Public Safety — 2026-04-14 (partial)

Good morning. Sorry.

Good morning. Let's see. Is the mic on?

Okay, good. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate this time this morning, and good morning to everyone. Thank you again, Mr. Chair and members. I am here to present Senate Bill 1157, which will create a framework for less restrictive placements in the probation setting. I would like to begin by accepting the amendments offered by the chair to require the Judicial Council of California to develop rules of court to assist courts in determining whether a particular less restrictive program is an appropriate place for award and delete the behavioral health bed section of the bill. The guidelines developed by Judicial Council will include insurance guidelines, staffing training, background checks, whether a program has demonstrated ability to address the risk needs of youth being transferred to the less restrictive program, whether a program has provided proof of notice to the city and county in which it operates, and whether a program operator meets the state and local zoning and land use requirements for residential facilities. California made a significant policy shift in closing the Department of Juvenile Justice. When the state closed the Division of Juvenile Justice in 2020 responsibility for the most serious and violent youth offenders shifted to the counties As part of that transition the state created what are known as less restrictive programs known also as LRPs, or community-based placements. These programs were intended to serve as step-down options within a youth court-ordered baseline detention term. representing the final portion of their custody time that would otherwise be served in a secure setting. Despite the establishment of a less restrictive placement as the option for courts to consider upon progress of the youth, statute does not establish rules or framework when the program is in its residential setting. The current system has resulted in varying program offerings and administration variations across counties, creating physical and service delivery inconsistencies in each county and giving rise to integrity and the public safety and their concerns. Examples of this are programs with no background checks for employees, no coordination with county probation for ongoing supervision or violations, no perimeters for mixed-gender staff and or staff family members living on site, and no metric for pricing. This is inconsistent with other residential settings that are geared for the youth and their safety and their progress. Because these programs are part of the original term of secure detention and not part of the post-jurisdiction or release, it is critical that these are rules, and we have rules in place to protect the ward and the community. Having programming expectations and safety considerations for programs serving the high-risk and highest-need youth and young adults in the state is vital to the success of the program. With me today to testify and support is Costa County Chief Probation Officer, Essa Igman Cruz, President of the Chief Probation Officers of California, as well as Jeff Neal on behalf of the Costa County constituents. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Chair and members, good morning. My name is Chief Issa Eamon Kraus, President of the Chief Probation Officers of California and Chief Probation Officer in Contra Costa County. CPOC is proud to sponsor SB 1157. When the state closed the Division of Juvenile Justice, responsibility for our most serious and violent justice-involved youth and young adults shifted fully to counties. Essentially, less restrictive programs were intended to build an optional piece of the continuum of custody for certain youth committed to county-run secure youth treatment facilities who have been determined by the court to have shown substantial progress toward their rehabilitative goals. It's important to note that these youth are still in their custodial term when being transitioned to an LRP. They are not released or discharged from their custody time. It's imperative that LRPs are safe for the youth, the staff, and the communities in which they are located. It's also important to note what this bill does not do. It does not place restrictions on transitional housing it does not limit other options utilized as LRP that are already subject to some form of regulation As someone who worked with this population for more than 25 years I know these types of additional programming can be tremendously useful and beneficial to our youth in the justice system, but only when they meet the needs of those youth and when they are ready to begin this type of program. The law, however, currently has no framework to protect the youth where new residential options are emerging. No licensing, no inspections, no background check requirements for staff, no consistent standards, and no oversight. This bill seeks to build workable guardrails where we've already built the off-ramps. SB 1157 provides the infrastructure California has been missing, informed by judges who ultimately will be making decisions regarding the use of LRPs as these youth are still under the court's jurisdiction at this time. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

take any testimony from the public which can express support for SB 1157 chair members polyure on behalf of the counties of Fresno Kern and Shasta in

California cities in support is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1157 seeing no one else approaching the microphone will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1157 Once again, as I announced at the beginning, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee and when you hit the two-minute mark, I may just tell you your time is wrapping up.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Ruben Moreno. I currently serve as the supervising attorney for the Juvenile Division of the Sacramento County Public Defender's Office. I've been practicing juvenile delinquency for 21 years. I currently sit as the training committee chair for the California Youth Defender Center, which provides training to over 2,100 delinquency practitioners. And I'm on the national advisory board for the Galt Center, which was formerly known as the National Youth Defender Center. As my colleague explained what LRPs are and why uniform standards cannot work across such a diverse continuum, I'd like to focus on two very specific problems and why the Judicial Council is the wrong entity to fix them. First, the Judicial Council's role is procedural. It develops rules for how courts conduct proceedings, but this bill asks for it to play a very different role. It asks judges to make substantive determinations about program operations that no Judicial Council guidelines can equip them to answer. Consider just a few of the questions that this bill raises with no answers. What insurance is required and under what standards? What constitutes adequate training and who decides that? What does it mean to address risk needs and what instruments are used? If a zoning question were to be raised, how does a judge resolve that and what happens if they can't? which local ordinances apply to a program operating in a particular city or neighborhood. The bill names no agency to answer any of these questions. That is not a gap that the Judicial Council guidelines can fill. But more fundamentally, the bill asks courts to focus on the wrong thing entirely. The core purpose of an LRP hearing is to determine what will best support a young person's growth, safety, and successful reentry. This bill buries that purpose under an administrative checklist. Second is insurance. California is in the midst of a statewide insurance crisis for youth serving programs. Many community-based organizations cannot access coverage right now, not because they've done something wrong, but because the market has failed that space. Inflexible judicial requirements could render them uninsurable. Assigning the judicial Council responsibility to evaluate insurance coverage is misplaced. They lack the expertise and regulatory role to do so. Both problems point to the same conclusion. This is not the right process. The right path forward is a bill that directs OICR to convene stakeholders, community-based organizations, probation, courts, and youth to identify gaps and develop standards grounded in field expertise. If you could please wrap up your... For these reasons, we ask you to the committee to vote no on SB 11357. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will now take any testimony from members of the public, wishing to express opposition to SB 1157. If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Good morning. Colin Ford on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth in opposition, also in opposition on behalf of The Place for Grace, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, California Coalition for Women's Prisoners, Glide Foundation, Justice to Jobs Coalition, La Defensa, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, the Collective for Liberatory Law Earing, Californians United for Responsible Budget, the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, National Center for Youth Law, Community Works, Felony Murder Elimination Project, the Peace and Justice Law Center, and Starting Over Strong. Thank you. Thank you. Liz Blum-Guterres on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 in opposition. Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition as well as the San Francisco Public Defenders Office. Thank you. Thank you. good morning mr. chair members Micah doctor off on behalf of smart justice California we remain opposed to the bill but we appreciate the author's amendments and we look forward to continuing the conversation thank you good morning chair Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for human rights we don't we're tweener so we don't have an official position think the authors staff for working with us we have concerns about section two and thankful to continue the conversation thank you very much so anyone else wishing to express opposition SB 1157 seeing no one approached the microphone I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments by sure Certa thank you so I look at this bill as an attempt to try to balance out a less restrictive environment which is better for our kids but with the accountability that they need so that we can get the job done. Too many times, somebody brought up the insurance issue. A lot of reasons you can't get insurance is because too many times the lack of accountability when placing juveniles into either foster care or whatever it is has resulted in them being with the wrong people in the wrong place and and being abused and and those result in multi-million dollar lawsuits and you know there has to be a trade-off if we're going to have a less less restrictive pathway that is more constructive in theory we need to ensure that that more constructive part can get done and we can't do it if we don't have the ability to hold not only the persons that we're trying to help accountable but also the facilities that they going to accountable when you enter into the private sector to provide services and I not saying this is true of all private sector businesses like that it opens the door for abusive efforts by those private services We hear the same thing with our prisons, private prisons. There's a big uproar about private prisons are not being run because, you know, the bottom line is what counts. Same thing here. We need the accountability, and I appreciate that the author has brought a bill that is concerned with actually the outcomes of these youths instead of just getting them out and making them feel like they don't have any more responsibilities towards working towards their character building. and therefore I will be supporting this bill and I hope the author will continue to work with the people that are in opposition to address some of their concerns but I think you're on the right track, so thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning, Senator Cortese. We're on SB1157 Archuleta. Do you have any questions or comments?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. You know, we've discovered something that is so vital to our system of rehabilitation. And I think this is what we have to think about. How do we get these young people back into the system that we all want them back into? And it takes time, but it also takes a good setting. You know, if we were talking today about foster kids, we would be very concerned about the home that these foster kids would go into. Well, some of these young men and women have been pushed around as foster kids. Some of these young men and women veering their incarceration had no hope. And now that the system says, okay, you've got the last leg of your term, and we're going to go ahead and put you into a setting that I think you'll enjoy, that you'll be able to feel comfortable with, safe, because the individuals that will be working with you and the home you'll be in has been vetted, the people will be working with have been supervised and whether it's the meals whether it's the environment it's all being supervisors because of this bill so Senate bill 1157 yes we had to negotiate with the chair yes we had to go back and forth and that's why I accept the amendments and that the chair has thrown at me and we worked it out because it is imperative that we realize it is something we have to work on and it something that we need to do and I think that everyone can answer this Are we not doing this for the betterment of the youth Yes we are and so with that Mr Chair I ask for an aye vote Very much senator. We don't yet have a quorum or one short But when we do or entertain a motion on the bill, and thank you for being here today and for presenting and We'll move now to Our next by the sauce center small cuevas because her bill is next in file order. We're going to take a brief recess while we'll wait for an author to appear. And once again, if any members can please join us in Capitol Room 112 so we can get a quorum and conduct business. Okay, the committee is back in session and we'll proceed now to our next bill, which is SB 1012 by Senator Small-Ouquevas. Good morning. And if you have any principal witnesses. We have our witnesses. Please have a seat at the table. Thank you. We have two witnesses and a technical witness. No problem. Whenever you're ready, you may present your bill. Thank you so much. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I am pleased to present SB 1012. This is the Fire Camp to Career Act, which strengthens pathways to stable skilled careers for incarcerated individuals with fire camp experience. Far too long, California has relied on incarcerated fire camp participants during some of our state's most dangerous emergencies, while failing to ensure that the same service can lead to long-term economic opportunity for those who return home. I want to ground this conversation in the workforce we're talking about. During the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, over 1,000 incarcerated individuals were deployed as first responders, working alongside professional firefighters to protect lives, homes, and communities. Our professional firefighters put their lives on the line to contain those fires and to protect our communities before the disaster could spread any further. And standing alongside of them was what I would call the forgotten labor force, our incarcerated fire camp participants. These individuals are not observing from the sidelines. the California Conservation Camp program gives them an opportunity to do real work in real conditions. They fight wildfires, clear hazardous vegetation, support emergency response, and take on dangerous cleanup and work. They gain hands-on training, they build discipline, and they develop skills that clearly translate to careers in the fire service and the skilled trades. And yet, when they come home, that training experience too often does not count in any meaningful way toward a stable career. California has made important investments in rehabilitation and post-release employment outcomes. But the truth is that too many people are still leaving the program without a real bridge to the opportunities they have earned. And I had an opportunity to serve on the Rules Committee and to help with some of the appointments in our prison system and parole system And what many of the directors told us in those hearings was that if individuals have a plan and a job recidivism is cut by 90% so this also saves us money as a state in the long run and as someone who has long worked on a workforce equity and access to good jobs campaign my whole life including through my work last year on SB 423 and I really want to thank our member say Yarto for his participation in that work we all care deeply about making sure the people our state relies on in moments of crisis are not left behind if we are willing to rely on this workforce when California is in danger than we should be willing to to create a real pathway to economic stability when the service is over. And that is what SB 1012 does. It requires the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to connect participants who complete the California Conservation Camp Program to state-approved apprenticeships. It requires apprenticeship programs to consider prior fire camp training and work experience so that participants do not have to start from square one. And it ensures that fire camp services is formally recognized so it can count toward apprenticeship eligibility. At its core, this bill is about fairness. It's about recognizing the training, the service, the sacrifice that these individuals make every day for us. And if someone is good enough to stand on the front lines for California, they should have a real chance to build a stable union career in California. With me to testify today is James Thurwachter with the California State Council of Laborers, Michelle Solis, a current apprenticeship of the Laborers Union Local 185, and Michelle Sotelo with Igniting Futures. Good morning. I think that first witness is for technical questions. That's right. So maybe we can have James speak for a few minutes.

