me as we sit next to each other, Senator, this has got to happen. you've got to help me make this happen we've got to have a different response to these DUIs I'm with you on that but we also have to to navigate some very very important criminal law doctrines that perhaps inadvertently I don't know but have are in the category of a line that's been crossed in the bill right now that that we need to fix that's that's where I'm at on it and and I won't change my mind about that unless it's fixed. So I just want to be clear about that. That said, I'll pass it back to the chair. My intention is to, you know, seek the chair's recommendation on this when the chair has an opportunity to advise us where he's at on it. But again, if the bill gets out today, I hope you'll take seriously the comments I made this morning. Thank you. Thank you. I have several other members in the queue. And just to be clear, my recommendation is to move the bill out with the one amendment that the senator has accepted. But I do agree with Senator Cortese's comments. And as you know, the other amendment I did propose did remove that felony piece. and Senator you wanted to keep that in but I really encourage you to heed the key the comments you're hearing from the committee today as this bill moves forward because I think that these are serious legal questions that we have to consider I agree with you that we need it we need to have a system of accountability to make sure that people that repeatedly driver the influence and inflict harm and kill people are held accountable I think a senator Cortese had said we held a hearing just a few weeks ago on this issue and there are many gaps whether it's DMV and they're tracking enforcement of people that engage in reckless driving or whether it is loopholes in the law that allow for people to repeatedly inflict harm while driving under the influence and so this is a very serious issue I commend you for bringing this bill forward I know this is a deeply personal issue to you and your family, and we do need to take action this year, and that is why I believe we should move this bill out today with the amendment that you accepted. But I do strongly encourage you to listen and heed the comments from committee members about other issues that need to be considered if this bill moves forward today. Senate Press. May I close? Oh, we're still having a discussion. Oh, yeah, but we'll get to them in a second. Well, I want to appreciate the comments that both the chair as well as Senator Curitizzi has made in regard to this bill. And, you know, I think I want to underscore Senator Archuleta just what a personal issue that I recognize this is for you. In addition to that, I'm sure that many of us sitting up on the dais have read the reporting by many entities, including CalMatters, on the gaps that currently exist within the system. And how we have unfortunately seen, in many cases, folks that have had repeated DUIs or repeatedly driven recklessly, seen back on the roads, who have harmed other people. And I think many of us in this room know of family members of loved ones of friends that have been impacted you know as a result of those gaps I you know your bill is doing quite a bit it's a very significant bill and there's about six different pieces of it I was spending some time you know yesterday evening taking a look at it and I can appreciate the direction that you're trying to take this, which I think is to address the gaps that exist, particularly for those that are repeat offenders, you know, of driving vehicular manslaughter, or it adds gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicating gross vehicular manslaughter to the violent felony list. And so it talks, you know, about folks that are driving with DUIs and folks that are driving recklessly and who are repeat offenders. But one of the things that I did note, you have six different measures in here in the fourth one, which requires imprisonment in the state prison or county jail for up to one year for hit and run, causing damage to property within 10 years of a separate conviction for DUI, gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, or gross vehicular manslaughter. I will know, you know, as I went through your bill, the portion of it stood out to me as well, because it doesn't really match up with some of the other issues that you identified, right? I mean, we're talking about somebody committing a hit and run causing property damage versus, you know, in these other cases that you've outlined here, where somebody's actually harmed someone else, right, or gotten on the road like drunk. So I do think that this fourth policy that you've outlined here, I do think that you need to revisit. I also think that the concerns that Senator Cortese brought up, you know, are valid and, you know, will require you to look at those as this bill continues to move forward. It's a significant piece of legislation, but, you know, as someone that spent time getting to know you over, you know, the last two years, I understand why it's such a significant piece of legislation. You lost your granddaughter as a result of a drunk driver. And I can understand what a deeply personal issue this is for you. And I too want to see something done about this. There's no reason for us to continue, you know, to allow for victims of these tragedies to occur and to suffer and to have their families suffer either. So I'll be supporting your bill today, I think, with the understanding, as some committee members have mentioned, that there is some work that needs to be done here. It's quite a significant bill. But I understand your passion and wanting to really make an impact on this issue. And so, you know, appreciate the work that you've done here. and the research also that you've brought in as well because there's certainly been a lot of discussion about this in media and with some of the data that's been gathered around this too. Thank you. Senator Caballero? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could I ask if this bill passes out a committee, what does the next committee go to? Appropriations. Okay. let me just say that that makes a difference to me because the more eyes from the legislative from the Senate that are on this I think the better Senator Archuleta, we know how close this is to your heart, and I really appreciate the work that you've done and the steadfastness in you to stay focused and not be bitter and angry, although I know you're angry about the loss of your granddaughter. The challenge for me is that this is the area of the law. You and I have talked about this before that I worked fairly significantly in. And it is six bills, six bills in one. And probably what we should have done is said, you know what, take it apart and let's deal with them one by one. Because it gives us the opportunity to really be, I think, wise about what we're doing. and for me the bottom line is that the the three strikes in the violent felony were our roads too far the other part we can tinker with the words I get where you're trying to go and I think there have to be increased penalties and there has to be consistency in how we we deal with what is a complicated issue related to mental health. It's an addiction and personal choice. We want people to take responsibility for the bad choices that they make. And we've been struggling with trying to figure out how to give people the benefit of the doubt, but also to consequence people. So I wish this went to another committee because then there'd be another backstop. People could look at it and have a discussion about what they're willing to do. I'm willing to listen to the rest of the comments of the committee as well as your closing here, but I have real problems. Both the three strikes and the felony designation have consequences way beyond rehabilitation and punishment. that start affecting how individuals are. Because I did this area of the law, in many instances, it affects the entire family. And yes, their bad behavior affects other entire families as well. But I'm particularly concerned with trying to do things in a way that actually makes sense and is not an overreaction to us not having done things for far too long. So as I said, I'm not sure what I'm going to do right now, but those are my two bottom lines. And so thank you for taking the committee amendment to strike this section, section number one that has the three strikes. But for me, if I end up supporting it today, if the change is not made by the time it gets to the floor, I won't be willing to support it on the floor, despite the fact that I think there are some good elements. You've taken pieces that need to be fixed. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Wiener. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank the author for bringing this forward, and I know the devastation that was inflicted on your family is just unfathomable. and thank you as well for also turning your unthinkable tragedy into action. I also like many people have lived experience here When I was six years old a drunk driver killed my aunt my father only sister his big sister And I was very young, but I remember very vividly. I believe it was the only time that I can recall in my life that I saw my father cry when he picked up the phone and was informed that his big sister was dead. And then I vividly remember my grandmother collapsing at the burial site at the funeral as she put her eldest child in the ground. And our family impacted us forever. and if we think California's laws are a little are too loose teleport back to 1976 New Jersey or any state back then when drunk driving laws were just abysmal and I don't remember exactly what happened to the guy who killed my aunt but it was not very much and I know California's laws are they need to be strengthened there are just it's not enough and people who can cycle through over and over again with very very few consequences so I'm glad that this year there's finally a long overdue focus in both houses on strengthening these laws and ensuring real accountability it's very different than it was in the 70s there's at least more stigma now around drunk driving but the laws are not where they need to be. And so this is important work. I'm going to support moving this bill out of committee today as part of the two-house conversation to strengthen and rationalize our DUI laws. But I do want to be very clear, this bill goes too far. This bill is, in some ways, it goes way further than it needs to go. And I wish that the author, and I expressed this yesterday to him, had taken the chair's request to remove the violent felony piece entirely. I know that's not happening. I do believe that that should happen because, as Senator Caballero pointed out, this is a lot of bills in one. I'm never going to – having done that, I'm never going to criticize for people doing multiple bills in one. I do that regularly. um but uh um uh but even without that this bill is still uh quite harsh in terms of the changes to the consecutive um uh terms so um for example i believe in in san francisco the the the woman who was not because the bill is not just also about dui it's also about gross vehicular manslaughter so the the woman who uh who killed an entire family in west portal in san francisco and who pled to gross vehicular manslaughter, she would have had four consecutive sentences. She's an elderly woman. She would have served until probably age 130. That in and of itself is a massive, massive change to the law in terms of how we do consecutive sentences when there are multiple people who are killed. This change is hit and run law. so that if you leave the scene you are presumed to have been intoxicated. I don't know if that's ever been done in California law before. That seems that is also a very significant shift People leave the scene yes perhaps because they intoxicated but for a lot of reasons that is a massive change in the law This change the change to credits for time for good behavior in prison normally you can reduce your sentence. If you're sentenced to 10 or 15 years, you can probably reduce it by about 50%. If you have, if you were an exemplary prisoner, this would eliminate that possibility largely um you can still have some reduction but very minimal so someone who um who who say um gross vehicular manslaughter not intoxicated um kills a few uh some people kills a family um horrific should have severe consequences you're now with the consecutive sentences and and much reduced uh credits um is going to serve an enormous amount of time way more than now. And again, whether that's good or not good, it's a huge change. In addition, even if the DA chooses not to charge as a violent felony, I believe the credit reductions still apply. Whether or not, even if the DA says I'm not charging it as a violent felony under the circumstances, the credit reductions still apply. And then there's the expansion of the Watson advisement for if someone is not convicted of a DUI, but they were initially charged with a DUI. Each of these things is a big bill on their own and a big, big change of the law. And again, there's, and I think some of it is really good and important. Some of it is, probably needs to be, have some work on it. So even without the violent felony piece, there's a lot of really significant additional accountability in this bill. So I wish you would agree to that. I understand that you've decided not to, and