Senate Public Safety Committee

Good morning. Like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, March 24, 2026. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will meet as a subcommittee to hear bill presentations. Just a few announcements as we start today's hearing. First, file item eight, Senate Bill 1105 by Senator Perez has been pulled from the agenda. We'll hear that bill at our next committee hearing. And for those of you who are new to the Senate Public Safety Committee, welcome to the State Capitol. We really appreciate you being here today. I want to just summarize our public comment procedure. We will take two principal witnesses in support of a bill and two principal witnesses in opposition to a bill. Each will have two minutes to address the committee. After that time, we welcome anyone to come forward and state your name, organization and position on the bill. But we're limiting your testimony just to your name, organization and position on the bill. And we also accept written comments. So if you would like to write the committee to express your opinion on an issue, we welcome that and thank you for being here today. Okay, Senator Grayson, Senator Gonzalez just walked in, if that's okay. We do take measures and file orders. So we'll begin with item one, Senate Bill 937 by Senator Gonzalez. And then we'll go to item two, Senate Bill 1056 by Senator Grayson. Okay, so with the agreement of the authors, we'll now proceed to file item 2, SB 1056 by Senator Grayson. Good morning. Present. Thank you so. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Committee members. I first would like to begin by thanking the committee, Mr. Chair, you and the committee and sergeants for accommodating media in the room today. And I also want to also thank the committee for their great work. In collaboration with my office, I will be accepting the committee's suggested amendments today. And I am pleased to present SB 1056, which requires courts to issue protective orders governing the handling of sexually explicit material depicting or involving an adult victim in criminal cases in order to prevent unnecessary copying, transmission and dissemination of such material. California law mandates strong court oversight over the handling of highly sensitive child sexual abuse material. Courts, not individual attorneys, control the copying and dissemination of such material, and disclosure is tightly regulated. While child sexual abuse material is appropriately subject to explicit statutory safeguards, no parallel provision expressly requires similar court supervision when the material depicts or involves adult victims. As a result, safeguards may depend on prosecutorial discretion rather than judicial oversight. Survivors of sexual violence and privacy based crimes may face a heightened risk of unnecessary copying, transmission and dissemination of deeply personal material. This undermines a survivor's privacy and public confidence in the justice system. SB 1056 extends a proven statutory framework already applied to child sexual abuse material to similarly sensitive material involving adult survivors, while preserving deficit defendants rights to reasonably access necessary to prepare for a defense. Specifically, this bill requires courts to issue a protective order in criminal cases involving sexually explicit material depicting or involving an adult victim, preventing unnecessary copying, transmission or dissemination of such materials. SB 1056 also prohibits attorneys from providing copies to a defendant, to the defendant's family members or anyone else unless authorized by the court after a hearing and showing of good cause. The bill also clarifies that this does not relieve the prosecution of its constitutional duty to disclose relevant and exculpatory evidence, nor does it affect the admissibility of evidence at trial. SB 1056 ensures that survivors are afforded meaningful privacy protections through clear and consistent standards. Seeking justice does not have to re traumatize or expose survivors even further. Every survivor deserves privacy, dignity and the right to control their own narratives. After me, you'll hear from my support witnesses whose case is the impetus for this bill. As a former assembly member who represented Vallejo and a co founder of a nonprofit serving survivors of violence, I was incredibly moved by their resilience and continued advocacy. In 2015 they became the focus of a shocking case that captured national attention and was later featured in Netflix's American Nightmare documentary. Today they advocate for trauma informed policing, survivor centered practice, and trained law enforcement agencies nationwide for for supporting testimony. I am pleased to introduce through the chair Denise Heskins Quinn and Erin Quinn, doctors of physical therapy survivors, authors and advocates. Mr. Chair, thank you Senator, good morning and you may proceed. Good morning Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Aaron Quinn and I'm here to present on SB 1056. In 2015, a man stalked me and my now wife Denise for over a year and a half. He later claimed he was targeting me because he believed I didn't deserve the life I had and he wanted to take away my things. So he attacked us in the middle of night, took the love of my life and held her captive for two days and raped her twice while recording it. After Denise and I were reunited, she told me through deep visceral sobs about the horse she experienced and I felt like I had failed to protect her. I feared she would never heal from such a devastating wound and at the time the police didn't believe us and the assailant went on to attack two more families before he was finally caught. Months Later, Denise showed incredible courage by participating in the criminal proceeding to ensure he could never harm anyone else. But the story didn't end there. Just last year, during a new investigation, we learned that the underlying evidence, including recordings of the rapes, may still be in the possession of his now ex wife. And only recently, we also learned that there had been efforts to put a protective order in place to limit access and required those materials be returned and destroyed. But even now, we don't know whether those safeguards were followed, monitored or enforced. There were no consistent standards, no transparency, and more uncertainty. This is unacceptable, especially in a digital age where this kind of material can be copied and shared instantly. So I watch as my wife, the mother of my two daughters, was potentially exposed to harm. Again. Denise and I know the importance of supporting protecting survivors as they navigate the legal process, because if they don't feel safe, they will not come forward. And this is why I'm here today. I will not fail Denise again. SB 1056 closes a critical privacy gap while fully preserving the constitutional rights of the accused. California already recognized that certain evidence involving children is so sensitive it must be tightly controlled through the courts. This build builds upon that principle by ensuring similar sensitive material involving adult survivors is handled with with consistent judicial oversight. As someone who has felt both the weight of the government power and the pain of retraumatization, I believe in balance. Due process must be preserved, but survivor's dignity must not be left to chance. SB 1056 ensures both. And thank you to Senator Grayson for championing this important issue. Very much,

Thank you very much. On behalf of the entire committee, we thank you so very much for being here and for your bravery and courage to tell this horrific story and. And for advocating for justice. And so we really appreciate you being here. And with that, I'll open it up. To any other members of the public who'd like to express support for Senate Bill 1056. Please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 1056? Seeing no one else will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Excuse me. Ignacio Hernandez. On behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide association of Criminal Defense lawyers and private property practice and work in public defender offices, and we are respectfully in opposition. I want to thank the author for the spill and also for the earlier witnesses for sharing their very personal and very difficult stories. Today, our opposition is largely rooted in what the prior witness mentioned, in that this will significantly interfere with the ability both legal and ethical obligation for an attorney to prepare a defense and to work with his or her client. The bill, as we read it, prohibits the sharing of the information that fits the definition with their clients, and that's concerning. That will absolutely prohibit us from putting together a defense which is the obligation of the defense attorney and also is required under due process that needs to be rectified. Otherwise, we are dismantling the promise of the criminal justice system. The other thing we're concerned is that current law creates a way to protect this material, which gives notice to the defense as to which material cannot be shared and which can. And right now, the way this bill is drafted, the defense attorney will have to guess what fits the sexually explicit material definition. And it sets up a situation where the defense Attorney may not be aware of that. A court or someone else will interpret certain evidence that that will fit under their definition. Under current practice and current procedure, the courts will specifically state this evidence is subject to a protective order, exhibit A, exhibit, you know, B, C, D, so that defense attorneys know exactly what they cannot share. And that is how it should be set up. I think I heard earlier that somebody may have violated the protective order and that should not have happened and there should be consequences. But that is how the current system is set up to balance the protection of victims and also the protection of the constitutional right to defend oneself. So we think the current process of establishing protective orders that specifically state which evidence is protected and should be limited in sharing is the way to go. And we ask for a no vote on this bill. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to Senate Bill 1056? Please state your name, organization and position on the bill. George Paramthu, on behalf of ACLU California Action. We are opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition? SB 1056. Okay. Seeing no one else. I'll bring it back to the committee for questions, discussion. Just to summarize, the committee amendments that the authors agreed to accept, they would strike the word involving from the phrase sexually explicit material depicting or involving an adult victim throughout the bill and narrow the types of cases this bill would apply to so that it applies to those in which the defendant is being prosecuted for a violent felony or violation of penal code section 647J, which includes the unlawful acts of peeping, unlawfully recording a person under through their clothes with the intent of arousal, unlawfully recording a person with the intent to invade the privacy of a person, and intentionally distributing intimate images of another person. So those are the committee amendments. Any questions or comments for members of the committee? Yes, Vice Chair Sierrato, you state that this bill somehow denies the defendant the opportunity to look at the evidence. How? What I see is that they're not allowed if the judge's order is not allowed to make copies of it and that defendant to have copies of it. But it doesn't prevent them from sitting down with their attorney and looking at the evidence, does it? Is that a question for opposition? Yeah, that's an opposition question.

