Assembly Public Safety Committee

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I apologize for being late. Welcome back to the State Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. I'd like to begin with a few housekeeping items this morning. As a reminder, we do have what was a large agenda, and was supposed to be an even larger agenda. To ensure that all measures are heard, we have limited witness testimony for this hearing to two witnesses per side. Each witness will have two minutes to testify in support or in opposition to a measure. I would also like to remind everyone that there are some general rules of conduct before we start our proceedings today. Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing, and as we proceed with witness testimony and public comment, I want to ensure that everyone understands that our committee and the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing. I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

Please be aware that the violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement action. I just wanna make sure he's fully alert and paying attention. Well done, my friend. Third, we have the off-calendar, which is floating around here somewhere. Okay, we have a lot. All of the following items will be off-calendar for today. Item one, AB 1588 by Assemblymember Stephanie. Item number three, Assembly Bill 1753 by Assemblymember Stephanie. Item number five, AB 1867 by Assemblymember Tongapa. Item number six, AB 1897 by Assemblymember Haney. Item number nine, AB 1922 by Assemblymember Lowenthal. Item 15, AB 2052 by Assemblymember Stephanie. Item 16, AB 2073 by Assemblymember Johnson. Item 17, AB 2097 by Assemblymember Berner. Item 19, AB 2122 by Assemblymember Kalra. Item 22, Assembly Bill 2232 by Assemblymember Patterson. Item 23, Assembly Bill 2273 by Assemblymember Baines. Item 24, Assembly Bill 2274 by Assemblymember Baines. item 29, Assembly Bill 2318 by Assemblymember El-Hawari, and item 37, Assembly Bill 2749 by Assemblymember Sharp Collins. I see we have a few more members joining. We're still waiting on a quorum, so we'll wait to conduct the roll until that time. We will skip over the proposed consent calendar for now And before we get to our first bill presentation as a reminder we are hearing today measures in sign order Standing committee members will present their bills towards the end of the hearing We appreciate everyone patience in advance And with that, the first item that I have up and for which I see an author present would be item number, I believe it's 34 by Assemblymember Ellis. This is AB 2698. Mr. Ellis, whenever you're ready. And just for all of the witness who will testify today, in absence of a time or anything more formal, I'll try to give you an indicator when you have about 30 seconds or so left so you can wrap up on that thought.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Sandeep Singh Mali. I'm with the Bakersfield Police Department. We started the youth diversion program in 2022. Just to understand, like, the practical side of it, how the COC works in the system, give you a practical explanation would be if Johnny gets out of school one day, goes with his friends to a local store, doesn't have any money on them, gets peer pressured into stealing some food chips and candy the police department would typically respond and take the report and arrest Johnny on the spot and release him to the custody of his guardian. At that point in time, that report would automatically get sent over to juvenile probation, and juvenile probation at that time would formally charge Johnny. And in Johnny's situation, juvenile probation typically sends cases like that to either court, puts Johnny on probation, or three, sends a warning letter to Johnny's residence. Regardless of whatever decision that the juvenile probation department makes, Johnny at that point gets a criminal record that follows him for the remainder of his juvenile life. With the youth diversion program, what we've been able to do is in that same scenario, if Johnny was contacted for stealing from a store, we would respond out there, take a report, and that report would not get sent over to juvenile probation department. It would get sent over to the youth diversion team. At that point in time, the youth diversion team would have a follow-up conversation with Johnny's guardian and Johnny himself and explain the process of the program. And if Johnny successfully completes the program, that case would be closed entirely and would not be sent over to the juvenile justice department, excuse me, the juvenile probation department. So what that cog looks like is if Johnny agrees to participate in the program, he admits to guilt. At that point, he would go to court and be in front of a real judge. And a jury of his peers and local high schools that do not know who Johnny is will listen to Johnny's testimony and ask him several questions such as, what have you learned from this?