to my union sister. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Michelle Sotelo, and right now I'm ... Absolutely. There we go. Is that better? And I'm the Chief Operating Officer for Future Fire Academy. Future Fire Academy is a wildland fire academy focused on justice-involved individuals. It equips individuals with the certifications and the training that they need to enter careers in fire service, forestry, other emergency medical response fields as well. I'm here in strong support today of Senate Bill 1012. Throughout my career, I've worked inside of carceral institutions, teaching individuals life skills, career development, education, and vocation. But I noticed one thing going in. Individuals in there were working really hard. I spent a lot of time in fire camps. They're doing the work. They're fighting fires like the Palisades. They're putting in a tremendous amount of hours to learn their trade, but they're coming home with no certifications. I'm coming home. I'm one of their first phone calls to come into some of the workforce development programs that I have developed and The people they can't get a job they have the experience But they cannot get work because there are entities like the forestry and Cal fire they will hire them But with certifications, so we put them through our training so that they can obtain the certifications We've been successful after training to place individuals in forestry even as hot shots because of the experience they have inside of the CDC our fire camps we've been successful in placing individuals with Cal fire but coming home and having barriers like not getting a job when they have all of the experience I mean they're running circles around all the other individuals that are coming into our training because of the experience that they have so one of the main things that that is needed is these certifications so they can come home instead of starting from square one all over again when they already have other barriers but some of the programs that we've built inside to develop you know essential life skills financial literacy digital literacy getting individuals job ready and life ready the one thing that is missing is the certifications without those certifications they will not be hired by cal fire they will not be hired by forestry it is essential that these certifications their hard work their community service that they're doing while incarcerated be recognized with certifications so that they can gain get gainful employment. So I'm here today to request and strong support that we get favorable for Senate Bill 1012. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1012? Please state your name, organization position on the bill. Good morning, James the director of California State Council of Labor, strong support. Mr. Chair, members, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions in strong support Thank you Good morning Mr Chair Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors in strong support Good morning Chair and Committee Members Cami Peer with NextGen California co in strong support Good morning Chair and Members, Nico Molina on behalf of the California Forestry Association in support. Thank you. Good morning, Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. George Graham through on behalf ACLU California action and support thank you good morning chair and respected committee members Doyle Radford labors 185 and strong support my name is Frank Solorzano I'm a formerly incarcerated individual I'm with local 185 in support I'm Joe Perez also a three-time customer person and very proud union worker thank you support the SB 20 12 thank you good morning line up erigan and strong support line of erigan with labor's local 180 find strong support of the bill thank you Victor del Torre I'm with the laborers I'm in full support this pro SB 1012 Good morning, Alejandro Martinez. I'm also with the Laborers and I'm in full support SB 1012. My name is Daniel Garcia. I'm a member of Laborers Local 185 here from Sacramento, California, and I'm in support of SB 1012. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming today, for expressing your support of the bill. Is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1012? We'll take up the two principal witnesses in opposition. Okay, seeing no one come forward, is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1012? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Sierta? All right. Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward. And I think it's important that we build on what we talked about last year, which was giving people the tools they need so that they can go compete for those jobs. And this is part of it. But I also want to caution that you don't get a certificate for time on the job. You get a certificate for demonstrated capabilities. If we gave certificates to paramedics who couldn't start IVs just because they were on the job for a while, that wouldn't be very good for public safety at all. So there still has to be an element of that certification process where the people that are coming in that have all that experience still demonstrate that skill. And, yes, they can get to that higher level very quickly that way by just challenging that skill and demonstrating that they have it. And this is another avenue for people to have all of the skills they need. You know, and it doesn't cross the line, which I talked about last year, of preferential hiring for the job. Because that's a disaster for both the person that's getting the preference and the people on the other end that have gone through whatever processes they do. Because that sets an animosity within a team, and you can't have that. people need to know when their people are coming on board their new guys are coming on board that they have paid the price to be there and that they will be a team member that they can count on you don build that by putting somebody in the front of somebody of a line And so and I don read that into this bill at all This is still on the side of giving people the tools so that they can go compete. We have people that go into the camp systems all the time. They don't have, a lot of those people don't make it into the firehouse itself. They stay in the camps. And there's a variety of reasons for that. And none of it has to do with incarceration. It has to do with the skill and ability to do the job. And the job that transitions when you're in the firehouse, there's a lot more. A lot of, you know, the paramedic field, being an EMT, all of those things are part of the fire service now. The aptitude to understand some of the chemicals that we're involved with and hazmat and all of those things are part of the job. And so even if people are incarcerated and come through or not incarcerated and come through the camps, there is still a process to get to that coveted position as a firefighter. And so this, I think, is helpful. I think it is very good for what we're trying to achieve with our incarcerated population, which is giving them a chance. And at the same time, it also leaves with them the challenge of overcoming whatever it is that got them in their situation in the first place and building that and having that be part of the character that makes them fully accepted if they ever do get to that position as a firefighter or a full-time firefighter in the fire service. So I'll be supporting your bill today. I think it's well written. It's very concise as far as what we're trying to achieve, and it builds on some of the stuff last year that we talked about, and I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I strongly support it, and I'll turn it back over to close. Thank you so much and really appreciate the comments made and your partnership on this, Senator Suriarto. And we attended Pine Valley and we saw the capability. We saw the skill. We saw the determination. We saw the fire camp participants in the line of duty working that engine, showing us all of the equipment. So we know very well that these are capable individuals with a lot of experience, both lived experience but professional skilled experience that they get on the job in these camps. We can't let that go to waste. We need that when they come out so that they can contribute to our economy and help our communities thrive. I'm very proud to author this bill, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. When we stop the quorum, we'll need a motion. And thank you all for being here today. Thank you. Next in file order is SB 1027 Strickland, but I don't see the senator here. But Cortese. Oh, I believe you do have a witness here. Okay. So we'll now proceed to file it in 15, SB 1306 by Senator Cortese. Thank you, Senator.