I'm reading that too, but I don't

I understand.

Because the way I read this is they're not allowed to disclose who the victim's family to, you know, who their family members are and things like that.

see in this bill where it says that they can't do that. They can show them that they just can't make copies of it and allow those copies to escape the room to other areas. In other words, this bill is all about protecting the people that have been violated and the defendant will get their time in court. I don't see. I think this bill is an important protective mechanism for victims. And I don't. I just don't understand. And looking at this, I'm not understanding how this somehow doesn't allow a defendant the appropriate venue to or the avenue to have their case adjudicated. So. Done. Seeing no other questions from the vice Chair, I'll just clarify that copies of the material could be provided to the defendant if they're representing themselves pro per, if I'm not mistaken, Senator Grayson, as well as provided through attorney. But the court would have to issue a protective order to govern the how that material would be distributed. And I think the intent is to ensure that people don't have these images in their own personal possession, but rather to ensure that attorneys have access to it and can and can share them with the defendant, alternatively making sure that a defendant that represents pro per can have access to it, but with certain conditions as part of a protective order. Is that correct, Senator Grayson? That is correct. Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee on this bill? We're on SB 1056. Okay. If not seeing no other questions, I'll turn it back over to the author to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Proposition 115 guarantees access to discovery, but it does not prohibit reasonable procedural safeguards governing how discovery is handled. The California Supreme Court has held that the legislature may enact statutes that. That supplement discovery procedures so long as they do not Undermine Core Rights SB 1056 does not reduce discovery. It ensures that it is handled responsibly. Furthermore, SB 1056 is not just based on one single case. This bill addresses a real and foreseeable harm. While there are voices that emphasize that the bill was prompted by a single incident, legislation often responds to identified gaps before they become widespread problems. The absence of widespread abuse is not evidence that safeguards are unnecessary. It may reflect that the legal system has not yet fully confronted the risk. And given modern technology and the ease of digital distribution, the potential for harm is significant. SB 1056 is a proactive measure to prevent re victimization. And while I understand that because We've heard that SB 1056 is modeled after child sexual abuse materials protections, but adult pornography is legal, while I understand that legally there is a difference between the two, our issue is not the legality of the material in the abstract. It is the risk of further harm to victims through unnecessary distribution of sensitive materials. So we are happy to continue working with public defenders on amendments that clarify the bill. But we believe that the amendments that they have initially offered go a step too far. For instance, the amendments add the phrase recognizable adult victim. We think this term would raise messy questions about whether the victim is recognizable in a given instance, leading judges to make an ad hoc decision without any definition of consistent criteria to follow. It does not appear that a recognizable victim appears anywhere else in California code. So with that, SB 1056 is solely intended to ensure the privacy and protection of survivors. It is not, and I repeat not our intention to restrict defendants rights to access evidence to prepare a defense. It is my commitment to continue working in good faith with the opposition and committee to get this bill to a good place where there are no unintended consequences, clear definitions and does not impede the defendant's ability to. To prepare a defense. Thank you so very much. And I respectfully ask for an I vote anything. A motion on the bill. We do have a quorum, so let's call the roll. First and foremost,

Aye. Here. Arroguin. Here. Say Arto. Here. Say Arto.

Caballero.

Caballero. Here. Cortese. Here. Cortese. Here. Perez, Wiener. Move the bill. Okay. Motion by vice chair sierto sp 1056. Grayson. Motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations. Araguin, Aye. Araguin, aye. So. Aye. Sorto I Caballero.

Caballero, aye. Cortese. Cortese, aye. Perez, Wiener. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much. Thank you all for joining us. Today. Okay, going back in file order, we'll proceed to file item one. SB937 by Senator Gonzalez. I understand you have. A display. Yes, Just removing the camera here for the previous bill. So we'll. Wait a minute. We can now proceed. Senator Gonzalez, whenever you're ready, you may present on SB937.