Good morning, everyone. My name is Haley Tatt. I'm a current freshman at UC Irvine. I've been with the Youth Diversion Program for about three years, and my senior year of high school, I was a student representative for the program. Throughout my time in high school, I was involved in mock trial and the Youth Diversion Program, giving me a gateway for several civic engagement opportunities. However, many of Generation Z and youth today don't have the same opportunities that I do. The Youth Diversion Program gives youth a gateway into being civically engaged as well as engaging with the community through restorative justice efforts. The program was at first very wild when I was introduced to it. To have a peer attorney represent a youth, we call them respondents in the program, and to have a group of peer jurors decide what would happen to that youth. While being in the program, jurors learned several important skills such as public speaking, community engagement, and community building. The program also taught many students who didn't have the chance to be introduced to law a new opportunity and newfound passion. I met a lot of respondents who went through the program, became jurors, and became interested in actually pursuing a career either in law enforcement, getting a job outside of the town that they might have thought they would always live in, and even pursuing a career in law. This program works not only to help the youth, but to actively stop this system of youth crime and to actively stop repeated occurrences of youth crime. It's important to note that our program has had a 100% success rate, meaning that 30 students who would have otherwise counted a charge on their college applications, their job applications, now have no charge and are able to pursue a career, to pursue a job, to pursue a successful future. The program gives students the resources and support necessary that they wouldn't have

Present.

Present.

Here.

Here.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Adam Brady, and I'm the current student program coordinator at the Bakersfield Police Department's Youth Diversion Program. I support a vote of A for this bill, and I'm open to any technical questions regarding the program.

Good morning. My name is Lynn Berkeley Baskin with Justice to Jobs Coalition. I'm a 16-year veteran in research system transformation and policy development, focusing on preventing incarceration and building sustainable health-based and anti-recidivism systems. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here to strongly oppose AB 2698 unless it is fundamentally revised to align with California's modern diversion framework, the same health-based community-rooted approach that led the legislature to create OICR, and place it under the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure youth receive evidence-based healing center supports rather than court-based punishment. AB 2698, although well-intended, and I loved hearing, I do love hearing from the youth too, is not really a true diversion program. It is an alternative to incarceration program, very different. The bill requires youth to be adjudicated before entering the program, and by that point, the harm of system involvement has already occurred. True diversion happens before a young person enters the court pipeline. This bill is alternative sentencing, not diversion, and research shows that post-adjudication programs increase recidivism risk, disrupt education, and deepen system penetration. Second, AB 2698 relies on a teen court model that is not evidence-based. CSU Chico recent analysis found that teen courts struggle to provide rehabilitation or restorative justice and reproduce and institutionalize racial and socioeconomic inequalities Peer-reviewed research shows these courts normalize hyper-punitiveness among teens and leave youth defendants with lasting harm, not healing. Third, the bill will widen the net of system involvement and increase county costs. The offenses covered, petty theft, vandalism, etc., are low level. For these cases, the most healing and cost-effective response is pre-arrest, community-based diversion addressing the root causes of behavior.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Daphna Ghazani, and I'm here on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law and the other youth justice organizations listed in the Opposed Unless Amended letter. We appreciate the author's intent to expand diversion and improve outcomes. And I'll say personally for myself, as somebody who 30 years ago went through something like this post-incarceration, I can also say I appreciate people trying to be intentional. But the fact of the matter is, I experienced this 30 years ago. We have lots of research, lots of experience, and lots of resources in California that have shown us there is a better way to go about diversion. We can see this through the investments through the Youth Reinvestment Grant and the Tribal Diversion Programs, and these investments work. They reduce recidivism, they improve youth well-being, they increase public safety, and they address persistent racial disparities. Evidence shows that pre-arrest, deflection, and diversion are more effective than formal system processing at reducing offending. If you look at the offenses that are listed, these are offenses that should never have go through an arrest process. It is simply a waste of resources and increases the chances that young people will end up deeper in the system. As written, 2698 undermines the progress that we have made. It doesn't sufficiently prioritize pre-arrest deflection. It doesn't expand pathways to formal system processing. It marginalizes community-based organizations. And it creates inconsistent implementation across counties, weakening California's broader diversion infrastructure. We would ask and be supportive of a model that goes with the Youth Reinvestment Grant, one that prioritizes pre-arrest diversion, community-based programming, and culturally relevant resources. For these reasons, we respectfully urge and oppose unless amended on AB 2698.

Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, opposed unless amended. Good morning. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. Thank you. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California action. Opposed unless amended. Nedrick Miller, all of us, none, and LSPC. Forgive me, I got a long list of those who oppose. Alliance for Boys and Men of Color. California Alliance for Youth and Justice. California Coalition for Women's Prisoners. California for Safety and Justice. California United for Responsible Budget. Center of Juvenile and Criminal Justice. the Centinella Youth Services, Community Agents for Resources Advocacy and Services Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice Fresh Lifelines for Youth Hayward Burns Institute Hoops for Justice Initiate Justice Justice to Jobs La Defensa Legal Services of Prisoners with Children Live Free USA Milpo Collective National Center for Youth Law Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos Sisters Warriors Freedom Coalition, the California Youth Project, the Collective for Liberatory Laureate, the Collective Healing and Transportation Project, Underground, Urban Peace Movement, Youth Forward, Youngsters for Change, Youth Alliance, Youth Justice Education Clinic, and the Loyal Law School, Youth Law Center, Individual and Self.

We strongly oppose.

First of all, thank the author for addressing a very difficult topic, and that is juvenile offenses. It's something society has been wrestling with for my entire lifetime. and it's not a simple one-size-fits-all effectively. But in listening to the opposition, I find it entertaining and almost sad that we consider community service hyperpunitive. I think that that's misstated. I think that consequences for misconduct are powerfully shaping when administered properly. And I think the fact that this process that you're suggesting attaches consequences, but also erases the outcome if followed. And I think that is the great balance, is being able to erase the misconduct is the goal. Actually, the bigger goal is never reoffending. And I think that consequences, I know that we have an energy that thinks that all consequences are hyperpunitive. I do not. I think that it can be helpful when administered with care and concern. And I believe that that's what your program does, and so I support it.

Thank you for bringing forth the bill. You're just smiling. I do understand where you are coming from, but I also understand where opposition is coming from. And when I think about these programs, number one, from what I gather, is it looks like we are introducing you to a formal process, right? A formal court process, right? do we always want to introduce them to that process? I thought the goal was to try to keep them from that particular process. From my experience of community service and advocating at home in San Diego, working with different organizations, data has shown, there's other data across the state that community-based alternative programs work. If we invest in those programs because that community knows that population the best, then we are able to turn things around if we believe that everyone can be restored right Everyone deserves a second chance So there are some restorative processes that exist The school system has restorative justice programs and things of that nature that currently exist But I believe that those programs are better aligned. Those programs have a lot more trauma-informed practices that is there, more holistic approaches that are there. And those programs are really a lot more cost-effective. I understand that having that process and it being through the police department and other things that's there, yes, we want to better the relationship with our officers. And we do want to do what we can to make sure people know that the system in some cases is not all jacked up like we think it is, whichever. However, when one of the testimonies someone said about admitting guilt, youth sometimes admit guilt under pressure and if you are already putting them in the process to admit guilt we're already setting them up for failure that's just the way that I currently see it I don't want to put them in a situation where they are being judged by their peers and they're admitting to guilt and not really knowing we know that the brain is not fully developed so this whole thing is a whole process for me to even consider going forward with this bill I need to know that you are listening to your opposition and that you are understanding where opposition is coming from in regards to investing in your community, investing in these other types of programs that currently exist with the community-based alternatives programs. Is that something, I know I said a lot just to get to this point, but is that something that you as the author would consider doing is really working with opposition and working with community-based organizations to be able to move forward in this, to me, in a much better positive direction. I know that there's consequences of everybody's actions, but not all of them have to go through this process. To me, there's a more structured, aligned, meaningful process with the community that understands the population that they're serving more so than others. Is that something you... Yes, Assemblymember. We are looking forward to working with opposition because we know that there's some holes in this, and we would love to work with them to get this bill through.