Very much. Good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you very much. ANNE GRIMALDI, ATTORNEY AT GRIMALDI LAW OFFICES IN SAN FRANCISCO. I'M HERE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 1306. FOR OVER 30 YEARS I HAVE PRACTICED IN THE AREA OF CHEMICAL REGULATION, ADVISING COMPANIES, INCLUDING SUPPLIERS TO THE SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY, ON THEIR OBLIGATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE CHEMICAL LAWS. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT CALIFORNIA LAW IT ISSUED TODAY AND FAMILIAR WITH THE BURDENS the burdens imposed on the industry as a result of that law. I want to point out a couple of things initially, and it's been stated already. Nothing in this bill would affect the requirements, restrictions, and penalties for pure GBL. We are concerned only with mixtures. The other thing I want to point out is that even with the passage of this bill, these mixtures will still remain subject to strong regulatory requirements because they're hazardous. So OSHA worker protection requirements would still apply. hazardous materials storage requirements would still apply. Hazardous materials transportation requirements would still apply. Hazardous waste requirements would still apply. The only thing that this bill would do would be to remove the burdens and obstacles to a strong semiconductor economy here and align with federal law. In that regard, to my knowledge, there has been no instance of theft or misuse of these GBL mixtures that are used in the semiconductor industry and in the 16 years that the DEA the federal DEA exemption has been in place I have to imagine that if there had been such a pattern the DEA would either have amended or repeal this exemption and it has not on the there's some practical considerations in play here these mixtures are very expensive they cost thousands of dollars per liter they have low concentrations of GBL and so together that means that there are strong financial business incentives to protect these mixtures they're locked in warehouses with security cameras they're transported by well-known and reputable transportation companies like FedEx and DHL by the same token there is a strong disincentive for nefarious use or theft because it would cost so much money to extract these low levels of GBL from these mixtures and it just there's no bang for the buck for any nefarious use by bad actors so for all these reasons I urge and I vote on this bill thank you very much is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1306 you can please approach the microphone state your name organization and position on the bill okay seeing no one else is there any any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1306 seeing no one come forward bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments just say thank thank you senator for bringing this for this is a very straightforward practical measure I think this would have remained on consent but there was late opposition filed and strongly support the bill and we don't have a quorum yet so we can't ancient emotion but I turn over you to close support the bill there you go thank you senator thank you chair and committee staff for the help with this