Thank you very much. Good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members, and thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Senate Bill 937. My name is Eduardo Martinez. I am the mayor of the great city of Huntington Park. This past year, our Southeast LA communities have been under a constant threat of violence. The vitriol coming out of the federal administration has trickled down to local levels, fostering distrust between our community and law enforcement. Protesters in the Southeast Los Angeles region exercising their First Amendment rights have been repeatedly subject to unnecessary intimidation. Peaceful protest has been escalated with the indiscriminate use of quote unquote, less lethal weapons such as flashbangs and tear gas against protesters in our neighboring city of Maywood. Video footage captures an officer throwing a flashback from a moving car and into a park where children were playing while protesters were demonstrating across the street. My own constituents and her children were directly in danger by the misuse of these military style weapons. When Border Patrol agents blew the windows and doors off of Mrs. Ramirez home without justifiable cause, they disrupted the sense of safety and community that she and her children deserves in our city. Her children were born under the age of seven. When this happened, they should have not been. They should not have the experience of fear, of hearing the window shatter and the door break on their home and watching as masks or men forced their way inside. We can take back what happened to my constituents, but with SB937, we take an important step to prevent it from happening again. SB937 places reasonable restriction on the use of flashbangs and explosive breaching charges. Restriction we already have in place for the use of tear gas, rubber bullets and beanbag rounds. This bill will not stop well intentional law enforcement for doing their job. But it will keep our community safe, protect their ability to stand up for what they believe and without fear or serious harm. Thank you and ask you to vote yes on SB937. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Will not take any me too. Testimony from anyone else in support of Senate Bill 937. If you can please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good morning. Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. In support, George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action and strong support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 937? Seeing no one else will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. Good morning Mr. Chair and members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's association, we are in opposition to the bill. First, I would note the bill's definition of flashbang grenades groups together devices that are quite different. The devices that are commonly referred to as flashbangs emit sound and light, but no physical projectile. This is important because different devices have different uses and produce different results. Sound and light emitting devices we don't think should be characterized in a fashion similar to devices that actually expel some other item. We would also raise concerns about the bill's language, which at best is vague. The bill provides that flashbang grenades shall not be deployed near school grounds, parks or other areas where children are visibly present. This bill lacks a definition of what near means, leaving officers on the scene to ponder if they're operating within the bounds of the law and likely high pressure and high risk situations. And aside from relying on a totally subjective interpretation of what the legislature intended, the bill raises other questions relative to the limitation on deploying flashbangs near a school or a park. We can't think of a particular reason that trained peace officers should be from precluded from using appropriate resources for a situation if a qualifying event is near a school but occurs at 2am when no children would be present. More broadly, when we restrict when under what conditions an officer may use certain tools, their response to a situation may end up being guided by choices about practices that may be acceptable or unacceptable to some instead of what's most appropriate in the context of the events. We're concerned about mandating specific tactics directly in statute, as the bill would and it's difficult to legislate around situations that are rarely identical and that a standard approach may neglect a situation's unique features and the training of peace officers to assess and respond to these events. We think law enforcement, practitioners and regulators are better positioned to set out guidelines through policy that steer practices and recognize the threat fluidity of situations that are prone to rapid evolution. The use of force is already extensively regulated by statute and case law. For those reasons were respectfully opposed to SB937. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chair Members Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association I first want to thank the author and her staff for reaching out on this bill early, for having conversations with me and listening to the concerns that we raised. I thought we had a constructive conversation when we last spoke and look forward to continuing to work with them as the bill moves forward. I do share some of the concerns from my colleagues. One issue I think we talked about was the definition of school. Are we talking about K12 schools? Are we talking about universities? I think we saw over the course of last summer that there were lots of protests and demonstrations at universities that then turned violent and required an intervention from law enforcement. And you know, I know we're in. The bill speaks to just assemblies, demonstrations and protests. But oftentimes, you know, law enforcement is called in when those things become become unruly or unlawful. And using less force, less lethal force in those situations is always the first option when we have to use force. And that's why these tools are important for us to continue to make available to law enforcement, both statutorily and, you know, through resources provided. I do think that we need to talk about some language around an exigent circumstance when law enforcement does, you know, because of the threat that's presented itself, have to use some type of Leslie. The force to protect the public. And I do think in the provision of the bill that talks about non use for immigration purposes, we've got to consider the language that was negotiated into SB54. I worked on that language with them pro tem de Leon for a year to make sure that our law enforcement officers, when they're partnered with federal agents and task forces going after human trafficking, kidnappers, transnational drug cartels, terrorists, they continue to use the tools that they need and be a part of those operations. Obviously not for immigration purposes. As long the way that the statute reads currently is that as long as our primary purpose is not immigration and that we are there for some other violation of state or federal law, we can continue to operate lawfully in those partnerships. I think we've got to make sure that we include some compliance with 54 in this language. But otherwise I, I again respect the author, respect the intent. I do apologize. I'm going to have to run to the assembly side for a bill that I'm going to testify on right now. So I won't be able to answer your questions. But if you need me, you guys know where to find me. But for now, thank you for considering our concerns. Thank you very much. Will not take any other testimony in opposition to SB937. Mr. Chairman, members Randy Perry, on behalf of Poor act and Support and opposition to the bill very much. Is anyone else wishing to Express opposition to SB937? Good morning Mr. Chair. Members Ryan Sherman, on behalf of the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officer Association, Reserve Peace Officers association and the Deputy Sheriff Association, Placer county and Police Officer Associations of Arcadia Brea Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Marietta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Fullerton, Palos Verdes and Pomona. All in opposition. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB937? Seeing no one else, I now bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero,

Thank you. Any other questions or comments, Senator Cortesi? Thank you. Mr. Chair. Just a quick question for the author. It seemed that the opposition witness that had to leave was alluding to a, a productive conversation that occurred. What. Was there any language offered in terms of amendments or redefinitions?

And I would agree that any refinement of the definitions in the bill around devices and so forth, you know, is a positive thing for all of us. Again, I'm just trying to get to the conversation thus far. Was it indicated that if such changes were made that the opposition would come

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez, for bringing this bill forward. This builds on existing state law that restricts the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents in an assembly protester demonstration, lawful assembly protester demonstration. And as you noted, existing law has a number of requirements. You have to use the escalation techniques, repeated warnings, and then ultimately giving the authority to the commanding officer to make the decision to deploy those less lethal weapons in those instances. So there are those exceptions. But this adding flashbang grenades to that statute. Appreciate the conversations you've had with, with the California Police Police Chiefs association and would encourage you to, you know, also have conversations with some of the other opposition organizations. You know, I want to make sure that in the case where something escalates and active shooter situation, for example, on a school campus, that there is the flexibility to use less lethal weapons, you know, to help contain that very dangerous situation. But what you described of throwing a flashbang into a, into a school property, blowing off somebody's door in the, in the case of issuing immigration enforcement warrant, that's not acceptable and that's not what we should be allowing to happen in California. And I'll just note the distinction between civil immigration enforcement and then enforcement when somebody's committed a violent felony. I think what we're talking about here is civil immigration enforcement. Why do we need to blow off somebody's door if you're going to be, you know, arresting somebody for civil immigration matter?

That's not acceptable. So thank you for bringing this bill forward. I'm glad that conversations have been ongoing. I think we can find a way to narrowly craft the language to provide that flexibility in those instances where something escalates to a violent circumstance, because we want to protect, you know, those children and those individuals as, as well as the community. But in the case of civil immigration enforcement that just like in existing law, we have these restrictions on the use of these weapons of war for protests, we want to make sure that those, those exceptions also apply in this instance. So happy to support the bill today. And with that, I'll turn it back over to you to Close.

Thank you very much. I heard a motion from Senator Caballero. Okay, if the committee assistant please call the roll. SB937, Gonzalez, the motion is due. Pass to Appropriations. Aye. Serto. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Cortesi. Cortesi, aye. Perez Weiner on call. But thank you very much for joining us today. Moving next in file order, I saw you come in, Senator Reyes, but we do take measures in file order. We're going to proceed now to file item three, Senate Bill 1070 by Senator Grove. And Senator, if you have any witnesses and support, if they can, please come forward.

You each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. Thank you. Honorable Chair and Senators, my name is Milton Matcak. I'm a former Deputy District attorney, retired after 18 and a half years and I currently work as a staff attorney with Pacific Justice Institute, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to, among other things, the protection of our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. SB 1070 simply amends penal code section 302 into a wobbler, which as you all know, means that a violation of 302 can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. This amendment would give prosecutors and courts discretion 1, depending on the circumstances of the violation of PC 302, to charge the crime as a felony or misdemeanor and or number two, based on the prior criminal history of the suspected perpetrator, to charge as a misdemeanor or a felony as a prosecution appropriate. This amendment Puts more teeth into PC 302, adds additional force behind it to protect the rights of California citizens to worship in their churches and houses of worship with confidence they are protected by the law. It gives California a stronger law to protect the First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly. Amending penal code section 302 to a wobbler is really a pro victim choice, putting victims ahead of perpetrators. This bill is similar to the Federal Face act, which has support, I believe, from both sides of the political divide. Senate Bill 1070 puts more force behind the state's attempts to prevent breaches of the peace at places of worship. That should be something that everyone can agree on. Again, SB 1070 does not substantively change or alter penal code section 302 at all. It changes no language except to make it a wobbler and more powerful tool and that a felony can be charged when appropriate. Thank you. I welcome your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members. My name is Tanner Dibella. I am a pastor in Sacramento and Rockland, California, and I'm a sponsor of Senate Bill 1070. I have been witness to disruption in interruption in churches in my church over the years. Senate Bill 1070 is about protecting something basic, protecting something sacred and something every free society should defend. The right of people to worship without intimidation, harassment or chaos. The bill, as Senator Grove said, is not about silencing disagreement and it's not about restricting free speech. People are free to disagree. They are free to protest. But there is a line between expressing disagreement and intentionally disrupting a worship service. There is a line between public debate and targeted interference. There is a line between liberty and disorder. And when that line is crossed, the law should be clear. And that is why I Support Senate Bill 1070. This bill says something simple but important. People of faith should not have to choose between gathering for worship and wondering whether service will be targeted. Churches feed the poor, they counsel families, they care for widows, they serve children, they mentor young people, and they stand with communities in crisis. They are often the first place that people run to when their lives fall apart. Religious liberty is not just the right to believe something in your heart. It is the right to live it, practice it, and gather around it in peace. Senate Bill 1070 is a necessary and reasonable step to protect that freedom. This should not be partisan. It should not be controversial. No one should support the disruption of worship. No one should be comfortable with intimidation aimed at people gathered in prayer. Today, we are asking our leaders to stand where they should have always stood, on the side of peace order and the fundamental right to worship freely. Thank you very much. Will not take any other members of public wishing to express support for Senate Bill 1070. If you can please come forward and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