I respect that. But this is the first committee. Again, there's work happening in both houses, so many bills, long overdue work. And so I'm going to watch closely to see how this bill evolves before it gets to the floor. But for today, I'm going to vote to move it out so that this conversation can continue. So with that, I'll turn it back over to the author to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank each and every one of you for your comments, and each one of you in your comments is well heard. I am going to take note of that because what was so significant originally was, of course, the three strikes and what that would mean to anyone who did something from stealing a candy bar to using a knife in a fight, whatever it is. and that's the third strike. And okay, we removed that. That amendment is there. Now the other one, of course, the violent felony. That is something that I will consider. So please take note because we have got to listen to California. The Californians are in this room that I spoke to. 800 people last week in Orange County. Listen to me. 800 people showed up. In between two buildings was this walkway and each building was glass and each building had hundreds of pictures on each side of all the victims lives lost. It was incredible. I've never seen anything like it. And I was honored to speak there And the number of police officers and families and and supervisors in Orange County and all of you who sat on city councils mayors they was there It was fact It was a statement that yes it is time we do something And thank God you here This is your time This is my time Because 10, 15, 20 years ago, you weren't here. I wasn't here. My granddaughter would still be alive. But it is our time to listen to the people that are saying, please stop this epidemic. We've got to get people to understand you don't drink and drive and expect to walk away and have no consequences. So, yes, it's a monumental bill, as it should be, because California is speaking. Braun, his life was going to be stardom. A tennis player on his way to stardom. Maybe the Olympics, God knows where. my granddaughter with her masters who knows what she'd have done for the youth that need so much help and it goes on and on but I will tell you this when we got the call my wife and I and we we hugged each other we cried we couldn't believe it and the drive listen you all know I'm a combat veteran a former paratrooper with the 82nd airborne I've been there I've seen it but to hear that about your granddaughter and we had to drive from Los Angeles Peacol Rivera area to Victorville the longest drive of my life because we didn't know what to do and what to expect but when we got there it was true and our granddaughter was so tragic they had to use her fingerprints to identify her think about that the mangling the pain the tragedy and yes we have opposition no doubt and I thank you for acknowledging Braun and his loss and the toughest job I would think is to be a defense attorney because you're trying to defend someone who four or five six times has driven drunk time and time again how many times has he injured someone or maybe even killed who knows but I will tell you this we've got to go forward and yes I'm going to amend the bill And yes, when it gets to the floor, it may not be the same bill because those two provisions that you both talked about may be removed. But I will tell you what, I think everyone would agree in California that this legislator, 2026, each and every one of you has taken a move forward. That's the key. And because of your intelligence, your experience, your background, I am listening. Well, let's go ahead and listen to California, and let's move this bill forward so then I can make these adjustments, so we can go forward, so California can make a statement that we have not forgotten our victims, and I urge an aye vote. Thank you, Senator. Motion by Vice Chair Searto, which is the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. SB 907 Archuleta, do pass as amended to Appropriations. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Searto? Aye. Searto, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez, Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much. And again, I'd like to thank you all, and it was the most difficult thing for me to do today, but I thank you. And we will make those changes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, as we transition next bill, I need a caucus with the author, Senator Strickland. Thank you. Thank you. The No Lives Matter is motivated by nothing other than violence for violence's sake. According to the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, the majority of the federal 764 cases were related to child sexual abuse material. 70% of California cases would be covered by this bill's SB 1015 because the defendant coerced or exploited their victims into committing acts of self-harm. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported a 115% increase in sadistic online exploitation from 2024 to 2025. Law enforcement and researchers both agree this is one of the fastest growing forms of cybercrimes targeting our children. These predators specifically target the most vulnerable children, often through struggling with their mental health, depression, or isolation. The pattern they use to harm our children is consistent. First, they befriend the child online. Then they isolate them. Then they coerce them into producing explicit images, self-harm content, or other compromising material. And once they have that material, they weaponize it. What makes especially dangerous is what comes next. Victims are not just exploited. They are turned into tools. They are forced to recruit, threaten, and extort other minors. These networks are motivated by notoriety control and status within their communities not ideology and not money but the thrill of the influence of power they extort over children that they exploit Under current law, law enforcement can prosecute adults who directly exploit the children, but there's a critical gap in our current law. The law does not clearly provide an avenue to prosecute adults who indirectly exploit children by coercing them against other children. This loophole is exactly how these predators networks operate. I've heard directly from law enforcement that adults are intentionally using minors to distance themselves from the crime. This is similar to how criminal street gangs use minors to avoid their harsher penalties. SB 1015 addresses this gap by creating a specific offense for anyone who recruits, directs, coerces, or uses a minor to harm, groom, harass, or exploit another child. This gives law enforcement a direct tool to go after the masterminds of these criminal networks. It also sends a clear message to these predatory networks. You cannot hide behind a child to commit a crime. The second part of this bill addresses another critical gap that we can no longer ignore. Currently, minors are largely excluded from being charged with extortion in order to avoid criminalization, co-sensual relationships between minors. However, the online networks are not just targeting minors. Increasing minors themselves are voluntary members of these predatory online networks. At a certain point, when the conduct rises to the extreme levels of coercion and harm, the minors engaged in this damaging conduct need to be held accountable. SB 1015 creates a very focused tool to charge these minors with misdemeanor or felony. It's a wobbler. Importantly, a minor may only be held liable if all the followings are true. They knowingly engage in the conduct. The conduct involves threats, coercion, or intimidation. And if the conduct causes another minor to cause physical harm to others and engage in sextortion by using intimate images, including AI-generated images. Without this change in law, these networks can continue to operate by cycling exploitation through minors with little accountability. All in all, SB 1015 is about modernizing our laws to match how crimes are being committed today. These networks are evolving quickly. The members are organized, and they are targeting our children. Right now, our laws are one step behind. SB 1015 gives law enforcement the tools they need to stop people from driving this behavior. Members, this bill is about continuing to protect our children from violent predators. I respectfully ask your I vote. So here with me today is my sponsor, Sheriff Don Barnes of Orange County and Riverside County Chief Deputy District Attorney William Robinson to testify on this bill. Good morning. Thank you for joining us today. We each have two minutes to address the committee and we would like to begin. Sheriff. Sorry. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. One of the most serious threats facing young people today is online exploitation, specifically online extortion. A particular concern are decentralized online groups like 764, who use social media, gaming platforms, and messaging apps to target other minors. They groom victims, pressure them into sharing explicit content, and then blackmail them for more images money or even to perform dangerous acts to themselves and the public The psychological harm is severe In some cases victims have been driven to self or suicide This problem is growing rapidly In 2024 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Cyber Tip Line received more than 1,300 reports connected to groups like 764, a more than 200% increase from 2023. And most alarming, this area is also referred to as nihilistic violence. There is not one of the 55 field offices at the FBI nationally that doesn't have at least one case they're looking at for nihilistic violence targeting groups like 764. Sadistic is putting it mildly. Many of the actions and images caused by these groups cannot be described in this setting. Locally, in Orange County, my department has investigated multiple cases. In one, an adult used a gaming platform to coerce a 12-year-old boy into having sex with his 10-year-old sister, exploited repeatedly and consistently over a matter of years. and another, a 15-year-old member of an online group called in a bomb threat and an active shooting threat at a local high school, resulting in a SWAT response and lockdown. Gaps in current law hinder investigations. Adults can be charged for direct exploitation or extortion, but there is no clear charge when a minor is manipulated to exploit another minor. Many members of 764 and affiliated groups are themselves minors, deliberately used like criminal street gangs to use minors and avoid penalties, and some of these minors are acting independent of adults to perpetuate these acts. SB 1015 closes this gap by criminalizing the use of any minor as a tool of exploitation. Passage of this bill represents an important step in addressing a growing problem that seriously threatens the well-being of our youth. I ask for an aye vote in support of SB 1015. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is William Robinson and I'm a Chief Deputy District Attorney with the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. I'm here today in strong support of SB 1015. This bill addresses one of the most urgent and rapidly evolving threats facing our children today, online exploitation and extortion. Across California and throughout the country, children are being targeted through social media platforms, gaming systems, and messaging apps. Offenders establish contact, build trust, and then quickly shift to coercion. In other words, pressuring children to produce explicit images or engage in harmful conduct. Once that happens, the dynamic changes. The offender now has leverage, and that leverage is used to control, threaten, and exploit. But what is especially concerning, and what this bill directly addresses, is what happens next. We are increasingly seeing offenders force victims to recruit or exploit other children, turning victims into unwilling participants in the harm of others. This is not impulsive or immature behavior. This is structured, coercive exploitation. Law enforcement has identified organized online groups that use this exact model to target minors, coercing them and then using them as conduits to reach additional victims. The psychological harm is severe. Victims experience fear isolation and long trauma In some cases this coercion has led to self and even suicide And the scope of this problem is growing rapidly with significant increases in reports tied to these types of networks in recent years But here is the critical issue. Our current laws have not kept pace with this evolving form of exploitation. We have statutes that address direct sexual exploitation. We have statutes that address extortion. But when an offender uses a minor as a tool to exploit another minor, there is no clear, direct statute that captures that conduct in a way that reflects what is actually happening. And that gap matters. It makes investigations more difficult. It creates challenges in charging decisions. And it allows sophisticated offenders to exploit that gray area. SB 1015 provides a clear and targeted solution. It creates a specific offense for individuals who recruit, direct, coerce, or use a minor to harm or exploit another minor, including through digital platforms. It also clarifies that sexual images, intimate images, and AI-generated content can be used as tools of extortion, ensuring the law reflects modern