for an aye vote thank you very much Center thank you for joining us today okay we'll recess the committee for five minutes while we wait for an author to present Good morning, Senator. Do you have any witnesses? They're welcome to join us. A little hustle over. I'll get started if that's okay. Yes, whenever we present. Oh, you're here. All right, there you are. You don't have to hustle over at all. Hi, I know. Good to see you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You very much, Senator. Good morning. You have two minutes to address the committee. Whoever would like to start. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Doria Hanna, and I'm here on behalf of the Marin County District Attorney's Office, but also on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support of SB 1401. SB 1401 seeks to align common sense provisions in felony and misdemeanor incompetent-to-stand trial statutes to ensure that decisions surrounding mental health treatment are being made in an efficient, thoughtful, and informed way that benefits both the individual as well as the community as a whole. SB 1401 does this in three different ways. First, SB 1401 is a follow-up to SB 1400, enacted in 2024, which provided the court and service providers in misdemeanor cases time to properly assess an individual's eligibility and amenability for pathways like assisted outpatient treatment, care court, or conservatorship. These provisions, however, were not added for similarly situated felony defendants. SB 1401 seeks to fix that oversight by adding to the felony statute the same time frames that currently exist in the parallel misdemeanor statute. Second, SB 1401 allows behavioral health providers to share mental health information with the court so the court can make a fully informed decision as to which path might best suit the needs of an individual. That exact language was added last year by SB 27 to the misdemeanor statute, and it's precisely what SB 1401 seeks to add to the felony statute. And currently, in felony cases, a court or a qualified mental health expert can make a preliminary finding that a defendant appears to be gravely disabled, which is required before a court can refer an individual for conservatorship investigation. SB 1401 aligns this exact provision with the misdemeanor statute to allow court in misdemeanors to be able to facilitate a similar referral for conservatorship investigation when appropriate. And in conclusion, SB 1401 makes common sense changes which align the provisions of parallel felony and misdemeanor incompetent to stand trial statutes to better meet the specialized needs of justice-involved individuals with mental health issues. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi, good morning. Thank you, Honorable Chair and Committee members for your service to Californians. My name is Elizabeth Kynohopper and I live in Carmichael. I support SB 1401 because it brings parity between felony and misdemeanor court procedure provisions regarding timeframes for dismissal, sharing information with the court, and the court's ability to recommend a medical evaluation for grave disability with LPS conservative as possible. With these adjustments for inmates found as to be incompetent stand trial, the focus truly becomes the right level of treatment for the right length of time while maintaining safeguards. My daughter fell through the current legal cracks at SB 1401 would fix. After two years she was found competent to stand trial but she was still functionally gravely disabled and the two timeline was too short to build trust to accept the care court services Also there was zero coordination between civil care court and criminal court public defenders So the workers were in the court that day, but they couldn't access my daughter because the criminal public defender had no right to communicate with the civil side. And both courts have been informed about the two care petitions, one from family, one from adult correctional health that happened right before she was to be released, and both were approved to move forward. And Dr. Warburton of the state hospital system advises inmate health experts to file care petitions for qualifying inmates returning to jail from IST hospitals, a fact readily available on the CARE Act web videos. The day of the trial, the judge, the PD, and the DA were all frustrated to see a clearly gravely disabled inmate unable to accept reentry housing and aftercare services prior to release, and the judge said, my hands are tied because she has legally maxed out on time served. We are not aware there was any attempt to consider her for an LPS conservatorship despite the existing jail health experts diagnosed with schizophrenia with lack of insight and constant medication refusals. She was released to the streets in June 2025 and continues to be caught in the revolving doors of streets to ERs to psychiatric hospitals to streets. I have an AOT petition for her. It was approved. They're having a very hard time finding her to engage her voluntarily in services. And since she doesn't think she's sick, why would she do that? SB 1401 puts the courts in a position of greater oversight of timeliness and appropriateness of voluntary programs with the possibility of medical assessment for LPS conservatorships prior to release. Please vote yes. Thank you. So very much. We'll not take any testimony from anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1401. If you would like to express your support, please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. I see no one come forward. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1401. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California, and we respectfully oppose SB 1041. We understand that this bill is intended to align procedures between misdemeanor and felony incompetent to stand trial cases, but in practice, SB 1401 makes substantive changes that expand court control over people with mental health disabilities and weaken important safeguards. First, the bill also allows confidential medical and mental health information to be shared, particularly therapy records, that information more broadly with the court. And that fundamentally undermines the trust that's necessary for effective treatment. And if people believe that what they say in therapy can be used against them in a criminal proceeding, they are less likely to seek care or to be honest with their providers. And that weakens the entire mental health system. Secondly, 1401 lowers due process protections by allowing courts to refer individuals to conservatorship without requiring a qualified mental health exercise. This is a significant step because it puts the court in a position to initiate a process that can take away a person's autonomy. It can strip a person of the ability to make decisions about their health, their finances, and where they live. That decision should be grounded in clinical expertise, not expanded judicial discretion. These changes move us further toward a system where people with mental health conditions are managed through the courts rather than supported through voluntary community-based care. Instead of reducing system involvement, this bill expands it. And we also have to be mindful about those who will be most impacted, particularly people of color who are already overrepresented in the criminal legal system and in the court-based mental health interventions like assisted outpatient treatment and care court. So expanding these pathways risks deepening those disparities. And finally, this bill has real-world consequences and implications. It risks unnecessarily and costly conservatorship, referrals, and expanding court involvement. And without addressing those underlying gaps in our behavioral health system, those resources would be better invested in full-service partnerships, supportive housing, and other approaches that actually stabilize people and reduce system contact. So at the time where we as a state should be building trust in mental health care, we need to be investing in services. So we're respectfully asking for your no vote. And as I close, I'd also like to register opposition on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office as well. Thank you very much. I will now take me to testimony in opposition to SB 1401. If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Liz Blumgater is on behalf of the L.A. County Public Defenders Union Local 148 in opposition. George Brampton on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We have not taken a position on this bill. We have concerns. We helped draft SB 1400 and we're in conversations with the author and appreciate it about 1401. Thank you. And would like to continue them. Thank you very much. Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Cortese. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know you and the committee have put some real time into this in terms of analysis. And because of that, today I'm going to cast an eye vote when we have a quorum and I'm able to do that. I do have serious reservations. They're not unique to me because they align almost 100 percent with what the opposition concerns are that were just raised. And it's not. First of all, let me just say some of that is. Largely. professional but philosophical based on lived experience but also based on my 12 years on the County Board of Suites in Santa Clara County where we desperately work to try to essentially completely de-link the criminal platform from these behavioral health issues and mental health issues knowing that they need to be dealt with and treated. It one of the reasons I supported CARE Corp because at least it was this huge step to say we not going to do this on a criminal platform we going to do it on the civil side Now the second point I want to make is in Santa Clara County we do have some integration that would be helpful I think, you know, best case scenario, I mean, it's very, very difficult to deal with somebody who doesn't have insight into their own condition, right? frustrating. Families all over California are dealing with that, so we have to work on that. The path that's historically been taken in my own county is that what used to be called drug courts or full-on behavioral health courts, kind of founded by a gentleman named Judge Manley, who's been very involved up here over the years as well. And those courts basically don't have what we would ordinarily consider to be HIPAA information or medical record information coming right into open court on the criminal side. Rather, case workers are mandated to be there in court so that they can continue to maintain the confidentiality of the actual records records and interaction with what would be the defendant in this case, but actually really essentially a patient of, in all likelihood, the county's behavioral health system. And so those caseworkers, especially for the indigent and so forth, are there. It allows the judge, basically, to establish a record of compliance with caseworker visits. he can ask general questions as to whether or not there's been compliance with medical prescriptions and so forth without essentially exposing that individual's entire medical history in a criminal court. That's a slippery slope that I worry about. For me, it's more than a slippery slope in the sense that we either have to stand by the confidentiality of medical records or not. And I think for years it's bothered me that when people check into county jails, for example, there's not a medical record history that goes in with them, and oftentimes we end up with people with suicidal ideation, you know, hurting themselves within the first 24 hours in jail. I don't know how to fix that, though, without essentially exposing someone's medical records, you know, to the rest of the world. So it's a tough issue. It's a really tough issue. So I don't know what I'd do to the author on the floor, but I wanted to take a few minutes to, in case you want to respond as well, but I want to take a few minutes to at least explain to you that I feel like I've given this a lot of thought. I think there's a path, like I said, to how to do this and still get to the same outcome, but I think it requires handoffs that are in very defined roles in terms of what people can say and what people can't say, especially in open criminal court. I don't think the bill actually does that, even though it's a noble outcome it's trying to achieve. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Senator Stern, do you wish to respond?

I think we're willing to work on this issue. We certainly value confidentiality here, even though really sharing the information piece is not unusual in a criminal context. We're dealing with questions of competency, mental health diversion, and then when that's gone by, we're looking for off-ramps, and whether that's AOT or CARE or conservatorship, the court needs that critical information to be able to make the right decision as to which off-ramp to choose and so we're looking to balance the information the court needs with the value of confidentiality the language that we imported here is the exact same language that SB 27 added to misdemeanors we think it strikes a good balance between those two the confidentiality piece and the information piece it limits the use of this information simply to the purpose of looking to see which off-ramp is appropriate and it's subject to state and federal law as well in terms of privacy consideration so thank you thank you very much we are on SB 1401 by Senator Stern if there are any other questions or comments at this time and seeing none we do have a quorum so let's first establish a quorum I again here again here say Arto Caballero we had are here Cortese here Cortese here Perez Perez here Wiener Wiener here okay thank you very much once again if any members have any questions or comments on SB 1401 if not

1401 moved by Senate press the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee SB 1401 Stern do pass to appropriations Arraguin Arraguin I say Arto Caballero I Cortese Cortese I Perez Perez I Wiener? Wiener, aye. That bill on call for absent members. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for joining us today. So we'll now move back and file order to our next bill, which is file item 6, SB 1027 by Senator Strickland. Good morning. I just want to first take this opportunity to thank the senator for the dialogue over the last week on this bill and giving us an opportunity to meet and work out a set of amendments that broaden the scope of this to also focus on the impacts of enforcement on victims of human trafficking. no doubt we have an issue in California on human trafficking and street prostitution and I really appreciate your openness in working with the committee on these amendments.