In support Brock Campbell from the California Baptist Capital Ministry on behalf of six California Baptist churches, Ridgewood Heights in Eureka, Faith in Sheridan, Calvary in American Canyon, New Testament in Hanford, Faith in Atascadero and Lighthouse in Santa Maria. Thank and support. Thank you. Hello, I'm Reverend Jose Velasquez. I pastor a multi campus church in Temecula, Menifee and in Homeland and I'm here in support of Senate Bill 1070. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Jonathan Keller, President of the California Family Council and also here representing over 2,200 multi ethnic southern Baptist churches in the Southern Baptist Convention here in the state of California. Grateful to Senator Grove for bringing this very important piece of legislation forward. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Valley for 25 years.

Thank you. Hello, my name is Scott Thompson, pastor River Life Church, City Councilman up in Orville. Also want to lend my support for for this Bill 1070. I support our houses of worship. I believe it's the primary role of government to protect our freedoms of those essential is our freedom to worship. So thank you for considering this. Thank you. Okay, thank you all very much for being here. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1070. Good morning Chair and members. I'm Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, a public interest lobby founded by members of the Religious Society of friends in 1952, friends is synonymous with the word Quakers. Regardless, the Friends Committee has taken an opposed position on Senate Bill 1070. Friends have a long history of religious persecution and Friends cherish the right to worship freely without being obscure by state actors or non state actors, the former being protected by the First Amendment. Friends also have a long history of advocacy and justice reform. And we know of the long term harm created by an over reliance on incarceration, especially for people from underserved, marginalized communities of color. The enduring consequences of a felony conviction leads to discrimination and housing, employment, student loans, other important benefits which negatively impacts families and creates a permanent underclass. In a nutshell, the behavior sanctioned in this bill does not rise to the level of a felony. The challenge for Friends and for many people of faith is how do we address harm and hold people accountable without creating more harm. The behavior sanctioned in this bill would lend themselves to a restorative justice solution involving ongoing dialogue between the victims and the offender, Victor, offender mediation, all in a supervised setting. And quite frankly, a person who disrupts a religious service could very well be someone in need of help, not punishment. Our fear is that Friends meetings would be dissuaded from contacting authorities if it could result in the harm of a felony conviction. And for all of these reasons we ask the committee to reject this bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other principal witnesses in opposition Anyone else wishing to Express opposition to SB 1070? George Parenthew on behalf of ACLU California Action in Opposition as the underlying statute is a content based regulation.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to Express opposition to SB 1070? Seeing no other members of public wishing to testify. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Sierto, thank you for your bill. Today's world is calling for us to increasingly crack down on some of the behaviors because apparently the deterrents that we have now aren't working. And I understand we don't want to over incarcerate and we don't want to create that environment. But the best people that have the control over that are the people that are perpetrating crimes that they know they darn well know that they can get in serious trouble for doing. And this is becoming one of them. And it's not just the, you know, a violent outburst in the courts or in churches, but we've also had shootings and things like that that are born from this kind of activity. And so I don't think this bill goes too far in. In ratcheting it up to the next level. Judges still have discretion on the wobbler, whether what is occurring rises to that level. And therefore I'll be supporting it and I'll move the bill. Thank you. Any other questions or comments, Senator Caballero? Then Cortese.

Senator Cortes, I have very similar position or explanation for the position of Senator Caballero. I can't imagine the number of circumstances I've seen in my own Catholic Church over the years, years resulting in which have been rude and disruptive sometimes by folks who perhaps aren't functioning with the full ability to form intent to send them to CDCR under a felony, as far as I'm concerned, is a bridge too far. I understand that you could be jailed for one year under current law, which I think is pretty extreme for a lot of the behavior that would have to be parsed out here, not all. I do believe that, you know, as those of us who went to law school learned, if somebody comes walking into a church and tries to incite a riot under the fighting words definition of, you know, what constitutes that kind of speech that the Supreme Court's upheld for years and years and years, there's remedies for that. But the bill, at least as it's written currently, and I assume that's the way it wants to stay going forward, speaks very directly to rude speech, which is, I can't imagine a definition that gets you from rude speech to the fighting words or to inciting a riot, which from my sense of the way things should be, would be essentially the minimum, the minimum justification, justification for this kind of a penalty, a felony penalty. So I like enough where we are with law currently, I suppose, you know, there may be a lot of judges that are trying to redirect folks away from incarceration under the misdemeanor laws. And a lot of DAs won't even go after misdemeanors, as we know, under almost anything. But that's something for the judicial system to sort out and to figure out how they want to deal with it. For us to mandate or even to create an option for a felony for this kind of behavior is a bridge too far for me. Thank you. I'd like to respond a little bit to that. I'm well aware that if somebody walks into a church and starts shooting it up, that there's current laws that govern that. And we're not talking about somebody that goes in and says a few words and then leaves. We're talking about people that go in and intimidate. And that's where the judge's discretion comes into play in this bill. All this is doing is giving a judge the discretion to determine to what level the occurrence rises to if they're going into a church and intimidating people and scaring them and scaring the kids and scaring all the worshippers into not wanting to be able to come back again and again to worship peacefully. I think a stronger deterrent is needed and that's something for a judge to decide. So, you know, I think we're kind of getting caught up in the it sounds like people are concerned that this is an automatic jail sentence. It is not, but it is a stiffer penalty or at least gives the judge the discretion to make that determination as the behavior of people is starting to be to escalate and it's causing people's disruptions in their lives. And I think it's incumbent on us to at least send a message that we do care what happens. And so, you know, I appreciate the concerns, but I don't align my concerns with that. I think this bill is doing an appropriate level of response to what is occurring today. Thank you. We are discussing SB 1070 currently. Senator Weiner, do you wish to speak on this bill? Thank you. And I apologize for being a little late today. And I appreciate the author brought. I mean, this has been there have been issues, of course, with synagogues as well, that have been targeted in some pretty egregious ways, particularly in terms of harassing people who are entering and exiting synagogues. And so I understand why the author is bringing this. And I know the Jewish Caucus actually has a priority bill or I don't know if it's been designated priority yet, but that somebody, remember Bauer Cahan, has introduced in the assembly to deal with buffer zones in terms of protesting. So to acknowledge the protest, but have a buffer zone so that you're not impeding people's ability to actually enter the place of worship. If I recall correctly. I believe it's it's either a misdemeanor or a woblat. I don't, I don't remember which. I do have concerns with the possibility of this being a felony. There's existing mis. And I know that's the point of the bill, right? To make it turn it from a misdemeanor into a wobbler. I, you know, that that's something that's, that's challenging for me to make it the potential for a felony for this. So I'm not in any way taking away from the point of the bill or the rationale behind it because I that does cause me concern as well. But it's the felony aspect that is sort of weighing on me. There any other questions or comments or members of the committee, I share Senator Wiener's perspective on this. This is a very serious issue. No one should be afraid to go to a place of worship. And I'll just note in the analysis there are four pages of citations of existing penal code sections that govern a variety of circumstances where somebody threatens, somebody inflicts physical harm, somebody destroys religious real property, somebody uses force or physical obstruction to prevent somebody from worshiping. So there is rightfully so in California, a body of law to establish various penalties, including criminal penalties for people that are intentionally trying to disrupt or threaten people who want to exercise their right, their fundamental right to worship peacefully in the state of California. So I appreciate the intent of this bill, but I share the concern about adding a felony provision to this existing penal code section 302. And I'll just have to say I share. I wasn't on the legislature when penal code 302 was adopted. I probably wouldn't have voted for it at the time it was brought forward. And I share the ACLU's analysis that I would argue that the existing penal code is an unconstitutional content based regulation because you can't actually, you know, a judge can't determine whether Penal Code 302 is applicable unless, unless you have to weigh the content of an individual's message. And I think there are just underlying constitutional issues with that law. I'll note, as was noted in the analysis, there was a case, this was referenced on page eight of the analysis, the Cruz case. And while that case does provide guidance, I'm just reading from the analysis, the narrow scope of the analysis and specific procedural history suggests that it isn't immunized. Section 302 from the Vagueness scrutiny, especially if the penalty is elevated to a felony. So I would argue elevating the penalty to a felony, aside from just the various concerns that have been expressed by members of the committee, may actually make this statute more constitutionally questionable. And I don't know whether that's something we want to do. And so to build on an existing statute that has constitutional issues, especially given the body of law that are already exists rightfully so, including the Face Act, I have, I have difficulty supporting that. And so on that basis I will not be voting for the bill today. But I very much appreciate, you know, why you bring this forward. I understand the concern and you know, I think there's an existing body of law that exists in California that does provide adequate protections in cases where somebody physically obstructs access to a place of worship, somebody threatens somebody, somebody destroys property. But when we start getting into the regulating the content of people's speech, it's a slippery slope. And that's why, you know, we have to really judge these issues on a case by case basis and to make sure that we're creating a safe space, but we're also not infringing on people's fundamental constitutional rights. That's my perspective on this bill. But thank you very much for bringing it forward. And I turn it back over you to close.