I know that there was some other deeper conversations, so I do hope that you would keep that word and be able to move forward with opposition in figuring out how we can find a middle ground on this particular part. Programs do need to exist, but we have to also look at combining both types of programs and not really focusing on one program.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who know, again, my background's in law enforcement, and I spent my first four years or so with a juvenile diversion program at my old department. And I loved that program. We did just like you guys said. We're getting them out of the system. We're never putting their name in there, and that's what we want. And these were definitely kids of color, of kids who didn't have parents that took care of them. Unfortunately, were probably in jail or were strung out on the streets. They didn't have any mentors. They didn't have anybody to guide them. And I saw this diversion program do that. And I got to be part of that. And I enjoyed that. I still am in touch with some of them who have now gone to be successful and who have stayed out of trouble. And so I wholeheartedly believe in the diversion program. let me be clear that regardless of what we do today, departments still have a choice whether or not they're going to do a diversion program. It just seems that this is going to help with the funding of some diversion programs which they do need help I seen a lot of programs in this state get funded for things I probably don agree with and obviously I do agree with this As far as the opposition I want to say most of the things you guys said are the same things that they're trying to do. Obviously all of us here are here to help the children, help these youth that are not guided, need help, and just need to basically help with their best foot forward is what we're trying to do here. So I wholeheartedly believe in diversion. I obviously will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to other departments hopefully adopting this as well and doing the same thing. Thank you. And I'll move the bill. Second.

Having had a chance to hear some of the concerns raised by opposition witnesses, is there anything you'd like to respond to today or share with the committee? I just want you to know that we look forward to working with opposition. You know, we started this with good intentions, of course, and we want to protect our youth. And it includes certainly a different perspective, and we look forward to working with you.

Yes, thank you. AB 2698 is a reasonable, evidence-based measure that expands a locally successful program to help first-time youth take accountability, get the support they need to change, and receive a real second chance. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Not voting.

Aye.

Gonzalez, aye.

Carbidion?

Aye.

Ramos? Aye.

Sharp Collins, not voting.

Colleagues, this will be Assembly Bill 1959.

I am here to present AB 1959. I want to start by saying that I will accept the committee's amendments to narrow the scope of the bill and address concerns raised by opposition. I also want to thank the committee chair and his staff for taking the time to work with me in my office on this bill so that we can address this very important issue related to constituents in my county. As amended, the bill seeks to close a dangerous loophole in the law related to a school shooting in San Diego County. You will hear from witness testimony of the real pain and impact that was caused by the school shooting in 2001 at Santana High School, which ended the lives of two fellow students and caused injury to 11 other students, one teacher and a campus security officer. The individual was sentenced to prison after his guilty plea. However, because of a loophole in the law, he was able to file for resentencing in a jurisdiction that didn't even try him, even after getting denied parole months before the motion. AB 1959 simply seeks to ensure that my community continues to feel safe and that convicted individuals are held accountable for their actions until they are successfully rehabilitated. And I urge your aye vote today. With me to testify are my district attorney, Summer Steffen, and city council member Phil Ortiz, a survivor of the Santana school shooting.