Thank you very much. Good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee. Good morning, Chair and Committee members. My name is Hannah Shen-Heyndorff. I'm the City Manager of the City of Stanton in Orange County. I'm here today to talk about the very real impacts of street prostitution in our community. In Stanton street prostitution is not an abstract policy issue. It is something our residents and businesses must deal with every day. We see ongoing solicitation along Highway 39 and other major corridors and increasingly within our residential neighborhoods. Buyers circle blocks, stop unpredictably, and create unsafe conditions for both drivers and pedestrians. But beyond that, the situation has escalated in ways that are deeply concerning. Residents are being verbally harassed and intimidated. businesses trying to maintain their properties have experienced vandalism and in some cases have had a gun drawn on them and our community is suffering from secondary impacts related to drug and alcohol addiction gang activity and human trafficking these are not isolated concerns they are part of a pattern that is affecting our community's sense of safety and quality of life families are especially impacted children walking to and from school are being exposed to extreme displays of public nudity and explicit sexual behavior. Parents are being put in the difficult position of having to explain these situations to very young children, something no family should have to navigate on a daily basis just to get to school safely. Local businesses are also impacted. They struggle to ensure the safety of employees and customers avoid certain areas The perception of disorder makes it harder for small businesses to survive and for our local economy to thrive Residents in Stanton are trying to be compassionate but they also feel unheard They are asking for safe, stable neighborhoods where families and businesses can function without fear or constant disruption. Our community is asking for policy grounded in reality. This is why SB 1027 is important. It creates a path to better understand, based on data and not assumptions, what communities like Stanton are experiencing and to develop solutions that restore safety while also addressing underlying social issues. On behalf of Stanton, we respectfully request your support of SB 1027. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Thank you very much. Hi, good morning. Good morning. The Orange County Sheriff's Department is a sponsor of Senate Bill 1027, which establishes the California Street Prostitution Issues and Options Task Force. This legislation will strengthen our ability to address human trafficking, improve coordination statewide, and provide better support and resources for victims across California. I'm a sergeant for the human trafficking unit for the Orange County Sheriff's Department. I've spent seven years working in an undercover capacity directly combating exploitation and supporting victims. Every day, my team sees the realities of human trafficking. These are not just cases. They are victims, many of them young and vulnerable, controlled through fear, violence, and manipulation. The scope of this issue across California is significant, and while law enforcement and community partners continue to work tirelessly, the challenges remain complex and evolving. In my role, I contact dozens of individuals each week who are engaged in prostitution. These interactions give me a firsthand perspective, and I know that many of these individuals are not there by choice, but are being exploited, coerced, or controlled by traffickers. Prostitution persists because it's highly profitable. In my experience, a single female engaged in prostitution can make between $1,000 and $3,000 a night. However, she often keeps none of that money, turning it all over to her trafficker, leaving her financially dependent, vulnerable, and under continued control. Human trafficking is directly tied to prostitution, and both research and my experience shows that many individuals engaged in prostitution are, in fact, victims. In whole, the majority of individuals I've encountered, both juveniles and adults, have been victimized as a direct result of prostitution, either by their traffickers or by their customers, thus continuing the cycle of victimization and an exploitation of a vulnerable population. In Los Angeles, along the Figaro Corridor, more than half the underage victims recovered are reported to come from foster care systems. In San Diego County, has reported seeing an increase in street prostitution activity, which negatively affects neighborhoods, businesses, and public safety. In Orange County, since 2021, I've seen a noticeable increase in street-level prostitution along Beach Boulevard in the cities of Stanton and Anaheim. Policy changes such as SB 357 have impacted law enforcement's ability to proactively contact victims, creating challenges in intervention and enforcement. This is why SB 1027 is so important. It brings together law enforcement, policymakers, and service providers to take an evidence-based look at current laws and develop informed solutions to better combat trafficking while supporting victims. Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Matt, is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1027? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you. Good morning. Pat Espinoza on behalf of the San Diego County DA's office in support. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association and the Roofside Sheriff's Association and the other POAs. in the analysis in support. Thank you. Good morning. Doria Hanno for the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you. Thank you very much. OK, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1027 Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to the bill Okay seeing no one come forward anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1027 George Ramthu on behalf of ACLU California Action. We're opposed to the bill as in print, so we need to review the amendments. Thank you. Shavani Nishara on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance. We also registered opposition for the bill in print and will review the amendments. Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Similar to my colleagues, I haven't had an opportunity to review the amendments but have an opposed position to the original version but happy to review. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments.

Any other questions to comment Senator Perez Yeah I too just want to express Senator Strickland just thank you for all of the work that you done on this bill I know you came by my office and you shared with me what an important issue this was regionally for you and in your district. and I know that you wanted to make sure that you were really addressing this issue of prostitution that you've seen happen in particular cities. And I know that this is a statewide issue as well. We see it in Los Angeles, and there's been lots of conversation about how we better address this problem, and I think creating a task force allows us to strategize together, bringing all partners to tape to the table so that we can come up with a common solution because we have one common goal which is to protect people at the end of the day and ensure public safety so I'm really grateful for the amount of effort that you've put into amendments around this bill I think it's a very strong piece of legislation and and really excited to see the outcome of

Ciarta? Thank you, and also I'll add my thanks to the author for tackling this. One of the things that we do in the legislature that I think is sometimes not good is in reaction to something we come up with 15 bills to try to address it instead of trying to figure out how we can focus in on the real parts that need to be addressed in doing that and in the task force concept I think does that what I've seen in the past though is that a lot of times our task force never gets put together like a fentanyl task force and and instead it goes in kind of a different some it goes off in a different room way and I am hoping that we will all and follow up to ensure that this gets done this puts everybody who has all the stakeholders in a room to figure out hey what do we do about this because doing nothing about it is not the answer and and we want to take into account what everybody has to say about it and and and so with that I just applaud you for for working with everybody to get this across this finish line of course there's other finish lines as well but hopefully you'll have the support to be able to do that and with that I'll move the bill thank you thank you senator and through the chair my understanding of this now goes to it's on the purview of the Attorney General's office so as we move forward any other questions or comments just clarity what is this bill go next

Yeah. Okay. Procedurally.

Okay. Thank you. And just to summarize the amendments, adding language about supporting survivors of human trafficking and preventing human trafficking required the task force to prepare a prevalent study on sex work in human trafficking, expanding the membership to include health officials, a university researcher, mental health expert, a lot of people who are in the community. people with lived experience and extending the timeline of the task force so that they have adequate time to complete the work and I want to thank the author for working with the committee and my colleagues for your input on this bill as well. This is a very important issue in my district. I live and represent the city of Oakland and we have our own blade along International Boulevard where issues of human trafficking are a serious problem. And I think the outcome of this task force can result in real good recommendations not just on changes to law, but also Resources to help support those people that have been victimized. So thank you Center for bringing this forward. I'll turn back over to close

Thank you, I'm gonna change a motion Moved by vice chair, which is due pass as amended to the government organization committee SB 1027 Strickland, motion to pass as amended to Gio. Arraguin? Aye. Arraguin, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Wiener? Keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you, Senator. Okay. I see Senator Jones here, but before we go to him, let's go to the consent calendar, which consists of SB 962 Archuleta, SB 1001 Archuleta, SB 1100, Smallwood Cuevas, and SB 1211. Gonzalez. I'll take a motion on consent. Moved by Vice Chair Ciarto. If you can please call the roll. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Ciarto? Aye. Ciarto, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez, Perez I, Wiener. Keep that on call for absent members. Thank you. Okay, we'll now proceed to file item 9, SB 1307 by Senator Jones. Good morning. Thank you, Chair and members. I appreciate your indulgence this morning as I present SB 1307 regarding clouded titles. This addresses a delay in clearing fraudulent or forged real estate documents from the public record. I want to thank the committee and your staff for their collaboration on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee's suggested amendments. Under current law, even when a recorded deed is clearly false or forged, victims must wait until the end of the criminal case before a court can avoid it. This delay keeps a cloud on title in place, blocking or complicating basic property actions like selling, refinancing, or transferring ownership. SB 1307 allows a defendant to stipulate to voiding a false or forged document rather than requiring full litigation. In those cases, the court may void the document only if the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence that no interested parties would be harmed. In many cases, no one meaningfully disputes that the document is fraudulent, yet the process still requires full adjudication. This provision allows the court to resolve those cases more efficiently while preserving strong safeguards. With that, joining me today is Deputy District Attorney John Dunn with the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. Also with me today is Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Marvin Adviento, and they are available to answer any questions with some testimony. Good morning.

Hi, good morning.