I think we have a fundamental difference of. Difference of opinion on this, so that's fine.

yes, Senator. So I believe Vice Chair to move the bill. Okay, so we have a motion. If the committee assistant can please call the roll. SV 1070 Grove. Motion is due.

Arin. No. Arin. No. Searto. I say Arto. I Caballero. Caballero. No. Cortesi. No. Cortesi. No. Perez. Wiener. Wiener. No. Bill fails, the bill fails. But thank you for joining us today. And thank you. Move to reconsider without objection. So granted. Thank you. Okay, so we'll now proceed to our next file. Item file in 4. SB 1130 by Senator Reyes, who's been waiting very patiently to present her bill. Senator Reyes, whenever you'd like to present on SB 1130.

Thank you very much. We should have two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you Next Speaker. Go ahead.

Thank you very much. Will not take any Testimony from anyone else in support of SB 1130, please that you name organization and position on the bill. Good morning Chairmembers. Elmer Lazard here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions and strong support.

Maddie Hyatt from California Civil Liberties Advocacy and strong support. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1130? Seeing no other members of the public coming forward will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition if there are any. Good morning Chair members. My name is Robert Boykin with TechNet here sitting in respectful opposition to SB 1130. We appreciate the author's intent to modernize privacy protections in light of emerging technologies and agree with the Committee's framing that existing law may not fully account for new, less visible recording technologies. However, as written, we have concerns that the bill creates liability for businesses and developers well beyond its intended targets. Given California's robust framework governing eavesdropping and the status of the two party consent state, we support building on these statutes rather than creating a parallel liability structure. As mentioned in the analysis, our companies believe that yes, liability should focus on the bad actors using the device rather than the companies that manufacture them. Sorry. Historically, California law targets the misconduct that of the individual interactions rather than entities that have no control over their misuse. Our member companies share many of the privacy concerns that the author has raised. That is why these devices are generally designed with features like recording indicator lights in the first place. Accordingly, we agree with the analysis that the Bell could be better aligned by being integrated into the existing statute governing unlawful non consensual recordings. At the end of the day, a person who misuses a wearable device or tampers with his privacy features should be the one held responsible for those actions, not the businesses that created the product. Based on our conversations with the author's office, I am hopeful that we can work together to address this liability concern while holding wrongdoers accountable. Thank you for your time today. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1130?

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to Express opposition to SB 1130? Seeing no one coming forward. Before we begin the Committee's discussion, I just want to summarize the committee amendments that we were able to negotiate with the author. Which one reduced the wobbler in section 6 of the bill to a misdemeanor 2 strike section 7 of the bill, which I think gets to the issue that you raised around the manufacturing of the technology. That was a concern that I had. 3 the amendment strike cross references to the code sections created in section 6 and 7 of the bill from the wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes that would allow for the elevated penalty when there are prior convictions for any of those crimes, but leaving the cross references for the statutes exempting people from the general prohibitions on wiretapping and eavesdropping and create a new code section, the Business and Professions Code for the civil penalties for manufacturers. I want to thank the author for their work with the committee and with that. Senator Wiener, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm very sympathetic to what you're trying to do here. There's some really creepy stuff happening and I understand what you're doing and I'm going to vote for the bill today. Understanding that I think this bill is very much a work in progress and I think the amendments are positive. But the main thing that I'm trying to wrap my head around is this applies to wearables. So be the glasses. Presumably Apple Watch would qualify because that's wearable, but it doesn't apply to like a smartphone. Right. Am I correct about that? That is correct.

Yeah. So. And I understand the wearable devices are not so much Apple Watch, but the glasses are obviously new and although within a few years they won't be anymore and they'll become probably over time as normal as a smartphone. And obviously with a smartphone, people are recording each other constantly. And sometimes it's super obvious that they're recording you when they walk up to you and they have it in your face. Sometimes they're just holding and they certainly may be and at times are recording you and it's really unclear. And so if you could maybe talk to me a little bit about why are we distinguishing between wearable and something you hold in your hand? And other than the fact that people are more used to smartphones and seeing it. But again, I could be, I'm not recording you now, but I could be recording you right now. I'm holding my phone, looking at it and I could be recording you either audio or video. And I don't think there's any. I mean I know there are laws around like the one way recording, like especially there. I know there's some laws around that there's the law, laws, law around someone in a state of undress. There's some very specific and of course like wire Tapping kind of stuff. But there's no general law about, you know, like smartphones. And so could you just talk to me about why we should distinguish between the two, especially since the wearable stuff is going to become super normalized in coming years. And then we'll have this two track law where if it's a attached to your body, one rule applies. If you're holding it in your hand, another law applies, but they really do the same thing.

Now.

And I'll say I'll stop beating the drum. But like iPhones can be used incredibly irresponsibly in recording. It's one thing if someone's up like this and it's crystal clear they're recording you, you know it but it's, you know.

So I guess I'll support moving out of committee today. I think it's going to. Is it going to be referred to privacy or something? Which I also said on Salsia there. So yeah, I look forward to seeing the bill evolve because it does need to I think be tightened. There's some real vagueness in it, in it now.

Thank you. I think this is gonna go to rules and then re referred to privacy. Right. That's why I say okay, if this passes out today. Any other questions or comments, Vice Chair Sierrato? I have a Question in reference to Section 12, where it talks about a person or entity which is a business, shall not manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in any commerce in the state. Any technology that enables a person to disable something, what technologies are there? Because that could be as one of those really fancy little screwdrivers that you can just poke out the light. And if somebody's going to, you know, are we going to go after Lowe's for selling the screwdrivers that somebody can use to disable the light, how are we going to distinguish for that?