Thank you. Chair Nick Schultz and committee members, I'm Summer Steffen, San Diego County's district attorney and a 30-year-plus prosecutor. I here to bring the voices of my really terrified community here before you today and to ask for a narrow exception that allows judges to regain their discretion to make decisions regarding public safety remorse and all of the other factors that judges are good at making AB 1959 is that solution. What it does is it creates an exception in the Welfare and Institution Code 707B regarding violent offenses. There's already an exception if a youth was not apprehended until they were past the age for juvenile treatment. This would create a second exception if a youthful offender is past the age of juvenile treatment and is resentenced to be sentenced in juvenile court where there is no discretion by the judges. The case of the Santana shooter where two people were murdered, a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old, and 13 people were shot, multiple reloads, a premeditated murder. The defendant was sentenced to 50 years to life. There was an exception that was developed by the court that decided 50 years to life was tantamount to a life without parole sentence. that's what's causing the resentencing in juvenile court, which means immediate release.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Honorable Committee members. My name is Phil Ortiz. I'm a survivor of the shooting at Santana High School that happened on March 5, 2001. I'm also a council member for the neighboring city where the school shooting happened. I represent thousands of former students, teachers, faculty, parents, friends, family, and community members who experienced unimaginable mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical loss from the school shooting. I'm here to say that the pain doesn't go away. More than 20 years later, the effects are still causing casualties. One of my classmates who died, Randy Gordon, his mom was found a couple years ago in a homeless encampment just a few miles from Santana, her life destroyed by the death of her son. My other classmate, Tommy Millsap, he killed himself on the anniversary of the shooting in 2020, citing the shooting in his suicide letter. We're here to ask that you would ensure justice is balanced. The victims have no opportunity to be free from their mental, emotional, and physical wounds, including Randy Gordon and Brian Zucker, who were killed. Perpetrators shouldn't so easily have the opportunity to be free from the consequences of their actions either. Teenagers who have committed some of the most violent crimes are deserving of the consequences of their original sentence. However, when they bring a petition for resentencing, they can only be sentenced in juvenile court, even though they are in their 40s and the juvenile court has lost jurisdiction long ago. This will result in their early release through resentencing, even if a parole board has determined they are not deserving of release. Thankfully, AB 1959 will fix this loophole, restore discretion to the juvenile court, and ensure these offenders who have aged out of the juvenile court can be resentenced in adult court appropriately. I urge an aye vote on AB 1959.

Good morning, Rochelle Beardsley, California District Attorneys Association in support.

Good morning. Leslie called the California Defenders Association. We both are a position to be author for productive discussions and community.

Good morning. Glenn Backus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We are opposed to the bill in print, but we wanted to thank the author for her office and the committee working with us to address our concerns. We'll reconsider our position after we see the bill in print. Thank you, Assemblymember Patel. Good morning. I've been asked to give a comment on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. They have an opposed position to the bill in print, but we'll appreciate the work on the bill and we'll review the amendments and their position. Hello, I'm Serna from Saving Lives in Custody, California, San Diego. I oppose. Thank you. Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation. We're reviewing the amendments and hope to get to neutral. I'm also voicing opposition on behalf of Youngsters for Change.

Avi Rodriguez with the ACLU California Action wants to thank the author for accepting the amendments, and we look forward to reviewing the proposed amendments. Arianna Montez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition right now, but reviewing.

Assembly Member Patel, seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close? Yeah, I would like to offer deep gratitude once again to you, Mr. Chair, as well as your committee staff and the coalition of people who came to speak with me on this bill. We introduced it in a certain manner, and we were able to work very collaboratively with our sponsors as well as those in opposition to bring it to a place that we think will serve the state of California. and really put justice forward first and center. And I would respectfully ask Vitti for an aye vote today. Thank you.

Wen

Ramos aye

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of California's most vulnerable newborns and the mothers who need our support. I'm proud to present AB 1628, the Keeping Infants from Danger Act, which extends California's safe surrender window from 72 hours to 30 days. Giving mothers the time and space they need to make safe, informed decisions during one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives. California has long led the nation in compassion. First, evidence-based policy, AB 1628, continues that proud tradition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We represent more than 37,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical services personnel across California, and we are proud to support AB 1628. This critical bill will provide... pathway of safety for an infant should a parent in crisis need a pathway to ensure that child's safety. As the analysis notes, firefighters and fire departments are trusted community resources that are well understood in location and their practice and their role in the community. And the analysis does a really good job of laying out the process by which an infant is cared for. in the case of a safe surrender, every fire department in the state has a protocol and a packet to initiate that process to ensure the child is taken safely, the appropriate elements of the community, of the safety net system are notified, and the child is safely put into the care of the state. So for those reasons, we would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Angela Hill, California Medical Association, in support. Good morning, Kelly MacMillan, on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California, in support. Rochelle Connor, on behalf of Concerned Women for America, us on support. As for an aye vote. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of Oeth Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District

No.