We'll take any Me Too testimony from anyone else in support of SB 1307. If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay, seeing no one else. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1307? Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, Chair. Could you share the amendments, please? Yes. The amendments remove all proposed changes to existing law, but leave in the provision allowing the defendant after conviction to stipulate that an instrument is void in lieu of the court holding a hearing on the motion to void the false or forged instrument So they remove the proposed changes that the which would allow the court in the midst of the criminal proceeding? Yeah, the change in Section 115 of the Penal Code Subsection E, E1A it's changing the language to say after a person convicted of a violation of this section or a plea is entered whereby a charge alleging a violation of the section is dismissed and a waiver obtained pursuant to People v. Harvey happy to provide a written if you want to see the written version of this thank you so much And while she's reviewing that, are there any other principal witnesses in opposition? Okay. I'll ask, is there anyone else in opposition to SB 1307, if you would like to approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill? I believe that that satisfies our primary objection. so at this point we will withdraw our opposition. Thank you so much. I thought it would. The wheels of government grinding forward. I forgot to say, Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Sorry to interrupt you. No problem. Okay, is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1307? I'm sorry? If you're going to support, you can interrupt any time. I didn't say that. No, I did. Okay, seeing no one wishing to testify, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions to come. Senator Cavallaro. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony because I was struggling with the difference between the civil case, which is a quiet title, and then the activity that we're dealing with today, which is getting a resolution when there's a criminal case pending. So I do appreciate that. I think it's very strategically or surgically done, and I appreciate the amendment. So I'm going to be supporting it today. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair Ciaro. Yeah, thank you for this because it's a great follow-up to last year's bill that tried to catch them before they got swindled. And what happens when they get swindled? This bill happens. And I think it's a great bill. Thank you for bringing it, and we'll be supporting it. And I want to thank the author and the witnesses, not just for your service to the state of California, but for really raising this issue. This is a very legitimate issue, and I want to thank the author for bringing the bill forward. Thank you. Unless there are any other questions or comments, turn it back over to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. SB 1307 is a targeted measure that ensures that fraudulent documents do not continue to interfere with legitimate property rights. I ask for your aye vote. Motion by Vice Chair Ciarto. The motion is to pass the Senate floor. As amended. Excellent. SB 1307 Jones do pass as amended to the floor. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Perez? Wiener? Keep that bill on call for absent, members. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, members. Okay, I see Senator Rubio, and so we will go now back in file order to file item 8, SB 1276 by Senator Rubio Good morning. I know you're chairing another committee, so thank you for being here. You may present your bill. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill. SB 1276 the in child exploitation Act which will protect children and hold predators accountable This bill makes a simple change it clarifies it is a crime to watch live stream and AI generated content of a sexually exploited child Throughout time the legislature has tried to keep up with the change and the evolution of all these technologies And our responsibility is to continue to to be vigilant and watchful to keep predators away from our children especially exploiting loopholes which we find as technology evolves existing a law already criminalizes the creation and distribution of life streams depicting sexual exploitation of a child but the ambiguity is around the viewership and so today we want to make sure that we close that loophole if this content was consumed through any other medium it would be a crime Facebook live TikTok Live, Discord, and other technologies are growing in popularity. And so with that, it is our job to ensure that we stay current and that we make sure that predators are not taking advantage. Today, a predator can click once knowingly and consume child exploitation content, but exit the stream without leaving any footprint. And that's not good for children. Before we have hard drives and other technologies where we can trace, not this time with this new technology. So the codes have been updated throughout time, facilitating the development from floppy disks to hard drives. There should be no available loophole, especially for these worst offenders. So the intent of this bill is to ensure that we take care of our most innocent, and that is our children. So today we want to make sure that we protect them by holding child sex predators accountable. That is our moral obligation here today. And anyone that knows me knows that I focus a lot on these issues because children matter to me, not only as a citizen, as a teacher, but I think all of us care what happens to our children. This bill has bipartisan support. And Senator Wahab and Grobe are also supporting and co-authors to this bill. Joining me here today to speak in support of SB 1276 is Laura Drino, Director of Crimes Against Children, and Gina DiAquila, Director of Center for Assault Treatment Services at Dignity Health. If I may turn it over to my witnesses. Hi, good morning. You have two minutes to address the committee. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Laura Drino. I'm the Director of Crimes Against Children for the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office. I've been a prosecutor for a little over 32 years with the majority of my career holding those who abuse children accountable. What this bill really does is it closes a very real gap in the law right now and harmonizes the law of mandated reporting under the Child Abuse Neglect Reporting Act known as CANRA and Penal Code Section 311.3, the Child Sexual Exploitation. I come to you Because as a prosecutor I know because I've tried these cases the predators do not stop adapting They use new technology. They exploit new platforms. We're seeing a lot on discord these days and increasingly technology has changed the way offenders access and consume this material. They now access child sex abuse material through streaming platforms rather than traditional downloads. Our law must reflect that reality. A child being sexually abused on the streaming platform is no less a victim because the abuse is viewed in real time instead of from a saved or downloaded file. The trauma is the same, the exploitation is the same, and the demand created by every viewer of a child being sexually exploited is growing every day. 1276 makes clear that knowingly watching a live stream of a minor engaged in sexual conduct is sexual exploitation under Penal Code Section 311.3. Also important is that it harmonizes the penal code for 311.3 with CANRA so that the definition of sexual exploitation is the same for prosecutors, law enforcement, and mandatory reporters across the state. No offender should escape accountability because technology moved faster than our statutes. California must be clear, child exploitation in any form, streamed, digital, AI generated, will be reported and prosecuted, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Gina Diacuela, and I am the director of the SART program in Van Nuys, California, and I'm also a forensic nurse examiner and a mandated reporter. I work directly with children who have been sexually exploited and abused. I strongly support SB 1276 and I right now I want to speak from the perspective of children we see in the legal exam room and for these children the trauma does not end with the physical assault and that they endured it continues it continues when the abuse is recorded it continues when the abuse is streamed it continues every time it's viewed shared or digitally recreated. The ongoing trauma is something children carry with them. We see the fear, the shame, we see anxiety, depression, and oftentimes we see this in self-harm that these children have on their bodies. The sleeplessness and the post-traumatic stress is there. One of the most devastating things a child tells us is the fear that someone somewhere is still watching and viewing what has happened to them and what they were forced to do on these live streams. To the child, it makes no difference whether the offender downloaded the material or watched it live. The material happened. The harm is the same. The bill is also critically important for mandated reporters. It gives clear direction that stream content and AI-generated content, anything digitally altered that depicts minors fall within the reporting framework under the Child Abuse Reporting Act. That clearly means earlier reporting. It clearly means earlier intervention, earlier protection for children who may still be in danger, but also the prevention to other children who have not yet been victimized. Technology is changing rapidly. Unfortunately, the exploitation of children is changing with it. Our reporting laws and our criminal laws must keep pace. For the children we serve every day, I respectfully urge your aye vote. And I would be happy to share an actual case and answer any questions Thank you very much Is anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1276 If you can please state your name organization and position on the bill Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Kathy Van Austin on behalf of the American Association of University Women, California, in strong support. Thank you. Doria Hana on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support. Thank you. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association in support. Thank you. Okay, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to SB 1276. Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1276? good morning Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association we have not taken a position we have concerns we would like to be able to discuss them with the author's office thank you very much morning mr. chair members Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California attorneys of criminal justice we did submit a late letter we have a meeting later this week with the author's office just concerned about some of the definitions on AI when individuals human beings actually aren't involved in the making of the AI products and so we're trying to figure out some definitions that maybe could be helpful going forward so looking forward to the discussion with the author's office later this week thank you okay seeing no one else coming forward I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments moved by by sure Ciarto thank you see see no further comments I'll turn it back over to Senator Close thank you members again this is just a minor change to already existing law and so we definitely need to be more vigilant and close loopholes so that we don't have these monstrous predators taking advantage of our most vulnerable which is our children and with that I ask for an aye vote thank you motion by vice chair Ciarto which is do you pass two appropriations please call the roll SB 1276 Rubio the motion is due pass to appropriations I again I again I say Arto I say Arto I Caballero Cortese Cortese I Perez Wiener we'll keep that bill and call for absent members thank you okay we need some authors senator Caballero had to go to geo but I think the remaining bills we have right or menjivar senator menjivar's bill senator Wiener's bill and senator Caballero's bill so we'll take a brief recess oh let's lift calls on bills thank you SB 1157 needs a motion just okay yeah okay SP 1157 Archuleta needs a motion I'll give you a motion. Moved by Vice Chair Searto. Thank you. That is? Do you pass as amended to appropriations? Do you pass as amended to appropriations? Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Searto? Aye. Searto, aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez, Wiener? Keep that bill on call. SB 1012 needs a motion. And SB 1012 by Senator Smallville-Cuevas needs a motion. Moved by Senator Cortese. I want to hog up all the motions. SB 1012 small wood cuevas motion is do pass to labor I again I say Arto I say Arto I caballero cortesi cortesi I Perez wiener keep that bill on call Do we need motions for any other bills Starting in 1441 Oh, for Senator Cortese's bill, correct? Intune a motion on SB 1306, Cortese? So moved. Okay, thank you. SB 1306, Cortese, motion is due passed to appropriations. Aragon? Aye. Aragon, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Weiner. Keep that bill on call for absent members as well. And did everyone here record a vote on consent? Stern. Oh, Stern. Let's lift the call on SB4201. SB4201 Stern. Current vote is 5-0. Motion was due passed to appropriations. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. That bill's out. Okay, that bill's out on a vote of 6-0. Anything else we need to record votes on? Okay, I think we've caught up on votes, so we'll take a five-minute recess. The Senate Public Safety Committee is now back in session, and we'll proceed now to file item 14, SB 1173, by Senator Cavallaro. Perfect timing. Good morning. Whenever you're ready to present. Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1173, which would allow a judge to determine whether the evidence presented at trial supports instructing the jury on a lesser-related offense. Under current law, defendants cannot request that a jury consider lesser-related charges, even when the facts support them. For example, an individual who breaks someone's window in a moment of anger could be charged with burglary when a lesser-related offense, such as vandalism, may be more appropriate based on the facts presented at trial. In practice, prosecutors routinely pursue the charge with a higher penalty if they believe they can meet that burden, omitting lesser alternatives. This creates an all-or-nothing framework for juries, even when the evidence supports more proportionate outcomes. In 1984, the California Supreme Court in People v. Geiger held that when supported by the evidence, lesser related defense instructions could be given to a jury at the request of the defense. For over a decade, trial courts allowed this practice. However, in 1998, during the tough-on-crime era, the Supreme Court reversed course in People v. Burks and eliminated the ability of defense counsel to make such a request. SB 1173 restores this tool in a balanced and limited way. The bill allows the defense to request the lesser related instruction only where the evidence supports it, and a judge retains full discretion to evaluate the evidence and determine whether the instruction is appropriate before it is presented to the jury. This ensures that juries are not forced to consider only the most serious offense. It restores a practice that previously existed and continues to function effectively in other jurisdictions, such as the federal system. And it restores the practice by putting it in statute, which makes it clear. With me today in support is Ignacio Hernandez with the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of CACJ we are a co of the measure I want to thank the author for taking this bill up Excuse me As the author mentioned there was a time period in California in which this was the practice And fundamental to this rule previously, the focus in our criminal justice system is on ensuring that proper evidence is presented to the jury. There are so many rules of evidence. There's a lot that's done because at the end of the day we want to make sure that the crime That is charged in the crime that someone's convicted of is supported by the evidence that is fundamental and core to our criminal justice system Where we are out of step at the moment is that there may be evidence that suggests a different crime But because the DA chose not to include that In the complainer information, then the jury does not have that option and what has happened over the years since 1998 Court decision is that oftentimes we've juries find themselves in this catch-22 there may be sufficient evidence to believe that someone has committed a crime but it doesn't match the the menu of options provided to them by the DA and so they're stuck either having to go ahead and convict somebody of a crime they don't think actually was proven beyond a reasonable doubt or they have to completely find someone not guilty even though they believe somebody did committed crime as in the situation that the author mentioned where someone is charged with burglary commercial burglary but they actually were vandalizing the building what's key to this bill are two things one it's only if the evidence supports the alternative charge and the defense is required to disclose their defense theory so that gives notice to the DA it is not just going to be on a whim and it's not just going to be throwing something against the wall it has to be consistent with what the defense is arguing is the theory so of defense so that is presented to the judge the judge then makes that decision and has to decide whether the evidence supports it I'll close by saying the key thing in the 1998 case was that they felt that one it wasn't a constitutional requirement and that's why that rule was thrown out in 98 this is a statutory approach and they also said it was unworkable because there weren't specific rules. This bill includes specific requirements that have to be met and retains the judicial discretion to determine whether those elements are met. For those reasons, we think we will get better outcomes, more accurate outcomes, and everyone should agree that that is what we should be doing our criminal justice system. So for those reasons, I ask for your support. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1173? If you could state your name, organization, position on the bill. Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Office Association proud co-sponsor and support thank you thank you Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support Shivani Nishar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support George Pramtha on behalf of ACLU California Action in support thank you Phil Melendez with Smart Justice California in support as well as support from California's for safety and justice as proud co-sponsors. Thank you very much. I'm also authorized to register support for the office of the San Francisco Public Defender. Thank you very much. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1173? Seeing no one is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB 1173. Doria Hana on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association registering our respectful opposition thank you thank you seeing no one else come to the microphone I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments okay moved by Senate press thank you and I'll turn it back to you Senator Caballero to close respectfully ask for your aye vote okay thank you we have a motion by Senate press that motion is do pass the Senate floor can please call the roll SB 1173 Caballero motion is due pass to the floor Aragin aye I mean I say our toe say our toe no Caballero we are I Cortese Perez Perez I Wiener absent members thank you so I've been authorized on behalf of Senator Wiener to present SB 1004 so I'll pass the gavel to the vice chair keep us going Next up on the docket is SB1004 being presented by Senator Adekin on behalf of Senator Weiner. You may begin when you wish, but really soon. Well, thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and members. I'm here today to present SB1004 on behalf of Senator Weiner, and I'm also a proud co-author of this bill. I'd like to start by thanking the committee and staff for their work. Senator Wiener is accepting the committee amendments to add exemptions for sunglasses, helmets with clear face shields, officer training activities and operations, enforcing phishing game code to law, and to clarify existing exemptions for officers wearing motorcycle helmets. SB 1004 is follow-up to legislation that the legislature passed and the governor signed SB 627, the No Secret Police Act, which prohibits local and federal law enforcement from covering their faces while conducting operations in the state of California, which included numerous exemptions such as clear or medical masks and masks to protect against toxins, gas, and smoke. In response to the bill's passage, the Trump administration sued the state of California on the basis that SB 627 violated the United States Constitution's supremacy clause. This February, the California Central District Courts ruled that California indeed has the power to ban federal agents from covering their faces under Senate Bill 627, but put a hold on enforcement of Senate Bill 627 and asserted that the ban must include state officers in addition to local and federal officers. officers. Immediately after this ruling, Senator Weiner introduced this bill to amend state law, which fills this gap and allows SB 627's prohibition on face masks to be enforced on all law enforcement in the state of California, including state and local law enforcement officers, as well as ICE, Border Patrol, and other federal officers. Importantly in the ruling, Judge Snyder of the Central District Court made extremely clear that the federal government failed to show that masking is essential to their operations and that there is no cognizable justification for law enforcement to conceal their identities during the performance of routine, non-exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public. The judge said what we all know to be true, that ICE's secret police tactics have no place in democracy. People are terrified, and with mothers and nurses being shot in the street by masked men, they have every right to be. Masking is creating an air of impunity that's enabling the worst abuses from ICE. And masking doesn make anyone safer In fact as Judge Steiner wrote in the decision and I quote the presence of mass unidentifiable individuals including law enforcement is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all. In the decision, the court also wrote that at the hearing, counsel for the United States acknowledged that Senate Bill 627 would not unlawfully discriminatory if it was amended to be applied to all law enforcement. In other words, Trump administration's lawyers admitted that SB 627 would not be discriminatory against the federal government if it applied evenly to all levels of government colleagues it's imperative that we pass this bill SB 1004 as soon as we can to ensure our mass ban can be lawfully enforced I want to thank Senator Perez Center Wahab and the other co-authors of the bill at the appropriate time I respectfully ask for an I vote and with me to testify is Daniel Ruscon a licensed truck driver born and raised in San Bernardino and Christine Soto to bury the executive director of the prosecutors Alliance action all right each of the witnesses you have two minutes please go ahead hello good