When you're talking about a light, though, you can cover up the light with a piece of tape, duct tape, that's the same color as the glasses that can potentially be used to cover that up. So does Lowe's go to pay $2,500, or did they get one of those fancy Poga suits against them? Because they must have done this, sold a bunch of these.

I would probably work on those definitions a little bit because I do not want to expose businesses to ridiculous lawsuits any more than they're already exposed. And this seems to leave a little bit of a door open. And whenever we leave the door open, guess what happens. So, yeah, it needs a little bit of work before it. I absolutely sympathize with the effort here of trying to ensure that these type of technologies aren't being used irresponsibly against people that don't know that they're being used and the privacy concerns about that. We just need to make sure the language is tightened up enough to make sure that nobody walks through that and creates another money making empire for themselves. Thanks.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. See no further comments. I'll turn it back over to you Senator to close.

Thank you very much. My recommendation is an aye as amended. Is there a motion moved by Senator Cortese? Thank you. The committee assistant will please call the roll. This be 11:30.

Araguin, aye. Sayarto, no. Syrto.

Caballero. Cortese. Cortese, aye. Perez, Weiner, Wiener, aye. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. Thank you, Senator. And so I don't see Senator Mendravar. So we'll go now to Senator Choi who's been waiting very patiently to present. So now proceed to file item seven, Senate Constitutional amendment two. And good morning Senator. And as as you're approaching just to announce to everyone here in the committee room and is watching, we will have to resist this committee at 11:55. And so if we have not completed our agenda, we will have to resist this committee and come back at 1:30. We'll do our best to try to get through the agenda as quickly as possible. So Senator Choi, good morning. Do you have any witnesses? I don't. Okay, I'll turn over your senator to present. Thank you, Chairperson and the members, I'm pleased to present SCA2 which ensures that no one is above the law in California, not even the state's governor. The executive pardon power was intended to ensure justice and mercy. But the recent actions at both the federal and the state show how easily it can be used without accountability. We have seen controversial pardons throughout our nation's history, with the first pardon of the family member occurring under President Abraham Lincoln, who pardoned his half sister Emily Todd Helm, who was married to a Confederate general. In more recent history, we have seen President Clinton pardon his half brother and President Trump pardon his daughter's father in law. When then in 2024, President Biden, Joe Biden issued a full pardon to his son Hunter Biden who previously pleaded guilty to tax charges and was found guilty of illegal drug and weapons charges. He later granted preemptive pardons to multiple family members, which raised concerns about the conflicts of interest and the lack of oversight. However, this is not just a federal issue. In Kentucky, former governor Matt Bevin issued over 400 last minute pardons, including one for convicted killer whose family had hosted a fundraiser and donated thousands of dollars to his campaign. These pardons have sparked bipartisan outrage and accusations that the power was being used for political favoritism rather than justice, with critics more warning of the appearance of corruption. There is nothing that California can do about presidential pardons because those powers are established by federal law. However, with the Sea 2, California has the opportunity to be the example for the entire nation by being the first state to limit the pardoning powers of its most powerful elected official. If passed by the voters, SCA2 would prevent a governor from potentially shielding themselves or their family members from illegal consequences of their criminal convictions. This measure is about reinforcing public trust by enacting clear ethical boundaries on executive authority. Under SEA two, the Governor could still grant pardons, commutations and reprieves to individuals that they believe are deserving of relief, but they would have clear restrictions against self pardons or pardons for immediate family members. This proposal is narrow and targeted. It does not eliminate or weaken the Governor's broader clemency powers. Instead, it simply ensures that those powers cannot be used for personal or familial protection. By approving Sea2, voters can affirm that accountability, fairness and equal application of the law remain fundamental principles in our state. Thank you. Thank you very much. Senator. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SCA2? Please come forward and state your name, organization and position on the bill. Seeing no one else, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to Senate Constitutional Amendment 2? Seeing no one come forward. I'll bring it back to the committee for a any questions or comments? Vice Chair Sierra, thank you for the bill and thank you for your concern in this. You know I think the only question people might have is well what happens if a family member does deserve to get pardoned? And I believe the answer would be then the next Governor can do that. So there's still the opportunity for somebody to be heard. I also understand what this is doing and I think it's right headed and I'm happy to support it. This is the kind of thing that should be offered to the public to allow them to vote on whether these kind of restrictions are something that they support or not. This would be one of those other 70, 30 or 80, 80, 20 type things. But usually we make people jump through hoops and go out and get signatures to do this. I think this is something that we can offer up that comes from the legislature with the intent of doing exactly what you're talking about. So with that, I'll go ahead and move the bill. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments? Senator Cortese Going to be able to support the bill today? And I do it is because I believe that if somebody deserves to be released and the governor determines that they shouldn't have to wait a minute longer to be released. Simple as that. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? I'll just Note on page 6 of the analysis Cornice staff's understanding. There have been no reports that the current or past California governors have granted clemency to relatives or themselves. So there is not a pattern of behavior that we need to necessarily address through this constitutional amendment. You know, I personally, you know, take very seriously putting things on the ballot because it costs money to put something on the ballot unless there's like a really, there's a really critical need. I frankly think the initiative process is broken in California. It's too easy for people to put stuff on the ballot, but that's a separate matter. That's a matter of the elections committee, not the public safety committee. And I agree with Senator Cortese that, you know, if there's a family member like a niece or a nephew who you know may have committed a crime and warrants clemency or a commutation, I don't want to restrict the ability of a governor to do that. I absolutely, however, believe that governors should not be able to pardon themselves just like presidents should not be allowed to pardon themselves. But for those reasons, I do have concerns about supporting the bill today. I want to make sure that if there are legitimate circumstances where a family member would warrant would warrant benefit from clemency, that they're not restricted to do so. But if this was just saying that governors should not be able to pardon themselves, I would be more inclined to support it. That's my position on this. Are there any other comments from members of the committee? Now I'll turn it back over to Senator Choi to close. I appreciate your all comments. I'm sure we can talk about this all day long. And there's also resolution being proposed at the federal level limiting similar limitations to presidential pardoning rights. And also other states such as Kentucky is working on that in different scope, including the FAMILIAL partnering rights, et cetera. So I think this is a clear step for California step forward and become the model of the nation. That this does not limit any power of the governor other than clarifying that he should not abuse such a power for himself or immediate family members. Therefore, I ask for your I vote to ensure public servants in power do not abuse the law. Thank you. I believe Vice Chair to move the bill if we can please call the roll SCA2 by Choi Motion is be adopted to elections and constitutional amendments. Arreen no say arto. I say arto. Aye. Caballero Cortesi. No. Cortesi. No. Perez Wiener No. We know on call. Senator, if the bill does not have sufficient number of votes, would you like reconsideration? I'm debating whether reconsideration will change your mind. If that will have any chance, then I would appreciate that. Okay, so noted. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Don't see Senator Mendavar. I think next and followed after that is Senator Caballero. If that's okay, we can go to you at this time. He did. And so we'll now proceed to the next bill. Which is SB 1143 by Senate Caballero.

Good afternoon. You have two minutes to address the committee.

The part of the conducting the forensic

of the information that's provided.

additional clarifications to that.

any other technical questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1143? If you can, please come forward, state your name, organization and position on the bill. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to express support will now take up the two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 1143.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to Express opposition to SB 1143? Seeing no one. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments or a motion moved by Senator Cortese. Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Seeing none. I'll turn it back over you, Senator, to close.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Cortez. If the committee assistant can please call the roll. SB 1143. Caballero. Motion is due. Pass to the floor. Aragin iin I say Arto. I say arto. Aye. Caballero. Caballero. Aye. Cortesi. Cortesi I. Perez.