No?

Gonzalez? Aye.

Good morning, Chair Schultz, Vice Chair Alaniz, and members of the Assemblies Public Safety Committee. My name is Stephen Lopez. I am the legislative liaison for the San Francisco Police Department. I'm here today to give my testimony on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Department in support of Assembly Bill 1974, which would authorize law enforcement agencies to create voluntary temporary firearm storage programs. Last year, our department partnered with the nonprofit organization Pierce's pledge to establish a temporary safe firearms surrender program. This program was created in part to address a gap in safe storage options in San Francisco, which currently has no licensed firearm dealers operating within city limits who could normally provide the service. Under our program, each of our 10 district stations serve as designated drop-off locations for surrendered firearms where they can be temporarily stored. Firearms may be stored for up to one year and returned upon request. Prior to any destruction, owners are notified if a firearm is not reclaimed, and we also have an additional 60-day period for them to pick up the firearm if they wish to. The bill would set one year as a minimum amount of time for agencies to store a firearm, but they would have discretion to make it longer if they wish. The bill does not mandate participation by a law enforcement agency or a firearm owner. Instead, it provides clear statutory authority and a flexible framework for agencies that choose to implement these types of programs, allowing them to tailor procedures to local needs. The bill includes safeguards as well, including law enforcement ensuring that the owner is still eligible to possess a firearm upon returning or when destroying a firearm to properly update the automated firearm system. Temporary firearm storage in California is currently too inconsistent. While licensed firearm dealers may offer storage, they are not required to do so and availability varies by location. AB 1974, expand access to safe storage options, especially for individuals who will need it most, such as those experiencing a health crisis, family instability, or the situation...

My name is Ethan Murray. I am a state policy attorney with Giffords, the organization led by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. We are proud to sponsor AB 1974, which authorizes law enforcement agencies to create a voluntary safe storage program. As the Assemblymember eloquently put it, out-of-home storage options can create essential time and space between a person in crisis and highly lethal means. The committee analysis does very well to highlight the connection between access to lethal means, namely firearms, and suicide. I want to broaden the scope and note that out storage can also be a less intrusive safety measure in contentious child custody battles As Assemblymember Stephanie outlined Pierce pledge started this program with Mayor Lurie and the San Francisco Police Department in San Francisco It also followed in 2023 the legislature's passage of SB 368, requiring licensed firearm dealers to provide a crucial safety valve of out-of-home storage options. In the time since, Pierce's Pledge has called all of these licensed dealers. The findings reveal that areas like San Francisco that don't have any options, but also where options are limited. Chair Schultz, according to Pierce's Pledge, your district has 43 licensed dealers. Only four offer out-of-home storage at about $55 per month. Thirteen said they didn't offer storage, and the rest didn't respond to the survey. Vice Chair Alanis, your district has 27 dealers, according to Pierce's pledge. Three said that they would store firearms at about $50 a month. Ten said they would not, and the rest did not respond. Those are just two examples, but they reveal the gap SB 368 has left behind. AB 1974 gives law enforcement the agency to step up like SFPD and fill that gap if they want to. It establishes clear, standardized protocols for intake and return, including vital eligibility checks to ensure weapons are only returned to legally permitted owners.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, as well as the City and County of San Francisco, both in very strong support and just wanted to thank the author for this important measure. Thank you. Good morning. Jamie Miner passing on our support for our colleagues over at Everytown for Gun Safety. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus representing the Brady Campaign and Brady California in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I like this bill. It's a great bill. My concerns are with the law enforcement agencies. So it's completely volunteer if they want to do it or not. And have there been any agencies that you know of that do hold them, that maybe do charge to hold them?

And it is good to know, thank you for those points that you made, that it's cheaper to store them in my district than it is the chair's, so thank you for saying that. Other than that, that's all I got. Thank you.

That's it?

Gonzalez?

Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Victor O. I'm a deputy DA from San Diego County. Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with some of the people that are opposed to this bill, and I wanted to briefly address some of the concerns that they raised, and that is primarily that those who enjoy the benefits of diversion, they are able to avoid conviction. And therefore the question is whether or not we can ask them to do anything let alone pay back the victims the restitution that they owe And first of all diversion almost universally is voluntary Nobody has to force anybody to participate in a program of diversion. Article 1, Section 28 requires restitution every time there's a conviction. But that mandate doesn't necessarily translate into a preclusion against restitution in diversion cases. And this is not a new or untested concept. In fact, the requirement of restitution has been in mandatory or mental health diversion since its inception. and it has withstood judicial scrutiny in People v. Braden, a California Supreme Court case that directly looked at the reason why there is a restitution requirement in mental health diversion and it came to the conclusion that it's actually a good thing because trial courts then don't have to be forced to choose between criminal offenders and their victims. And so the problem is though that mental health diversion is only one form of diversion in California. In California, 10 out of the 14 available forms of diversion are completely silent on the issue of restitution. And so in those cases, victims, they don't get restitution through 1202.4 because there's no conviction, and they don't get it through the applicable diversion statute, so they're out of luck. And those courts, in those situations, would be forced to choose between offenders and the victims. And so that's what this bill is all about. Never forgetting California crime victims. Thank you.

Oh, you both did fantastic. I didn't even have to signal you. That was great. Let's next take the Me Too's, hoping to be heard in support of the bill. Okay. Let me know. Juliana Voris on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you both very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? We do. All right. Come on down. Once you begin speaking, do we have two witnesses? Sounds okay, great. There's two microphones right over here. You'll each have two minutes. Your time doesn't begin until you start speaking. Again, these two microphones and chairs right here. Thank you both in advance.

Your time, sir. I know. Thank you. Sorry.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next we'll take the me too's in opposition to the bill.

All right. Thank you, everybody. Now we'll turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions? Motion by Wynn, second by Ramos. Sorry, by Gonzalez. I can give it to you, James, if you want. Okay, now we'll give it to Mr. Gonzalez. Okay, third by Mr. Ramos. Mr. Vice Chair, please.

Yeah, this bill addresses victim restitution. Those are completely different subjects. This bill doesn't touch restitution fund or restitution fees or anything like that. It directly addresses victim restitution. And in this case, what this bill primarily addresses is the lack of uniformity that we currently face within our current system, where you have 14 different forms of diversion. The four that address victim restitution are kind of all over the board in terms of how they apply to victims and what is mandated. This bill preserves some due process that is already reflected and already exists and has withstood some scrutiny in mental health diversion, 1001.36, where the court can entertain a hearing upon request to determine whether or not restitution is owed at all and make that determination before any order is made. This, and also to address one of the points on restitution being ordered at a pre-conviction stage, that is precisely one of the issues that was looked at by the court in People v. Berlin, was the fact that restitution was attempted to be ordered after the completion of the two-year period of mental health diversion, and the court concluded that after that two-year period, there's only one thing left to do, is dismiss the case. And so it has to be ordered during the period of diversion. It has to be. And so what we're looking for is some consistency, some uniformity, and the ability to give victims a level expectation of what comes out of their criminal case. Thank you.

Yeah, that's always a factor that the court can consider. That's in 1001.36, and I don't think the bill changes that.

Are there any other questions or comments? I just have one.