Christine Soto de Berry with Prosecutors Alliance Action, proud co-sponsor of SB 1004. I come to this work after a decade in the San Francisco District Attorney's Office. Last year, as you all know, we passed the No Secret Police Act to protect Californians from masked federal agents terrorizing our communities. The good news is since then 33 other states have followed our lead and introducing similar bills. Three of those have since passed and many more are in the process, including Maryland that just passed and is awaiting the governor's signature. After the Trump administration sued the state of California for this bill, they gave one and only one reason that they were not able to enforce it. And it was the exclusion of state agencies from our bill. Even minimal discrimination was found to invalidate that portion of the bill. The good news is that Judge Snyder found that we do, as the state of California, indeed have the right and the authority to enforce a no-masking ban in our state. That clear path has facilitated other states, and we now seek to make that correction necessary here in California so that we can proceed with the great legislation we passed last year. That ruling was not a rejection. It was a roadmap. We're here before you today to affirm the bill that we passed and ensure that states can regulate law enforcement, including federal officers, from hiding their faces and wearing masks. And as was indicated earlier, the judge affirmed what we asserted here in committee, that those masks actually lead to increased fear and insecurity in our communities, not greater safety and security. SB 1004 does exactly what the court invited the legislature to do. It adds state law enforcement to the No Secret Police Act, and it ensures that that law applies equally across all levels of government. SB 1004 is the required next step in California to protect our communities and prevent atrocities like we have seen here today. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Raj, Chair. So let me ask the question in regards to the subsection G or section G. Is that the paragraph that starts off notwithstanding any other law, any person? And that's where the concern about a good faith exception should rest? Okay. Oh, I appreciate that because I don't think anybody's trying to do a gotcha here. This is about conduct designed specifically to conceal who you are so that there's no accountability, and very clearly no accountability. And unlike any operations that we've ever seen in this country, I would venture to say, at least in the many years that I've been around, And I've seen a lot of conflict around issues that people felt very strongly about, some of which were very disturbing during the 60s and the 70s. So I guess my position has been that wearing a mask that covers your face in a way that, well, first of all, it's failing to identify yourself. I venture to say that that has not been a real issue in law enforcement. People are very, they know they've got to carry a badge. They know they have to show it if you ask. So I see this as a limited category. So the good faith exception is something that I agree with you. we don't want to be punishing individuals that have to make a very quick decision about what to do to maybe deter further illegal conduct and that we've put on at risk right we've put them on the front lines to do to make sure that we can maintain the peace and safety of our communities and and if there is a good faith exception I don't I mean I'm I'm good with that I will urge that the author of the bill to consider that. I'm prepared to support the bill today because I think it more accurately reflects what we were talking about in the original bill. And, yeah, so that having been said, when the time is appropriate, I'll move the bill.