Wiener. I. We'll keep that. Thank you very much. Okay, I see Senator Manar is in the room. So we'll proceed now to SB 1198. Thank you. Whenever you're ready, center, you may present on your bill.

I can go first. Who would like to begin? Oh, sure. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Committee members. My name is Roman Kakopian and I'm here on behalf of the Burbank Marian association, proud sponsor of SB 1198. We're a nonprofit focused on community engagement and public safety. After the tragic 2021 high speed crash on Glen Oaks Boulevard and Burbank that took the lives of three young teenagers, we launched a Drive Right Save Lives campaign. It's a partnership with local law enforcement, schools, car dealerships and community partners. Through that work, we delivered workshops, awareness materials and community outreach focused on prevention. SB 1198 comes directly from that effort. It's a real solution designed to prevent tragic loss and help future proof California's approach to roadway safety. Today we have the support of over 30 local organizations and we have 11 local car dealerships handing out these trifolds at point of sale, reaching drivers when it matters most. This year, this issue is personal to me. At 19, I lost two close friends to street racing. Years later, I was rear ended by a distracted driver and diagnosed with cervical radiculitis, a degenerative neurological condition I will live with for the rest of my life. And though I'm not here in my official capacity as a police commissioner, I've seen firsthand the impact of reckless driving has on our communities. In the city of Burbank and Glendale alone, There are over 9,900 speeding violations each year, over 780 hit and runs, over 100 reckless driving cases, and over 40 street racing incidents, which leads to crashes, injuries and lives lost. For many families, this bill is the difference between a loved one coming home or a life altering phone call. Right now, the law does not give enough tools to support repeat offenders. SB 1198 changes that. Allowing intervention before the next crash, not after. We respectfully ask for your support to protect families, strengthen public safety and be the voice for the ones who are not here today. Thank you.

Thank you. On behalf of the entire committee, we thank you so much for being here today. And we are so terribly sorry for your loss. And thank you for your courage. And not just for honoring Connor's life in memory, but also making sure we can protect others from violence on our roads. So thank you for being here. We'll now invite anyone else who wishes to express support for SB 1198 to please confor state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB 1198? If not, is there anyone? Are there any principal witnesses in opposition?

George Paramthu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to SB 1198. We appreciate the courage of the families who have spoken up today, but reckless driving already carries numerous consequences. Under current law, it may be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. In addition to any incarceration, a person may be fined or have their vehicle impounded. On top of that, their license may be suspended for up to six months. And I believe they get DMV points as well. All told, California's existing punishment scheme is the same or harsher than 31 other states. We should not double down on this punitive approach which has produced mixed results at best. While we agree that traffic tragedies harm entire families, SB 1198's impoundment scheme would also harm entire families. A mother's car may be impounded because her child caused that violation while driving the car. This can have devastating impacts as impoundment fees are often more than people can afford and when a person cannot pay the associated fees, the vehicle is sold at auction. We should not punish families in this way, especially when cars are vital to a family's ability to get to work, take kids to school and put food on the table. While the legislature's desire to address reckless driving and speeding is completely understandable, the proper and proven approach is investing in traffic calming measures. According to the federal Department of Transportation, roundabouts lead to an 82% reduction in traffic related fatalities and accident accident injuries, while also reducing traffic delays by up to 74%. By investing in our communities, we can solve this problem, save lives and produce good union jobs. I urge you to prioritize and targeted investments in the affected communities over a more punitive approach. For these reasons, I urge no vote. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, private practice and work in public defender offices and we are regretfully in opposition. I want first, I want to thank the author who this is probably the rare time I'm opposite sides of the author. I also want to thank the family for their testimony. I want to focus my concerns specifically on the empowerment measure. This bill is drafted. It is not exclusive to reckless driving, where there is the type of injury or death that you heard about from the families, the tragedies that you heard. This applies to all reckless drivers drivings, I believe second in particular on the impoundment. So I just want to make that clear. If we were just talking about impoundments on a death, reckless driving involving death, it might be different discussion. We might have a different position. The other thing to keep in mind is vehicle impoundments, even authorized by statute, are unconstitutional and have been since 2006 in the in the Ninth Circuit decision Cornelius vs. Miranda vs. City of Cornelius. And there have been subsequent court decisions since then, as recently as Contra Costa county in January that have said you cannot impound a vehicle unless there are other factors related to that, which means if you leave the vehicle on scene, you're blocking traffic, or there's some other public safety. It's called the community caretaker doctrine. So that's the challenge that we have with the statute. And the intent of the author is that well intended or not, it's still in violation if it does not have these community caretaker doctrine requirements included in the statute. I can say two things. There's a statute now that already has a vehicle impoundment, which is what this bill is amending. That was in 2007 by then pro Tem Senator Parotta. I was there testifying against that bill. And the argument he made was, well, the ninth Circuit decision just came out. We don't know what that means. We now have almost two decades of court decisions that have reiterated you cannot impound a vehicle without this community caretaker doctrine. Last thing I'll mention is I worked on a bill in 2018 with Assemblymember Jones Sawyer that specifically put in the vehicle code for certain impoundments, the community caretaker doctrine that said you can impound, but one of these things have to also be in place. And so we would ask for that amendment to be placed, taken, or for the impoundment provision to be removed or perhaps made exclusive to where there is a death involved. But unfortunately, the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment does protect a seizure of a vehicle according to a long line of cases since 2006. For those reasons where you have an opposition at the moment. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to Express opposition to SB 1198?

Anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill? Okay, seeing no one else. Just to summarize the amendments. The amendments would reduce suspension penalties, remove the one time limit on relief for unaware drivers, but to limit it to three times, to insert a provision absolving driver or owner of impoundment fees in instances where the case is dismissed, and to remove the perjury provision. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? Senator Cortese, I guess it's a question for the opposition witness. I didn't catch your name, counsel, but my understanding is that much of what you said, if not all, is true as to an impoundment without a warrant for criminal investigation. But if there's a warrant for criminal investigation that involves the vehicle, then impoundment is allowed as long as there's an ongoing investigation for that purpose. Is that correct? Who's the chair? Yes, Senator, that's correct. If there is a warrant, then yes, that would be allowable and constitutional. The way this bill is drafted, though, doesn't require that there be a warrant. And in fact, I think in most cases there wouldn't be a warrant. I would generally have concerns along the lines of that opposition testimony. Except that I think, you know, at this early stage of this process, there's been a lot of work to create, you know, exceptions and what we would call here carve outs to, you know, allow individuals who are third parties, et cetera, to retrieve the vehicle. The other, the other issue, if you've ever visited one of those impound facilities is, you know, very few of the cars are in any condition to go anywhere basically. So I don't know, maybe during the course of the advancement of the bill, if it gets out of committee today, we could can, you know, hear some more about not just worst case examples, but really sort of the statistics of what's really going on. How many are being held without a warrant? You know, should warrants be required more expressly in bills like this? And if so, why is it? Because there's, you know, there's an enormous amount of abuse. That would be something that would bother me a lot, you know, to, in fact, would bother me a lot if warrants were being issued willy nilly, regardless of, you know, just as some sort of. As some sort of a sort of automatic kind of reaction by law enforcement. So I think those are important issues and I think they should be, at least for me, explored a little bit further. But I think the author and the committee staff have done a lot of work already, you know, at this fairly early stage to try to address the empowerment issues and basically the penalty issues overall. So I'm going to support the bill and just hope some of these issues. I know we have a very good authority here who works very hard on her bills throughout. That's been my experience. And you know, I would hope that she will continue to kind of flesh out the very important nuances with some of this, particularly the empowerment issues. Thank you, Senator caballero.