realities. I need to wrap up. I will. This bill is narrowly tailored At its core, this bill reflects a simple and urgent principle Children should never be used as instruments of harm And when individuals deliberately exploit them in that way The law must provide a clear and effective response For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 1015 Thank you very much, both of you, for your testimony At this time, we'll take Me Too's in favor of the bill Come up, state your name, the organization you represent And your support for the bill Thank you Brandon Epp on behalf of Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna in support. Brock Campbell from the California Baptist Capital Ministry on behalf of six California Baptist churches, Ridgewood Heights and Eureka, Faith and Sheridan, Calvary and American Canyon, New Testament in Hanford, Faith and Atascadero, and Lighthouse in Santa Maria. We support. Thank you. Emily Campbell with the California Baptist Capital Ministry on behalf of five California Baptist Churches, South Coast in Santa Barbara, Freedom's Way in Santa Clarita, Mountain Avenue in Banning, Solid Rock Baptist Tabernacle in Bellflower, and Silicon Valley Chinese Baptist in Santa Clara in support. Good morning, Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support. Thank you. Good morning, Ivy Fitzpatrick, California District Attorneys Association, in support. Thank you very much. Okay, at this time, we'll take primary witnesses in opposition. So if you're a primary witness in opposition, please come forward. We've had a problem this morning keeping to our two minutes. So I'm going to let you, I'm going to give some deference on this one. But after this, we're going to have to tighten that up. Okay, so. So do a round two, but not five, okay? Sounds good. Thank you. George Pramthu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition to SB 1015. As listed out extensively in the analysis, a whole host of current laws address the situations motivating this bill. It is currently a crime to contribute to any child's delinquency by causing them to engage in a crime. It is currently a crime to cause any person to engage in very serious crimes, including causing someone to engage in lewd acts with a child. It is currently a crime to contact a minor with the intent of committing sexual or violent offenses, even if that contact is made indirectly through an agent. It is currently a crime to possess, develop, or reproduce child sexual abuse materials. Not to mention the other four pages of current laws listed in the analysis. Given our current laws are extensive, the question becomes what is going wrong? In many of the cases cited, there are a few core issues. It is difficult to gather the necessary evidence for this sort of cybercrime. It is difficult to identify the actual perpetrator in the cybercrime environment. And if that perpetrator is outside the state's borders or outside the country's borders, there are some complex jurisdictional questions that arise. In other words, our laws are not the issue. These logistical problems are. And SB 1015 isn't going to make those logistical problems disappear. We agree that there is more the legislature can do to protect our children. But the answer is not duplicative penal code sections. Perhaps the most direct answer to this issue is to require the corporations who are operating and making a profit off these online forums to put in place policies to protect children from these crimes in the first instance. For these reasons, we urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. What were the amendments, please? The amendments narrow section one of the bill to limit the covered conduct defined terms and limit the bill's application to adults and make the crime a wobbler instead of a straight felony. narrow Section 2 of the bill and include a definition and require diversion for a juvenile. So are juveniles still allowed to be charged? Yes. But they are eligible for diversion. Thank you. I want to echo the comments of my colleague from the ACLU, And I do believe that SB 1015 seeks to address legitimate concerns regarding coercion and harm to youth in the digital spaces. But the part that we're concerned about the most is the part that addresses adolescent peer behavior. because as the author says in his statement in the analysis, this closes a loophole because offenders manipulate minors into harming or exploiting other minors. And I think that recognizes that the minors, whether they're recruited into the platform or they're listened to the platform, engaged in the platform, They are used almost like Oliver Twist in a Charles Dickinson kind of scenario, and they should not be punished. California has chosen to go in a different direction in terms of how we deal with minors. specifically the State Office of Youth and Community Restoration says that the goal is to replace punishment-oriented approaches with restorative justice, ensuring youth receive support, mentorship, and mental health care to thrive. And in the last 10 years, there has been an even more robust body of evidence and research that shows that the harms of a punitive response to teenage behavior has led to the recognition in California that that's not the path we're going down and we're going to tailor our responses. So I believe that this is a misguided attempt to criminalize youthful behavior when in fact as you said in your opening and also in your letter in the analysis we talking about adults manipulating behavior So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1015? Liz Blum-Guterres on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and the San Francisco Public Defenders Office in opposition. Thank you. Mike Adokteroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition. Thank you. Jonathan Laba, California Youth Defender Center in opposition. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1015? Okay, seeing no one else, I'll bring back the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, can you address the issue that was raised in regards to the tech companies and their responsibility in some of this? Do you understand my question? No. There was a comment raised that we're going after the wrong people, that the tech companies have the ability to do work to protect minors that are accessing information on their site. We're just wondering if you've thought about that or if there's a response to that. I would love to have my sheriff, who's a sponsor of the bill, maybe respond to that. That would be fine. And then I want to be able to speak to the bill. Senator, that's a great question and the point that was brought up. There is an issue that's a decades-long issue known as Section 230 that protects the software companies from the actions of individuals on their platforms. That needs to be addressed over time. It's created a safeguard for them. This has been brought up in numerous instances and other harms have been created in the public space, predominantly fentanyl distribution and others. There's been a reluctance of the software platform companies to address this issue because they have a safeguard to hide behind Section 230. So I believe that that is a federal issue that needs to be addressed. It's been brought up several times with members of Congress. I testified on this issue last year. I don't disagree that that needs to be addressed, but that is not something that can be addressed in this bill to make the federal government change Section 230. So it's always going to be a platform, a safeguard for those companies to hide behind until it's changed. Thank you very much, Sheriff. I appreciate that comment. And that really then puts it squarely in our lap. And let me just say that, you know, we have treated youth differently than we treat adults. But some of the behavior that has created issues of safety in the community, I think, have to be addressed and addressed aggressively. because my understanding of what is happening with the ability to recruit, solicit, get other young children involved in behavior they don't understand and that they easily manipulated into is seriously affecting the mental health and their physical well of children When they committing suicide when they are hurting other youth and whether they're too young to understand the consequences of their behavior or not, we've got to do something that says we've got to get you into the system, and maybe there's a way to also do referrals to the Department of Social Services so that there's eyes on the family situation as well. But I really appreciate what you're trying to do with this bill. I'm going to support it today because I think the ability to access information on the Internet has gone way beyond parental control, way beyond what is age-appropriate in particular. and to be able to leave it as the Wild West unaffected by what our state does is just not something that I'm willing to go with. So I do appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. My Chair, Cierta. Thank you. I'll be supporting your bill today because you're attacking a problem that's evolving. And we always get into this issue with the miners. On one hand, we don't want to harm them by creating a permanent record through criminal charges and things like that. But at the same time, if you're not going to have a consequence or a charge or something to reel them in, as my colleague was stating, how are you going to help them? How are you going to get them out of that cycle? uh my most the biggest exposure i've had to this type of behavior is uh with the gang related behavior where the the older members of the gang were recruiting you know 13 and 12 and 13 year olds to go in and rob the store or shoot the person or do that because there were less consequences or no consequences if we don't have some way of of charging a minor and they we have laws that protect them down the road as far as their records are concerned, if they're able to clean up. We have to get them into a situation where we can help them. And that's what I think this is trying to do, is trying to not only hold the people that are trying to manipulate them or have manipulated them, but also getting the person that's been manipulated into an environment where we can help them. You know, that's the rehabilitation part that we keep being told that that's what we want to be focused on. You can't rehabilitate people if you're just turning them back into the environment that they were in before and saying, hey, you're too young to know what you're doing. So see you later. So I agree with my colleague from Salinas. I think it's Salinas, right? Merced, my bad. Somewhere in the middle of this. that this takes a step in that direction to try to address something that is evolving. This is new stuff over the last 10, 15 years that is getting worse and worse, and we have to get a grip on it. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Seeing none, I'll turn it back over to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again I want to thank you for your leadership and help with this bill and your staff all their hard work in helping us craft this I would just say law enforcement community has come forward that these networks are growing rapidly And 70% of the California cases will be covered by this bill, SB 1015. As a father of two, I think it's about time that we close the loophole on this law. And for those reasons, I ask for your aye vote. Okay, motion by Vice Chair Ciarto. The motion is to pass the committee on appropriations as amended. SP 1015 Strickland. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Arragin? Aye. Arragin, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez, Wiener? Okay. We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, everyone. And as I announced prior to this bill being heard, SB 1027 will be continued to our next hearing on April 14th. So with that, I see Senator DeRasso is here, and we have two bills on our agenda today by you. And so if you're ready, we can proceed to file item 6, SB 1285. Good morning. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Okay. Yes, I'm here to present SB 1285. Good morning. This bill affirms California values by allowing justice-impacted youth, we were just talking about it, the opportunity to petition for dismissal of their records and begin their new adult lives. California's juvenile justice system is designed to rehabilitate youth to eliminate long-term collateral consequences after termination of their court involvement. Juvenile courts have discretion to seal records and grant dismissals. Record sealing does not give juveniles a completely fresh start. California's record sealing laws do not apply to federal jurisdictions or other states. For example, prior juvenile records, even if sealed, often hinder a person's ability to enlist in the military, obtain gainful employment out of state or at facilities that require federal background checks, and secure occupational licenses, which are factors that help drive recidivism. Collateral consequences make it more difficult for the juvenile justice system to achieve its rehabilitative purpose and make it easier for justice-impacted youth to repeat a cycle of incarceration. Unfortunately, many youths with past juvenile justice involvement encounter obstacles to fully participating in society, even after their juvenile records have been sealed. In 2022, AB 2629, which is the current law, requires when a juvenile court terminates jurisdiction, a juvenile court judge considers factors such as the juvenile's successful completion of probation, mental illness, prior victimization when considering whether to dismiss a juvenile's petition. More importantly, the court's discretion remains regardless of whether the petition was sustained at trial, admitted by the youth, or by plea agreement. Some of the courts regrettably have experienced confusion with the current law's intent. So this bill clarifies and codifies that Section Welfare and Institutions Code 782 is a general dismissal statute and ensures that a petition dismissed under 782 is treated as it never happened, protecting individuals from unfair or harmful consequence. in the future. This is in accordance with longstanding and widely accepted interpretation of California's dismissal law. With us today, we have the pleasure of hearing from our witnesses, Jonathan Laba with the California Youth Defender Center and Evelyn Gonzalez with Fresh Lifeline for Youth. They are also available, thank God, for technical questions. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Jonathan Laba, and I'm testifying today on behalf of the California Youth Defender Center, the sponsor of Senate Bill 1285. SB 1285 is a follow-up to a previous bill sponsored by CYDC. In 2022, the legislature enacted Assembly Bill 2629, which reformed the juvenile court statute that governs dismissal of juvenile cases in the interest of justice. AB 2629 created a great weight standard in favor of dismissal when Mitigating circumstances are shown unless there is a danger to public safety. AB 2629 passed with a supermajority in both houses and no identified law enforcement opposition. It reflected a clear legislative intent to encourage juvenile courts to relieve youth of the penalties and disabilities of juvenile justice system involvement whenever public safety is not at risk. The juvenile dismissal statute has always been considered by appellate courts to be what's known as a general dismissal statute, affording broad relief, just like the adult companion statute, which is Penal Code Section 1385. Once a juvenile court has determined in its discretion that the interests of justice favor dismissal, a person is protected from future adverse consequences based on that adjudication. So why are we here with SB 1285? AB 2629 included language to ensure that there was clarity that dismissal of a case and sealing of records are two separate processes. Defenders like myself need to make separate motions to seal records and to obtain dismissal of a case. That is uncontroversial. However, as described in the bill analysis, there was a recent appellate court decision that misinterpreted the language in AB 2629 on this point and suggested that AB 2629 actually eliminated the character of the juvenile dismissal statute as a general dismissal statute. SB 1285 is a very narrowly tailored bill intended to correct this judicial misinterpretation. It does not create new law. Rather, it reaffirms the longstanding understanding that Section 782 is a general dismissal statute as it has been interpreted by the appellate courts since its enactment over 50 years ago. In so doing, SB 1285 safeguards justice for youth by ensuring that youth are treated with fairness and dignity and, where appropriate, protected from the potential lifelong impact of a juvenile record. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Hi, good morning. Good morning, Chair and Committee. My name is Evelyn Gonzalez, and I'm with Fresh Lifelines for Youth, or FLY, FLY is a nonprofit serving Bay Area youth impacted by the justice system. I'm a program manager and coach at Fly and I have three children. I'm attending school to finish my bachelor's degree and I also volunteer at a community hub in the evenings to support marginalized communities suffering from substance abuse in San Jose, California. I stand here to advocate for SB 1285 because the barriers created by having a juvenile record affected me and now the youth that I'm serving. In 2022 I traveled to Sacramento to advocate for AB 2629 I returning now to ensure the promise of AB 2629 is realized through SB 1285 My involvement with the justice system started when I was 15 years old I was charged with multiple felony robberies. I committed these robberies to obtain my basic needs like food, clothes, and hygiene items. My father struggled with substance abuse and will disappear for days, never having money anytime he got back. So I had to flee and focus on my own survival. During my incarceration, I found out I was expecting a child. I decided that my son will have a better life and a nurturing parent. I focused on burying myself. I finished probation successfully and graduated from high school. I went to enroll in college and my goal was to become a nurse. However, my record did not allow me to enroll in the nursing program. Despite my good academic standing, I struggled with employment a lot. I felt like my plan had failed. I had no other support system. I was first gen. Parents didn't speak English. I lost motivation and returned to harmful environments, bringing my toddler along with myself. However, with the support with Fly, I was able to get back on track. And now years later, I'm supporting young people also find their path. The youth I coach have strong desires to also succeed in life but when they're set to take the next step into a different better environment these doors close because of their backgrounds they struggle with obtaining employment and housing and when we create these barriers it increases the risk of recidivism as it did with me these cycles can be stopped the legislator can break these challenges and see an upsurge of young people becoming productive members of society like myself if They're able to get their records fully dismissed and start fresh. I really ask the members here to vote yes on SB 1285. Thank you very much. Well, I'll take any other members of the public wishing to express support for SB 1285. You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Good morning, Chair and members. Ed Little with California for Safety and Justice and Support. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support thank you George Prampe on behalf of ACLU California action in support thank you Diego Ballesteros on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth in strong support Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support Maya Howard on behalf of San Quentin Skunk Works in support Liz Blum-Guterres on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support Okay, thank you very much. We're now taking up the two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to SB 1285 Okay, seeing no one coming forward, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1285? Mr. Chairman, members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC. Appreciate working with the author and we've removed our opposition. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1285? Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero? Well, I was going to thank the lobbyists for PORAC for removing their opposition. What I think is just a really reasonable bill. Thank you to the author for bringing this back so we can get clarification. And thank you to Ms. Gonzalez for her testimony here today and for your participation over the years on this really important issue. We have to give people a second chance And if we not willing to do that then we not what we say we are which is it a a society that believes that everybody can make amends and can change their life and my experience is that once you use you you become pregnant and you have a child you realize you want something entirely different for that child and it's a it's a transformational experience and the number of individuals that were former gang members that I represented they all came back and said I'm ready to make the change that I need to make and so this is a really important bill and when the time is appropriate I'd like to be added as a co-author and also make the motion Mr. Chair I just had a question regarding the the sealed records versus what you're accomplishing here Because what we're accomplishing here is erasing the past. And sealed records keep that past hidden. If it's hidden, how is it affecting the people going forward? And maybe one of your witnesses can address that. Because if their record is sealed, I don't understand how it's impacting them when they're trying to get a job or going to college. So maybe that can help me with that. Yes, if I may. So there are a number of situations where sealed records can still be accessed for various reasons. And what we have found is that for certain types of situations, it includes military, occupational licensure, out-of-state implications, that dismissal is what is required and that sealing is not sufficient to achieve the true benefits of being able to move forward. And how does one go about showing that this is – that a pattern of behavior is continuing as opposed to – because if it's not continuing, then I can see where the problem kind of goes away because nobody seeks that. But when the pattern is getting repeated again, every offense seems to become a first offense. And if we're treating every offense as a first offense when there are multiple offenses before, then how do we recognize that now? Sure. So this bill doesn't change existing law relating to sealing of records. It doesn't touch that space at all. But I think to address your question, defenders, so I'm a public defender in Contra Costa County, a youth defender. And what we have to do if we're trying to achieve sealing or dismissal is we make separate motions. um sealing is sometimes less controversial judges tend to take a very exacting view in terms of whether they're going to grant a dismissal or not so sometimes we achieve sealing and not dismissal sometimes we achieve both but um this bill just confirms that they are separate processes um under the law all right thank you that helps me out a lot thank you let's hear any other questions or comments i'll turn it back over to senator vaso to close thank you um uh thank you members, this is basically to uphold our commitment to a serious second chance opportunity for our youth. And the rehabilitation that they seek, healing, careers, this is all part of a really important part of their future. So respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Caballero. The motion is due pass to the floor. If you can please call the roll. SP-1285, Durazo, motion is due. Pass to the floor. Araguin Aye Araguin aye Sayarto Aye Sayarto aye Caballero Aye Caballero aye Cortese Aye Cortese aye Perez Wiener Okay we keep that bill on call for absent members but thank you very much for joining us today Thank you With that, we'll proceed to the second bill by Senator Durazo, SB 1342. Thank you. Thank you very much. 1342 is a technical fix to improve implementation of California's automatic record clearance laws. AB 1076 and SB 731 already established who qualifies for eligibility. This bill does not expand eligibility. It simply ensures people who already have eligibility can access the relief they deserve. Current law allows individuals who are eligible for automatic record clearance if they meet certain criteria, including not having pending charges. Unfortunately today, many old arrests are still labeled as pending, quote unquote, in the California Department of Justice records due to missing or incomplete information, such as cases where charges were never filed or dismissed in court or resolved but never properly reported or updated. These outdated pending charges wrongfully block eligible individuals from receiving relief even when no prosecution ever occurred. When relief is granted, California DOJ updates the person's state record, but there's no requirement for local courts to do the same. As a result, background checks that rely on local court data show old convictions that have already been cleared, leading to confusion and harm to the individual who rightfully deserves to move forward. People may also need to provide documentation that the record has been cleared, but there's no standardized court certificate available for them to request. These detrimental gaps are preventing otherwise eligible individuals from fully benefiting from California's automatic record clearance laws. This bill offers practical, targeted procedural changes that ensure the laws we've already passed function as we intended. With me today, I have Mr. Ed Little, California Government Affairs Manager with Californians for Safety and Justice. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Ed Little with Californians for Safety and Justice. California made historic progress with AB 1076 of 2019 and SB 731 of 2022, expanding automated record clearance for millions of Californians with eligible arrest convictions. Implementation has revealed three critical barriers preventing some individuals from receiving or fully benefiting from this relief. SB 1342 addresses these issues by preventing outdated pending charges from blocking record clearance, requiring local court records to be updated to match California DOJ records, and establishing a clear process for individuals to obtain written proof of relief. This bill would address a set of issues that we have identified as implementation pain points that require some minor adjustments. Courts are, by and large, doing their part to shield records from the public view when they have been identified by the Cal DOJ as subject to this relief. However, certain entities retain access to cleared records through court and local data systems, primarily law enforcement agencies, a designation that includes public defender's offices providing record clearance and legal services. Without a process to resolve old and incomplete pending charges, individuals remain ineligible for relief under current law even when the legal system itself abandoned the charges years ago. At the same time, individuals who do receive relief under current law may have no reliable way to prove it because local records are outdated and there is no simple court-issued proof of relief available for them to request. fixes to the court level include requiring courts to produce upon request a written confirmation that they have received notification of relief from Cal DOJ for a particular record and are limiting access to the record pursuant to Cal DOJ notification 1203.425. Allowing people to easily obtain record-specific confirmation of relief is important. We believe that SB 1342 strikes the right balance to ensure that the laws we've already passed are implemented as the legislature intended. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1342? Please come forward to state your name and organization's position on the bill. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support. Thank you. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you. George Bramthu on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you. Maya Howard on behalf of San Quentin Skunk Works in support. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1342? Seeing no one, anyone else wishing to express opposition, SB 1342. Okay, I'll bring it back to the committee. I'll attend a motion or any questions or comments. Moved by Senator Caballero. Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll turn it back over to close. Thank you. Thank you, members, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. The motion by Senator Caballero is due pass to the committee on appropriations. If you can please call the roll. SB 1342, Durazo, due pass to appropriations. Araguin? Aye. Araguin, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Wiener? We'll keep that bell and call for absent members. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I don't see another author here, so we're going to go to my bill, SB 1330, and I'll pass the gavel to Vice Chair. Okay. As stated, we're on SB 1330 by Araguin. Welcome, Senator Adekine. You may present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee. It's my pleasure to present Senate Bill 1330, which seeks to extend protections for utility workers who face growing threats and violence while in the performance of their duties. Under current law, an assault or battery committed against protected professionals, such as peace officers, firefighters, and health care workers, engaged in the performance of their duties is punishable by a county jail time of no more than one year, by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or both that fine and county jail time. Senate Bill 1330 extends these protections to include utility workers such as those employed by investor owned and publicly owned water, electrical and gas utilities. Over the last several years utility corporations have collected data on the incidents reported by utility workers and in 2025 one utility alone reported 180 hostile encounters involving its employees Incidents of harassment and assault against utility workers create a stressful and unsafe work environment that can complicate the ability of these workers to perform their duties that are critical for the health and safety and economic vitality of our communities. This also delays critical public utility infrastructure projects and maintenance, including utility workers among employee groups afforded enhanced protections promotes accountability through consequences. With me to testify in support of SB 1330 is Hunter Stern from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245, and Luis Arajo Sanchez of IBW 465. All right. Thank you very much for attending today. And if you can keep your comments to two minutes. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Members of the committee, I'm Hunter Stern, IBW Local 1245, and on behalf of the Coalition of California Utility Workers. We are all workers. Some of us have to work when others aren't able or don't want to because of the weather, et cetera. Utility workers are those workers. They provide essential electricity, water, and natural gas service. we have to be out there no matter what our members have to be there to respond and make safe and ensure people continue to get the service they need and rely on just last month one of our crews performing work routine work in El Dorado County came under attack and was shot at one of our members was shot. One of the members of the crew is here today. His name is Keith Hutchinson, and he's a journeyman line worker. I'd ask Keith to stand up. Yeah. Oh, thank you. Yes. Thank you. In that incident, one of our members was struck by a bullet, and there was a pretty big police response and two of the deputy sheriffs were also struck by gunfire. This is unusual for sure. It's dramatic, but it is not entirely out of the realm of our experience and our members' experiences. We have, as the Senator mentioned, hundreds of assaults on our members every year, and it's becoming worse and worse and worse. we need this bill we need our members to be able to go out and do their job finish their job and go home safe every day and with that i'd like to introduce luis arajo sanchez thank you and that was right on two minutes so follow suit thanks good morning members my name is luis lorello sanchez i work for sanio gas and electric my actual job position is traffic control specialist so whenever there is a electrical failure gas failure crews have to go out there we get called out on September 14 2021 I was doing just that answering the call out went out to a job in Ocean Beach proceeded to do my job met with the foreman and figured out what needed to be done in this case complete road closure Went out there turns out the box was dragged across the road oil spills everywhere hazmat was called crews working in the street So a couple minutes into it maybe 30 minutes or so I had an individual who needed to get across the road to continue on his way home or wherever he was going. Obviously he was upset because the road was closed and now we had to get him to turn around. and aside all the advanced warning signs that were out and me letting him know, hey, road closed, we have crews working in the road, he proceeded to still yell out and attack with racial slurs, stepped out of his vehicle, did not like what I had to say to him about, you know, just follow the road, road signs. So he struck me. He struck me. um split second decision i had to figure out like what do i do now you know and in the back of my head i'm thinking my kids my wife am i gonna lose my job different things going on in my head i decided not to and just tell him like hey you know what just get on your way it obviously it was obvious that he was intoxicated at the time and he had a kid with him on top of that but that still didn't stop him and even though I've been doing this for many years and I always hear about incidents like this this is probably the first time where I've actually been struck by someone during my job didn't think this was going to happen on a normal routine call out never do but that's when things do happen right expect the unexpected so this morning here to just ask you guys to support SB 1330. Very good. Thank you very much for your testimony today. Okay, at this time, we'll take all the me-toos in support of the bill. If you come to the microphone, you know what to do. Mr. Chairman and Member Scott Wetch on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers and IVW Local 18 LA Department of Water and Power. Thank you. Good morning, Andrea Abregel with the California Municipal Utilities Association in support. Hello, Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you. Good morning, Debbie Michael on behalf of East Bay Municipal Utility District in support. Good morning, Joe Zanzi with San Diego Gas Electric and SoCal Gas in support. Good morning, Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Fed in support. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. SRD is on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in strong support. Alia Griffin with the American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees in support. Good morning, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of the Utility Workers Union of America and the Engineers and Scientists of California in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Megan Murray with the Whiteman Group on behalf of Cal Water in strong support. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair and members. Caitlin Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Water Association in support. Thank you. Good morning, Renee Cruz Martinez, IBW 1245 in strong support. Good morning, Samantha Carter with IBW 1245 in strong support. Good morning Amelia Randolph IBEW 1245 strong support Good morning Joshua Fernandez IBEW Local in strong support of SB 1330 Thank you Good morning, Steve Marcotte with IBW 1245, with strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Alvin Leone with IBW Local 1245, in strong support. Good morning, Mark Rollo, journeyman and lineman, IBW 1245, strongly support. Thank you. Good morning. Catherine Borg on behalf of Southern California Edison in support. Good morning. Joey St. Pierre, IBW465 in strong support. Good morning. Shauna O'Neal, IBW1245 local SMUD utility worker in strong support. Good morning. Jill Long, also local 1245 and SMUD utility worker, strong support. Keith Oshison, IBEW 1245, strong support. Jesse Green, IBEW 1245, journeyman lineman, strong support. Good morning. Kiko Diaz, IBEW Local 465, strong support. Chair members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, strong support. Very good. At this time, we'll call up primary witnesses in opposition to the bill. You would like to come up, have a seat. You have two minutes. I apologize, sir. I was over in the Capitol. I testified against this bill last year when the author brought it first. My name is David Bollag. I'm a 17-year employee of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, a member in good standing of Local 18, IBW. I do not represent either organization. I speak as, excuse me, for my own as a public utility worker. I appreciate the author bringing this bill. I appreciate my brothers coming here to testify for it. But this bill will do nothing to protect utility workers. All it will do is, after the fact, is double the penalty. If you're in jail, whatever the $1,000 instead of $500 fine is, this will do nothing to allow us to protect ourselves. If I get attacked while I'm out in public, all I can do is run, retreat, maybe block something. But if I try to defend myself, I will face charges. My utility will face civil lawsuits. I could get fired. So while I appreciate this, and I appreciate my brothers and sisters being here today, this does nothing to protect us. So I ask you to vote no so the author and my brothers can come back with legislation that will protect us. Thank you, and I apologize for being out of breath. All right, that's okay. I get it. Sometimes we have meetings over there, then over here, then over there, then over here. So anyway, at this time, we'll take anybody in opposition to the bill. come to the mic and state I won't go into further detail because I don't see anybody coming up there we'll bring it back to the dais any comments questions we have a motion to move the bill my only comment on the the bill is that while this probably isn't going to deter all it'll deter some and it would be nice to see what kind of effect it has it's an incremental approach for those those who like incremental approaches. But certainly what's happening out there is people are becoming more and more free with their frustrations. And they're allowing those frustrations to turn into violent acts. And when that happens and impedes people from just doing their job, we need to do something. And so while your bill is doing that something at this level, hopefully we will have more information as time goes on whether this is an adequate deterrent for people that choose to engage in that type of behavior. With that, you may close. Well, thank you, Mr. Vescher. I'd like to emphasize that the increased protections for other protected professionals already exist. This bill simply extends those protections to utility workers who do essential work for our communities. No one should be afraid to go out to a job to make sure that we're maintaining our critical telecommunications and water and utility infrastructure in our state without a respectfully ask for an aye vote. All right. With that, we can call it a roll. SB 1330, Araguin Motion is due, passed to appropriations Araguin? Aye. Araguin, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Wiener? Alright, we'll leave that bill on call It has four votes this time Thank you very much Next presenter is Looks like SB 1230 Valle Derrick So as Vice Chair Ciartes said, we'll now proceed to SB 1230 by Senator Valadares. And if there are any principal witnesses, you can please join us. Thank you. And Senator, whenever you're ready, you may begin your presentation. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here this morning to present Senate Bill 1230. And let's be clear what this is really about. Illegal dumping is not happening in Beverly Hills. It's not piling up in Brentwood. It's happening in communities that don't have the resources, the political clout, or the access to fight back. In places like my community, the Antelope Valley, Lake Los Angeles, Phelan, Pinyon Hills, families are living to what are essentially next to what are essentially open landfills. Not by choice, but because bad actors know there is no real consequence. This isn't just about how it looks. This is about public safety and it's about quality of life. Illegal dumping contaminates soil and groundwater. It attracts vermin. It increases wildfire risks. And every time it happens, taxpayers are stuck footing the bill. The problem is that our enforcement tools haven't kept up. The fines that are supposed to deter this behavior haven't been meaningfully updated since 2004, over 20 years ago. While we took a step in 2022 to increase maximum penalties for large-scale violators, the minimum fines and non-commercial penalties were left untouched. And those are the penalties most often applied in communities getting hit the hardest. Today, those fines are still far below the actual cost of cleanup. For repeat offenders, that's not a deterrent. It's just the cost of doing business. In my district alone, residents have documented more than 100 unauthorized dump sites across our Antelope Valley. From Lake Los Angeles to our Antelope Valley, Poppy Reserve, some stretch hundreds of acres and go dozens of feet deep. We seen over 70 trash related fires responded to by LA County fire in just the past couple of years costing taxpayers over million And in 2024, the Apollo Fire, sparked by illegally dumped material, burned 800 acres, destroyed a home, and killed several dogs. dogs. I've talked to residents who have had to stay inside their homes because the smoke and the smell from these sites made it unsafe to go outside. Here, SB 1230 is a targeted fix. It increases fines for second and subsequent violations only. We are not touching the first-time offenders, and it creates centralized resource through CalRecycle so local governments have the tools they need to actually enforce the law and clean this up. Here today to testify in support is Jael Dantas on behalf of Supervisor Nate Miley from Alameda and second, Christina Brown. She's one of my constituents who has experienced firsthand the consequences of illegal dumping. Great. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Chair and members. Jael Dantas with Full Money Strategies on behalf of Alameda County Board of Supervisors. we do appreciate the leadership of Senator Valadariz for bringing this issue forward. Illegal dumping is a major issue impacting communities across California. It lowers the quality of life of our residents in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. In Alameda County alone, we spend over two million dollars every year cleaning up illegal dumping in unincorporated areas, and that does not include the costs borne by our cities. This is not a local inconvenience. illegal dumping creates environmental hazards, fire risks, and public health concerns, while draining already limited public resources. For over a decade, Supervisor Nate Miley from Alameda has worked to address this issue by bringing together stakeholders across the state. Through his leadership, we developed a best practice framework known as the three E's, education, eradication, and enforcement. This approach focuses on preventing dumping before it happens, removing waste quickly when it does occur, and ensuring that are real consequences for those who break the law. But in reality, our current laws are not strong enough to support the third E, enforcement. Existing penalties for illegal dumping are outdated and are too low. In many cases, it's cheaper for bad actors to dump illegally than dispose of the waste properly. As a result, prosecutors often deprioritize these cases, giving limited resources and a minimal impact. SB 1230 takes a practical and a targeted approach to fixing this problem. And at the end of the day, this is about protecting our communities, our environment, and our public resources. We ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Hi. Hi. Good morning. My name is Christina Brown. I'm a property owner in the Antelope Valley, one hour north of the city of Los Angeles. I'm here because Senator Valadares invited me to tell you about what the illegal dumping crisis looks like from the inside, not from a report or agency briefing, but from someone who has had their life upended by it. What happened next door to me is happening across Southern California's rural and desert lands. In January of 24, the parcel next to my property changed ownership. Massive transfer trucks began arriving around the clock illegally dumping thousands of tons of waste ground construction debris and plastics coming directly from facilities and transfer stations in the city This waste was then covered with organics i mulch littered with plastics and solid waste The smell was rank the dust clouds were stories high the noise from the trucks in our formerly quiet neighborhood was constant, and the waste stretched half a mile long and 12 feet high. This was a profit-driven scheme run by waste companies to avoid paying the price of landfill disposal tipping fees. My community absorbed their operating costs, their pollution, and their fires. Over 72 mulch fires broke out across northern California, sorry, northern Los Angeles County during this 18-month period. Two homes burnt to the ground due to self-combusting mulch. In my neighborhood, people started on rounds of antibiotics to combat illness caused by the constant dust. My partner developed an agonizing cough. My own health collapsed from the stress, and both of my neighbors, the only other residents on our road, sold their homes, took huge losses, and moved. SB1230 matters because it raises the cost of illegal dumping high enough that companies can no longer treat fines as a line item cheaper than compliance. It strengthens the mechanism for enforcement so that there are meaningful ramifications for illegal dumping. I urge you to strongly support SB1230 for the families who lost their homes, for the neighbors who sold and left, and for the children being treated for dust allergies, and for every property owner in rural areas of California who are living next to landfills and hoping that you and Sacramento see them. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll take any testimony from anyone else in support of SB 1230. David Bolag, SFB Alliance, in support. Thank you. John Kennedy, Rural County Representatives of California, in strong support for the reasons that you just stated. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I wrote out a 50-second statement. Is that okay if I can read it? If you could just – we're just limiting this time to name or position. Okay. Understood. My name is Ashley Morose, and on behalf of my community and my entire community, I'm in full support. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone in opposition to the bill? We'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. Good morning, Chair and members. George Paramthu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to SB 1230 unless it is amended to remove increases for fines for individuals. We understand the legislature's desire to address illegal dumping, but increased fines do not deter behavior and they will not backfill city budgets. For example, take Oakland, which suffers from some of the worst illegal dumping issues in the state. From 2021 to 2024, the city issued nearly 3,000 fines for illegal dumping, but only collected 10% of those fines. The same story repeated last year, when Oakland issued citations totaling $230,000, but only collected about $20,000. Given the cost to chase down these fines, the city likely lost revenue by trying to address illegal dumping through fines. The legislature should not set every other local budget down this same treacherous course. Moreover, while not the intention of the author, the bill will likely lead to increased fines for those experiencing homelessness. And with the current law allowing for each day to count as a separate violation, the fines quickly stack up. As noted in the analysis, simply leaving a sleeping bag on a sidewalk for three days can lead to nearly $31,000 in fines. Of course there would be no way for that person to ever pay those fines leaving them deeper in poverty and less likely to ever find stable housing We can avoid all these issues and solve this problem by enacting any of the 22 preventative measures that Contra Costa County has currently begun implementing, including launching free disposal days, offering more opportunities for bulk waste pickup, creating options to dispose of broken down vehicles, and making sure that the public is actually aware of these options. Because SB 1230 does not take this preventative approach, we urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. I'm a resident of Oakland and Alameda County and I certainly can attest that the examples that my colleague from the ACLU pointed out exist, that Oakland has a horrible problem and the strategy of fining people is not working, and that it would really be helpful to have more bulky waste pickups and reduce landfill fees. And one thing that's a particular problem is that as a homeowner and someone who has a garbage bill, I can call and schedule a bulky waste pickup. Renters and people who are unhoused do not have that capacity. And then once they're in a location, people come and just dump things that it's clearly they didn't bring there, like washing machines, dishwashers, you know, stuff like that. So I think there are strategies without further impoverishing the poor. This legislature in the budget trailer bill merely five years ago eliminated some 42 fines and fees. and making note of the impact and also the fact that they're uncollectible and it costs the counties more to collect them than they brought in as a result. They also have a racially disparate impact. The U.S. Supreme Court in Thames v. Indiana said that the Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states and protects people against abuses of government's punitive or criminal law enforcement authority. And Justice Ginsburg wrote in her decision that that constitutional protection extends to excessive fines. We respectfully ask for your no vote unless it is amended. And again, as a resident of Alameda County, I can attest it's not working. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1230? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dice. I have to hand the gavel over to the vice chair. I have to go vote in the Energy Committee, but I just want to make a comment. I have a fellow resident of Oakland here. I am also a resident of the city of Oakland. I'm proud to represent the city of Oakland in Alameda County in the California State Senate. and absolutely the issues of illegal dumping are a serious problem in my community. And that's why I've introduced another bill, SB 1218, which would give the DMV the ability to hold driver's license renewals for people with outstanding penalties because I agree, thousands and thousands of dollars of penalties have been assessed. They have not been paid and there's no accountability. But I see this as another accountability tool, and I think the issues you raised, Ms. George, are legitimate. We do need to make it easier for people to be able to dump things. We do need to increase waste collection services so that people are not dumping stuff on the street. But individuals are doing this as well as commercial facilities. hollers. And I thank the Senator for the bill. I would love to be at as a co-author at the appropriate time. And I'll turn the gavel to the Vice Chair. Alright. Did you have any comments? Go ahead, Senator. I'm going to be supporting the bill. In fact, I would like to be considered as a co-author as well on the bill. I do saying that, I do trust that the author will work to try to deal with some of what I would consider to be nuances in the urban areas and homelessness is obviously more than a nuance obviously we're dealing with epidemic levels crisis levels of it in our urban centers and as far as I'm concerned those folks you know shouldn't be penalized or over penalized they're not going to have the resources to deal with it anyway but that seems like a pretty basic carve out to do if I'm I'm supporting this bill because of the dramatic problems that we have that seem to mirror what you've been experiencing in your district in Senate District 15 which which runs from the heart of Silicon Valley in in San Jose and the West Valley in the North County all the way to the Stanislaw and Alameda County line we have a scenic highway called Highway 130 it's not very scenic these days because it's constantly constantly riddled with with dumping and it's It's anecdotally at least a significant combination of private and commercial dumping. I would say, again, anecdotally, I