Oh, that would be me. Mr. Chair, if I could say that I was really moved by the testimony here today. It is untenable that individuals can pull a gun and shoot at a moving vehicle when there no indication that there a crime in process and that deadly force is necessary in that instance And with as many people in the car as there were, that is very scary. So I'm sorry that that happened. And I don't know how you get it out of your head, because I fear, like you, that how do you guarantee to young people that they're going to be safe in the community if they see that kind of activity? and anybody could have been killed. So I'm sorry you had to go through that, and I appreciate you being here today to testify.

Question for the author through, I guess you could guess for the author. So in the case of, we were talking about law enforcement officers for state law enforcement now. They were left out last year, which I didn't understand why, because if it was that big of a deal, then they wouldn't have been left out. This is really clearly aimed at the federal government. But our state law enforcement officers have to work in a lot of different environments. One of them that you had talked about was, you know, if they're in, like, toxic material and things like that. Our CHP officers work in dusty environments. They work in very cold environments. If you're up doing chain controls on Highway 80 and you're not wearing a scarf around your face, you'll get frostbite. And if something evolves while they're doing that, this opens up liability for them

Close. Okay. Do you want to close Senator Wiener? Okay.

We have a motion by Senator Caballero. SB 1004, Wiener, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Aragin?

Aragin, aye.

Sayarto, no.

Caballero, aye.

Perez?

We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Do we need a... Waiting for Senator Menjivar. Let's lift calls on bills. SB 1157, Archuleta. Motion was due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 3-0.

Caballero, aye.

Archuleta.

Aye.

Caballero? Aye.

Wiener? Aye.

Wiener? Aye.

Wiener? Aye.

present mr. Sharon and committee members I accept the committee's amendments on SB 1390 I'm working on an online dating a bill to ensure that the online dating apps flag certain after the amendment certain crimes associated to sexual assault domestic violence and so forth going to be taking a lot of amendments in the next committee working with match who have come to the table to discuss some operability issues that have come up in liability issues I've committed to that it's going to look dramatically different because a lot of things have come up. There are going to be more of the purview of the next committee. Respectfully asking for an iVoke.

Mr. Chairman, members, Dan Philzold on behalf of the Crime Victims Alliance, we're pleased to sponsor this bill. We believe that it is time for California to take meaningful steps to improve the safety of the users of these online dating apps and I'm happy to answer any questions

please let you name organization position on the bill story Hana on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association and support thank you unless

Chair and members, Austin Hayworth on behalf of Internet Works, representing 30-plus middle-tech platforms that support millions of small businesses and users across California. We must respectfully oppose SB 1390. The bill creates a sweeping new mandate that exists in no other jurisdiction or state in the country, requiring criminal background tracks for every user and permanent public flags on profiles. This is a profound overreach. It comes with a real cost, and that's access to these platforms that are not just casual. It's essential to many, many Californians that are rebuilding from trauma or simply engaging with a reasonable expectation for privacy. Forcing every user into a de facto registry will deter participation, especially for those who value discretion most. We believe SB 1390 creates a blunt tradeoff, less access, less privacy and less participation. We urge a more carefully crafted approach and respectfully encourage a no vote.

Okay. And this brings me to the second major issue we have with the bill.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any other testimony. If anyone else wishes to express opposition to SB 1390, please say your name, organization, and position on the bill. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Senator Sierko.

Thank you. Any questions or comments? Senator Cortese, then cover your.

thank you very much mr. chair and likewise we had a good discussion yesterday I understand where you're trying to go I'm not sure it's going to be easy to get there but I'm willing to give you a chance to work on it and a lot of the issues I had were you're gonna face in the privacy protection committee and I hope you can get there I'll support it today but reserve the right on the floor to make a different decision so thank you thank you and we had a good conversation yesterday too I normally try to give people benefit of the doubt especially in the first committee to keep working I think you're going to get out of this committee I'm not as we discussed I'm not going to be able to support the bill today I do think I see and I want to be clear and I I said this to you yesterday, what you're trying to do is super laudable, and I share your goal. I don't want people to be preyed upon, attacked, harmed in any way, whether from an online connection with someone or if they're out in a bar or at a party and get roofied and get assaulted. And so I appreciate that you're trying to address that. I also believe that this is going to have, in my view, some significant unintended consequences in terms of people's privacy and their people. And different platforms are different. There are some dating platforms where everything is like hyper public verified, you know, some of the like a Raya or something like that. There are others that it's anything but. And a lot of people who discretion is incredibly important and having to provide all sorts of private information and have a background check And I also know that the system being what it is there will be people who will be flagged who shouldn be flagged And these platforms, and I'm going to if you're on any of the match properties, because match owns like 10,000 different platforms. Now, if you get banned on one, you're banned on all of them. and there's really no way to even have that be reversed because increasingly it's AI that's making all of these decisions and it's not even a live human being. And there are people who rely on these platforms for all sorts of social interactions. So I know you'll continue to work on this and I hope that I can get to a point to be able to support in the future, but right now I just have serious reservations, so I won't be able to support it today.

Thank you. I do want to clarify that this is an offering of false sense of security. I'm not saying that this is the magic pill. All sexual assaults, all domestic violence, interpersonal violence are going to cease to exist with this bill. It adds an additional layer, and I know there are a lot of things that still need to be worked on. Most recent concerns were brought to me last Thursday. I will I have committed to working on it and this bill in not even just on the floor in the next privacy in the next Community privacy center we know you're gonna see a dramatically different bill You mentioned match they do represent a lot of different Thousands hundreds of apps they are at the table with me to make sure that this is operational But why am I doing this well? It's because a study shows that 88% of users who are on these dating zap who are college students have reported sexual harassment from these apps where over another thousand two hundred women who were surveyed by Columbia Journalism found that more than a third had been had reported sexual being sexually assaulted or raped by someone they met on the dating app just last year a man was sentenced in Ventura County for raping and sexually assaulting five women she he met on a dating app these are serious incidents that are occurring that nothing has been done to try to prevent them. Now, this is starting a conversation. I am more than willing to have conversations on how we can get it to be a better place. Utah, Texas, and Colorado have passed bills to try to do something in this space. The dating apps have not provided an adequate level of safety for their users, and if mostly women continue to be raped or murdered, Like another woman was murdered and her body was set on fire last year after a man met her on a dating app Those are the incidents we're looking to prevent nothing has been done to minimize those risks So anything that moves the needle forward I am willing to be amenable to and I want to make sure that the Dating apps have a bill that is workable that they can implement that it's not a Pie kind of approach that is not going to be workable I want to make sure something moves the needle with that I appreciate you allowing me the time to work on this and I I do commit like I mentioned to addressing those issues in the next committee respectfully asking for an Ivo