or comments. Okay, Vice Chair Sierra to then Senator Press. I'm supporting your bill today, so let's get that cake out. Might be the first time. Right, but here's why. Because what we are doing now clearly is not working. I don't care about the technicalities, although we have to. I understand that, but there are too many young people who wind up being victims of the people that actually wind up getting in the accident and getting. They wind up having to suffer those consequences. This bill is aimed at trying to intervene before that happens. And you. You know, there's a lot of people that don't want people to go to jail. I get it. But when they're driving the way they do out there, I see it every day. Every day, people driving 110 miles an hour. You can tell because everybody else is going 80, but not them. They're going 110 and they're weaving in and out and they're cutting across the freeway. Then they pick up somebody who wants to. To race them. When they get caught, something has to happen. Something has to happen to take their toy away, because that's what they think it is. They think it's a toy. And if we don't do something to start changing that behavior, we are going to have more people like these poor people in here who lose their sons and their daughters and all these young people. I've been in public safety for 35 years before I retired 10 years ago. This problem is not getting better. I've seen the worst of the worst of the outcomes of these, and yet the answer is always, well, you know, they won't be able to get to their job. You know what? They can get to their job. They can get on a bus. They can get on the rail, whatever it takes. They can get a ride from one of their friends who actually drives responsibly and can get them to the job. So that's the message that we need to send as a legislature, is that we're done with this and laws like this that are created to tell them that are absolutely supportable. Is there some technical stuff we have to do to ensure that the impound process can happen in the way the constitution says it needs to. Great. Go ahead and work on that. But we're not going to kill bills like this because of things like that. I want bills like this to happen. I think everybody in. I think everybody in Cal. This is one of those things you put on the ballot. It will be a 99:1, and the 1 being the ones that like to race around. So I'll be supporting this bill. Thank you for bringing it. I am very sorry to hear about your tragic circumstances, but I've seen a bunch of them, and I'm sick and tired of them. Just sick and tired as much as you. But I know you're More than that. And I feel very, very sorry for you, and we need to stop it. And so, fortunately, I hope you have a group of advocates here for doing that today. Thank you, Senator Press.

Any other questions or comments? Senator Weiner? Thank you. Thank you, Senator Wayne, for your testimony today. I cannot even imagine how painful it is to have to continually relive the worst possible trauma. And I really admire that you've taken this incredible trauma and turned it into trying to make sure that others don't experience the pain, pain and the devastation that you've experienced. So thank you for that courage. And I, you know, we have to take this more seriously. And again, we're not talking about minor traffic violations or people who are, you know, make, make a mistake. This is about extreme, intentional, like reckless, highly dangerous behavior and we've not done enough in California to address it. The DUI piece is part of it and that's also being addressed this year. But this is another part and I also want to acknowledge someone in public comment referenced the just disaster that happened in West Portal in San Francisco, which was not a joyriding situation but was just over the top recklessness I think. So 70 or 80 miles an hour down West Portal which is a small commercial street and an entire family wiped out while they were waiting at the bus stop heading to the zoo, including a baby. And the sentence came down the other day and it was a pretty light sentence. And so there's just enormous pain and a lot of frustration in the community. And so I appreciate bringing this forward and I'll support it today. Moved by Senator Sierra. Thank you. See no other questions or comments. Would you like to close?

by Vice Chair Sierrato. If the committee assistant can please call the roll. SB 1198 men.

Motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. Araguin. Aye. Aye. Searto. Aye. Caballero. Caballero, aye. Cortese. Cortese, I. Perez, Perez, I. Weiner. Weiner, I. Bills out and a vote is six to zero. Thank you. Okay, we're going to lift calls on bills and I've been informed by leadership that we do need a recess even though there's one more bill left. So to my witnesses, I'm very sorry, but we're gonna have to come back at 1:30. But colleagues, please come down right after caucus so we can gavel this hearing out. Senator Kurdizzi is the Chair of Transportation, so it's not my call. Okay, let's look calls very quickly.

The motion is due pass to Appropriations. Current vote is 3 to 0. Sarto, Saarto. No. Perez, Perez. Aye. Wiener. Wiener, I. Let bills out. Okay. SB937 is out on a vote of five to one. SB 1056, Grayson. Motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 0. Perez, Grayson, Perez I. Werner, I. Okay, SB 1056 is Adam. Voted 6 to 0. 1070 has been dispensed with. SB 1130. Reyes. Motion is due passed as amended to rules. Current vote is 3 to 1. Caballero. Caballero I. Perez, Perez, I. Okay, SB 1130 is optimal vote of 5 21. SB 1198 has been dispensed with.

Choi. Current vote is 3 nos. 1. I. Perez, Perez. No, those fails. Okay, SCA 2 fails. Move reconsideration at the request of the author without objection. Reconsideration is granted. SB 1143, Caballero. Motion is due pass to the floor. Current vote is 4, 5 to 0. Perez, Perez I okay. SB 1143 is out on a vote of 6 to 0. We have one more bill. I have to honor your leadership's request that we adjourn.

Republican left. I think the vice chair left with the understanding. Right. That the bill that we were resisting the committee.

I have to honor the request of leadership that we have to recess the committee. Senator Cortese, if you're not able to join us, I certainly understand, since you have to chair Transportation. But I think we'll be able to dispense with that bill very quickly. So my request to members, if we can please just come down right after council caucus so we can just gavel this hearing back into session and just finish the last bill. I'd appreciate it. With that, we will recess the committee until 1:30. The Senate Committee on Public Safety is now back in session. We have one more bill on our agenda. And we. We voted out all the other bills. Correct. And that is SB 1257. By myself, I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Caballero so I can present.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members for the opportunity to present SB 1257, which requires the attorney general to publish annually a publicly available report that summarizes immigration enforcement incidents and activities that occur in the state of California, and to submit that report to the governor of the Legislature. This bill bills on legislation we passed last year, namely SB 81 and other bills that protect schools and other sensitive areas, to make sure that we have information about when incidents happen at these sensitive areas, and also to ensure that the attorney general has information to enforce these laws, because that's the goal of the laws that we pass. We're to ensure that we have a patchwork of protections for people who want to see a doctor or go to school or go vote, that they can do so without fear of enforcement and deportation. And so I just want to clarify. I am accepting the committee amendments. With me to testify are Marvelez, Policy Director with the Latino Coalition for Healthy California, and Luis Gallegos, Executive director of Todec Legal center, at the appropriate time. Respect last time I vote.

Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Central American Resource Center. Goddess. And strong support. Sandra Pool on behalf of Western center on Law and Poverty. And support.

Johnny Pineda on behalf of association de Migrantes Guatemaltecos in support.

Araguin motion is to pass as amended to Judiciary Committee. I. Searto. No. Caballero. Caballero. Aye. Cortese. Perez. I. Wiener. Wiener. I. Bills. Out.

Good. So since Senator Cortez is sharing transportation, he will not be returning. So that bill is out. Is he on his way? Okay, we'll wait. We'll. We'll take a five minute recess. I believe Senator Cortese is chairing another committee hearing, so he will not be joining us. So let's close the roll on SB 1257. That bill's out on a vote of 4 to 1. Thank you. That completes our agenda for today's committee hearing. With that, the Senate Committee on Public Safety is now adjourn.