can't prove that. Nobody can. Otherwise, it would be easier for Caltrans and CHP to cite the folks if they left more evidence. But it isn't that hard to identify, you know, household household rubbish and those kinds of things that are being being dumped. You know, short of the state investing in surveillance programs like we've done with with severe traffic safety issues, we've started to do that. I don't know how else to deal with this and certainly be open. as just as an individual legislator to hearing from any good ideas from folks as to how to deal with this. But the consequences are very real. It's not just a matter of turning a scenic highway into basically a landfill. And that's not an exaggeration. I have the actual, this is not anecdotal, what I'm going to say to you next. So this is as of Tuesday, April 7th, today, this morning, Caltrans report just one highway highway 130 scenic highway that I just described in Santa Clara County in the one in the 12 months prior to today through today they have removed not all of of the dumping that's occurred there but they've removed 120 cubic yards of illegal dumping on 27 trips, that means every other week they've had to go and remove dumping and they can't keep up which is actually exacerbating the problem in the urban areas because when you send the four members of the Caltrans crew we only have four for the entire county onto a one day excursion every other week onto a scenic highway to try to clean these areas up It taking them away from interchanges and local conditions where they probably could in a sense, be augmenting the needs of homeless encampments by picking up more of those areas. So it's a big problem. I commend the author, obviously, by saying I'm willing to go on as a co-author if she's willing to have me. But I commend you for stepping forward to do something about this. It's an old school solution. I'm typically very reluctant to jack up penalties, especially anything that would result on the criminal side or fines that people are going to have trouble paying. But there's a deterrent value here as well. When people basically know worst case scenario, they're going to get an infraction or we've had people get caught where law enforcement basically said, look, this isn't going to be prosecuted, but we'll give them a warning. We'll go to their house and give them a warning. Great. That deals with one or two folks who get caught over a year's time. And basically everyone else is getting off the hook. So I hope you can work with opposition to try to figure out ways to protect the most vulnerable individuals with the bill. But I wouldn't, based on what I've seen, want to exempt individuals from a bill like this because folks who aren't taking advantage of multifamily opportunities where there's dumpsters available aren't taking advantage of the opportunities they have to have trash picked up in front of their homes on certain days. many communities including the one I live here in Sacramento the service will pick up you know heavy items you can call in we can do that in San Jose you can call in you can have a refrigerator picked up or an appliance picked up there has to as we said in a completely different vein on a prior bill there has to be some consequences for people not doing not taking advantage of what we as taxpayers are already providing them in terms of an opportunity to not really even have to leave the street in front of their house or the apartment complex they live in and have these things picked up to go you know out of their way and drive 15-20 minutes up into the hills in a wilderness area not only pollute the scenic highway but dump rubbish down into canyons and mountainous pockets that lead into watershed areas it just it becomes only a problem and we have one of the biggest problems we have with Caltrans in our area is not their effort but the fact that they don't have permission to go into the private property downhill often times of where this dumping is occurring so again if there's a way to fix all that short of updating the fines which I understand hasn't been done for a dozen years or so or in conjunction with that I'm you know I'm all ears but I do appreciate the effort to bring something forward that again to use that terms does send a send a message that sends a signal that people are paying attention to this and if you get caught there's going to be some consequences and word travels fast that one thing we learn about in the rural areas in our district and there 600 acres of rural areas in my district and I represent 80 of San Jose so I represent Silicon Valley and I got 600 acres of rural areas with these highways going through 152, 130, etc and one of the things you know again old school but one of the things that that folks along those routes will tell you is that word travels fast you know The minute somebody does get caught, it becomes something that people are very aware of. So that's the theory I'm operating under today until somebody changes my mind. And thank you for bringing the bill forward. So he did have some clarifying points there. Sorry about the lengthy comments. No, I completely understand. It's a big problem in my district. I want to make some clarifying points on what my bill does, what existing law does. So my bill just addresses the second and third offense. That's we're not increasing the infraction. We're not there's an existing infraction and existing misdemeanor. It's already in law. It's already also in law that correct. You can have a penalty per day so that there is a lot more work that needs to be done with this. The one thing I will add, because of course we don't want this impacting our most poor in our community, the court does have discretion right now, again, in statute to look at the financial capability of the person with the violation. So that is already existing in state law. There is discretion on that. My bill only seeks to increase penalties for the second and third offense because, yes, this is about accountability, but it's also about prevention. We don't want the illegal dumping, and these, I believe, these increases in the penalties help with the prevention aspect as well as accountability. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vice Chair Certa. Thank you. So this issue, listening to your testimony and listening to what this bill is talking about, we're talking about some different aspects. There's a lot of different prongs of the illegal dumping. The one I think this bill is most helpful with is the people that go out there, and the reason they're doing it is because it's convenient and it's cheap, and they know damn well that they're doing it, and they know why they're doing it because they don't want to take a run to the dump. In our area, it's up in Lambs Canyon. The other issue is something that we need to work on with CalRecycle. So our organics waste program requires the waste hauler companies to haul the organic waste to whatever location. And one of them is in Bakersfield, which is, as you know, a little bit farther than Antelope Valley. And so if they purchase property, I'm not quite sure what the regulations are that say they can't dump and create a compost pile on their property, especially out in open areas like Antelope Valley. that is a breakdown of cow recycle and because i i don't know that they're doing it illegally but they're doing it because the laws that we created to deal with organic waste are are creating that we need to look at that because that's what those those are what we call unintended consequences of trying to deal with something and and the whole recycle programs are are basically broken we have no end game for a lot of these recycled things so that that something that we have to look at on a bigger scale But this particular law I think especially because it focuses on second and third offenders there a lot of I'll just be honest, the construction industry folks out there, they load up their pickup truck at the end of the day with all the debris, and they don't want to go to the dump. And so they go find a place to hide behind a hill and get it out of there and then drive off. If we can catch them great yeah they should get fined and if we get double if they keep doing it they should get fined even more because we have to take the it doesn't cost as much out of it so that it does cost as much or more or three times or four times as much uh so if we can focus this bill kind of focus on them so i support that part of it but this other thing that you're talking about um They're ruining neighborhoods out in the open, more open areas, more rural areas, trying to comply with something that is, I think, nominally helpful in the big fight with our environment. So I don't think you get the comment unless I ask you a question. But I am going to follow up with some of our waste haulers to find out what's happening with that and if it's an illegal situation or it's just they bought the land and they're going to do it. So maybe – could you maybe answer that question about whether the waste haulers are buying property and then using that as a thing? Maybe your witness might know. Yeah, to address a few of your points here as well, Senator, thank you for the question. And the bill, my bill also creates a centralized resource hub through CalRecycle so that local cities and counties understand the resources and best practices for implementing this in those communities. I would love if my key, one of my witnesses could weigh in on the properties being bought for this intention. And you're right. This bill is very specific. There's so much more that needs to be done. But through the chair. In my experience, there's some waste companies that are grinding up construction and demolition, as well as recycling plastics, and grinding it up fine enough that they're calling it land app and organics. So those two things are kind of being intermingled, and that's because getting rid of C&D is so much more expensive than getting rid of organics. I think the gentleman that purchased the 160 acres in our neighborhood, he works with multiple waste companies. And he had no registration whatsoever, no Swiss registration, which is a solid waste information system registration. That's a huge problem. um one other thing is that people are buying properties out in the desert and then there's you can't track them down and it's it's really interesting i'm trying to you know if you buy land in california um it's so expensive and precious that you do everything you can to hold on to it until you get out into the desert where it's so cheap to buy land that it's a way to make money by dumping. I hope at some point you get to see pictures of what these look like They're landfills. It's definitely not sleeping bags. They're two different problems. And the composting is what creates the odor. The composting is also, it's what we have in the desert is not, it's not agricultural land. There's no water. There's no rain. I think you got the question that I was wanting. So I appreciate that. Any other questions or comments? I made my comments before I left. turn it back over to your senator to close. Respectfully, happy to add the co-author request on the bill and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Is there a motion? I'll move the bill. Okay, motion by Vice Chair Ciaro. The motion is due pass to Environmental Quality Committee as amended. No. Oh, no, we didn't amend it. We're moving the bill as is. That's right. So motion is due pass to EQ. SB 1230, Valadere. Motion is due pass to EQ. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Caballero? Cortese? Cortese aye. Perez? Weiner? Okay, we'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you. I see we have Senator Hurtado here, so we'll go next to SB 1220. And whenever you're ready, Senator, you may present. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm pleased to present SB 1220, which builds on prior state legislative efforts which passed on bipartisan votes to address possession of ghost guns. California has been at the epic center of a devastating and fast-growing ghost gun crisis as ghost gun companies sought to exploit legal loopholes in the definition of the word firearm itself to self-unfinish DIY gun built kits and other products designed to circumvent California's gun safety laws. In August 2019, California Highway Patrol Officer Andre Moyet Jr., 34, made a routine traffic stop pulling over a pickup truck on a freeway for driving illegally in a carpool lane. The driver, a 49-year-old felon, had an expired license and no registration. registration. Officer Moya decided to impound the vehicle and was processing the necessary paperwork when the driver pulled a military-style semi-automatic rifle from his truck and began firing at the officer. Officer Moya was fatally wounded and when other CHP officers arrived on the scene, the driver fired at least 100 more rounds at them before he was shot by police and killed. The driver, who had served 10 years in prison for attempted second-degree murder, and other offenses could not have purchased a firearm legally, but the restriction didn't stop him from easily obtaining a ghost gun. Ghost guns in the hands of criminals are a growing problem for law enforcement. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives say law enforcement around the U.S. reported they had recovered approximately 20,000 suspected ghost guns in criminal investigations in 2021, an increase of 10 times since 2016. SB 1220 builds on prior legislative efforts by the state of California to address possession of ghost guns, and specifically SB 1220 will impose a 10-year prohibition on the purchase of possession of firearms for individuals convicted of buying, receiving, selling, or possessing a firearm that has specific identifying marks or engravings illegally modified or removed by expanding the scope of an existing crime SB 1220 seeks to curb this growing public safety threat. And today I joined by Jonathan Feldman who represents the California Police Chiefs Association who serving as the sponsor of this bill Great Thank you Good morning Mr Feldman Good morning Mr Chair There we go Yes, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, proud sponsors of the bill to address a clear and growing threat, the single biggest firearm issue facing law enforcement, the proliferation of unserialized and tampered with firearms, specifically ghost guns. And I will acknowledge it's not a panacea to solve the ghost gun crisis, but this is a step in the right direction to increase accountability for those that have possession of these weapons, which now make up 55% of crime guns traced in California are these illegal ghost guns, which violate one of the most effective tools law enforcement has to trace these weapons, which is the serialization numbers. I know that there were concerns raised in some of the opposition arguments that these are harmless crimes. As you heard from our author, they are not. In addition to the officer and the incident the author described, a CHP officer was killed in Riverside using a ghost gun. There was a high school shooting in Santa Clarita using a ghost gun. Santa Monica mass shooting using a ghost gun. These are real crimes, and we have to make sure that those who are in possession of these weapons are held accountable. There's concerns about constitutionality, we firmly disagree. Courts have upheld serialization. They've upheld bans for misdemeanors on firearms-related offenses, possession of illegal firearms, misdemeanors for DV and animal cruelty. We'll get you a 10-year ban. We think that the bill is a narrow evidence-based approach to help prevent future crimes not relying on violence to occur, but taking proactive measures. And for that, we request your aye vote. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 1220? Seeing no one. Is there any principal witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 1220? Seeing no principal witnesses in opposition. Anyone wishing to express opposition to Senate Bill 1220? Seeing no one. I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments or motion. Senator Cortese? Let me just comment quickly. I am willing to move the bill, and I just want to say I'm typically somebody who puts in a lot of scrutiny on firearm hardware type of restrictions these days because we've done so much in the state. and I'm actually of a principle now that we need to do more to get guns away from felons. But I actually think in a way this kind of puts those two things together and says, hey, look, if you're doing this and you've been caught doing this, which should be treated as a serious crime, then you're not going to be in possessions of guns going forward. I think it's fair, and I'm willing to move the bill. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Okay, if not, I'll turn it back over to Senator Too Close. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I respect the last for an aye vote. Okay, thank you. I want to turn a motion on SB 1220. Motion by Senator Cortese. Thank you. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. SB 1220 Hurtado, motion is due passed to Appropriations. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Wiener? We'll keep that bell on call for absent members. We have one more bill and I know we have to lift calls on bills as well So let take a five recess Thank you. by Senator Arakin on her behalf while she works in another committee. So at this time, you can go ahead with the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, members. I'm here to present on behalf of Senator Perez SB1105, the Preserve California Rights Act. Before I begin, she is accepting the committee amendments, and I just want to thank the senator and her staff for working with the committee and the bill sponsors on critical amendments to this bill. And what the amendments do is preserve the ability for legitimate federal and local law enforcement communication and collaboration, but putting in place critical safeguards to ensure that participation in these federal task forces do not violate state laws and include protections for racial profiling and ideological retaliation. The state of California believes in the basic principles of freedom and equality reflected in various state statutes, including prohibiting police from singling people out based on race, shielding state resources from being used to separate immigrant families, safeguarding our rights to assembly and protests, and ensuring that police departments are not secretly acquiring military weapons. Unfortunately, recent federal operations have ignored these state laws, generating fear and disruption in communities, And such actions have been occurring near once sensitive areas, such as schools, hospitals, and churches. In some instances, federal operations have been carried out by commandeering state resources, local and state police, through task forces to divert local law enforcement's limited resources to inflict harm on communities, target political opponents who disagree with the federal administration, and intimidate people into silence. This administration's push to blur the lines between local and federal law enforcement has eroded community's trust in local police departments. For example, in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Police Department established a perimeter around a factory while immigration enforcement agents performed a raid and violently arrested protesters, including SEIU California and SEIU United USWW President David Huerta. In another incident, California Highway Patrol officers in Santa Ana stopped an activist who was following Border Patrol agents and first accused her of, quote, stalking before citing her for not having a front license plate. Footage from the same incident shows federal agents entering a CHP parking lot, sparking activist concerns about agency coordination. coordination as countless Californians have seen firsthand federal agents have been terrorizing communities through roving patrols that illegally stop kidnap and disappear people based on their race the administration use of federal law enforcement to single people out based on their speech or color of their skin is a direct attack on California collective identity and values We must ensure that state and local police are not assisting in this cruel assault on the rights of Californians. Senate Bill 1105, the Protect California Rights Act, will uphold the safety and rights of Californians by prohibiting local and state law enforcement from assisting federal agents in operations that involve racial or identity profiling, criminalizing speech, or the use of unauthorized military weapons against Californians. Prohibiting federal law enforcement for acting beyond their federal jurisdiction to stop and arrest Californians, except as outlined. SB 1105 will ensure that our state and local police are serving the communities they are sworn to protect, not commandeered to further the administration's agenda. In closing, I will note that the author has worked proactively to engage opposition stakeholders, and the author wishes to express their continued commitment to working with them to address their issues while still upholding the spirit and intent of the bill at the appropriate time on her behalf. I respectfully ask for an eye vote. All right, and I take it these are two proponents of the bill that are the primary witnesses, correct? Okay, each of you have two minutes.

Thank you. Next speaker.

All right, at this time, we'll take Me Too's in favor of the measure. Come on up. State your name.

Mike, a doctor off on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Megan Varvey on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Oakland Privacy, and League of Women Voters in support.

All right. At this time, we will take opposition witnesses. that are primary witnesses. Thank you. You have two minutes. Are you the only opposition witnesses? Ryan, are you coming up too? Okay. So each of you have two minutes, and please stick to the timeline because we're running out of time. Thank you. 20 seconds.

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

Yes. Yes. We'll be done. Yeah.

Next speaker, two minutes.

Okay thank you All right at this time we take any opposition Can you come up state your name name your opposition Morning Chair and members Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in opposition Thank you Great Thank you I bring it back to the dais at this time. Any comments? No? Okay. You may close. Just to address the comment by Mr.

There's no motion. Oh, we need a motion. We did it. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Cortese. Go ahead and call the roll. SB 1105, Senator Perez, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Aragon? Aye. Aragon, aye. Aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Wiener? Bill's on call. Bill's on call. You're free to go. That concludes. We have to wait for some people. Okay. We need to ask absent members to return so we can lift calls on bills. Are there any bills that Senator Cortese was not able to record a vote on? I think, Senator Cortese, you're free to go. Thank you. Thank you for your service and being here today. So, sergeants, if you can please call absent members. Thank you. Take a five-minute recess. Okay, we're going to reconvene the committee hearing, and let's lift the call on bills, starting with the first bill. SB 907 Archuleta, motion is de-passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote is... No, that's Perez. Okay, my bad. SB 1015 Strickland, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 4-0. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call for absent members. SB 1027 was pulled from hearing today. SB 1220 Hurtado, motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is 2-1. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. We'll keep that bill on call. SB 1230 Valideras motion is due passed to EQ Current vote is 3 Wiener Aye Wiener aye Keep that bill on call SP 1285 Durazo Motion is due pass to the floor current vote is three to zero Wiener Wiener I keep that bill on call SB 1285 Durazo motions do pass to the floor current vote is four to zero Wiener Weiner I will keep that bill on call SB 1342 Durazo motion is due pass to appropriations current vote is three to one Wiener weiner I if that bill on call SB 1105 Perez motion is do pass as amended to appropriations current vote is 2 to 1 Wiener weiner I keep that bill on call SB 1330, Adagine. Motion is due past two appropriations. Current vote is four to zero. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. We'll keep that bone call. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Wiener. And we'll take another recess. Okay, we're going to reconvene the committee hearing. We'll lift calls on bills. SB 9-0 SB 1220 Hurtado, motion is due pass to appropriations Current vote is 3-1 Caballero, aye SB 1230 Valadeiros Motion is due pass to EQ Current vote is 4-0 Caballero, aye We'll keep those bills on call 1105 Perez, motion is due pass As amended to appropriations Current vote is 3-1. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Keep those bills on call. Okay. I think those are all the votes that Senator Caballero needs to record, so thank you very much. Thank you. And we'll take a brief recess. Thank you for presenting my bill, I really appreciate it. My pleasure. Okay, we're going to reconvene the committee hearing, and we'll lift calls on bills starting at the first bill. SB 907, Archuleta. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. The current vote is 5 to 0. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. That bill is out of a vote of 6 to 0. SB 1015, Strickland. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 5 to 0. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. SB 1015 is out of a vote of 6 to 0. SB 1027 Strickland was put over until next week. SB 1220 Hurtado, motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 4-1. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. SB 1220 is out of 5-1. SB 1230 Valadez, motion is due pass to EQ. Current vote is 5-0. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. SB 1230 is out of 6-0. SB 1285 Durazo, motion is due pass to the floor. Current vote is 5-0. Perez? Aye. Pérez, aye. Okay, SB 1285 is on a vote of 6-0. SB 1342, Durazo, motion was due passed to appropriations. Current vote is 4-1. Pérez? Aye. Pérez, aye. SB 1342 is on a vote of 5-1. AB 1105, Pérez, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 4-1. Pérez? SB 1105 and aye. Pérez, aye. SB 1105 is on a vote of 5-1. SB 1330, Araguin, motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is 5-0. Pérez? Pérez, aye. Okay, SB 1330 is out and a vote of 6-0. With that, that completes our agenda for today. The Senate Committee on Public Safety is now adjourned.