Just wondering if opposition witnesses had any brief response. Thank you. I just wanted to point out that thank you for the answer. Regarding the victim fund, we did have a discussion with the Department of Finance, and it does cost more money now to pursue recovering victim funds than it is to actually receive victim funds. So the cost-benefit analysis done by the Department of Finance is showing that it's at a net loss at this time. So I do want to point that out. Thank you very much. Does that beg any further questions from the committee? All right. Seeing none, I believe we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Assemblymember? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, diversion is about second chance. And when someone's standing before a court and a judge and the public defender and the DA agree to diversion, a person sets out on a process to make sure that they don't harm again. And part of that is to make certain they make their victims whole. If they've caused harm, they should do everything they can to eliminate that harm. And I don't think people realize that restitution is not just about the victim. It's about the person that harms someone. making amends is a self-esteem building project. And everyone who is on diversion should have that opportunity to do it. If you are lucky enough to know anyone in 12-step programs or in a 12-step program yourself, you know the power of amends. You know what it means when someone who has harmed an individual turns around and makes amends to a person. That's what restitution is. Diversion is to second chance. So this is not just about helping victims. It's about helping the people who are on diversion make the amends that they should for the harm that they've caused. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Really want to appreciate the thoughtful testimony of everybody today. Assemblymember, I am going to recommend an aye. I'll be voting for it today. In my time working with you, I've known you to be someone who really does try to work with every perspective and find that common ground. I have no doubt that you'll continue to meet with the opposition and do what you can to find that common ground. But I think this is a thoughtful bill. It's a smart bill. Colleagues, I am recommending an aye. With a motion and a second, let's conduct the roll. For item 27, AB 2297 by Assemblymember Stephanie, the motion is due pass. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney, Harbidian, Lackey, Nguyen, Nguyen, aye. Ramos, aye. Sharpe Collins. Okay, that bill is out, but we'll keep the roll open for absent members. Okay, quick programming note, everyone. I believe next up in the queue, we have Assembly Member Johnson. So in a moment, we'll take her two bills. After that on my list, Mr. Calra was actually the first one to sign in. So if he comes back, Mr. Carrillo, I apologize. He'll go in front of you. You will be right after Assemblymember Johnson. I believe we're waiting for check-ins from Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez and Assemblymember Soria. So if they want to make their way down here to sign in, that would be terrific. We have eight bills remaining today. Assemblymember Johnson, I believe you'd like to take AB 2438 up first. Is that correct? Okay, come on down. Once you make your presentation, your witness or witnesses in support will have two minutes each. As I mentioned at the beginning, I'll try to give a visual cue when there's about 30 seconds remaining so you can wrap up. And you can begin whenever you're ready. All right. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Still morning. I am here today to present AB 2438, a common sense measure to address the unintended consequences of California 2011 public safety realignment stemming from AB 109 This bill ensures that individuals sentenced to long felony terms serve their time in state prison rather than in our overcrowded county jails. Since realignment, county jails originally designed for the short-term stays and pre-trial detention. These have become the de facto long-term prisons. Under current law, there is no maximum limit on the length of sentence served in a local jail provided the offense meets certain criteria. This has resulted in individuals serving decades-long sentences in local facilities that lack high security infrastructure and robust rehabilitative resources found at the state level. County jails are now facing severe overcrowding and strained budgets that are undermining their ability to focus on effective community reentry and supervision. AB 2338 provides a straightforward threshold. Any person sentenced to a term or total term of more than six years for a felony must be housed in a state prison, not a county jail. This shift will allow local government the flexibility necessary to manage their populations more effectively. The burden on our counties is significant and it is measurable. In Riverside County alone, the county I come from, it costs approximately $59,000 annually to house a single inmate. Just three individuals serving terms of six years represents a million-dollar local custody cost over the life of their sentence. These are taxpayer dollars that are being sapped from our communities while state prisons are shut down due to declining prison populations. Additionally, as noted by the California Police Chiefs Association, jail overcrowding leads to extended booking delays, sometimes lasting for several hours. This takes officers off the street, reduces availability, patrol resources in our communities. Jail was never meant to hold prisoners for more than a few years. With state prison populations declining, AB 2438 provides a solution to ensure correctional resources are properly leveraged while decreasing local overcrowding. With me to testify in support of this bill is Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Thank you, Assemblymember. Sheriff, whenever you're ready, thanks for being here today. Absolutely. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in strong support of AB 2438. AB 109 shifted a significant portion of long-term incarcerated population from the state to counties, but it did not change the fundamental design, capacity, or availability of services to local jails. County jails were built for short-term detention less than one year, not for individuals serving multi-year or long-term sentences. In Riverside County, we are currently housing 46 individuals serving sentences of three years or more. including three individuals serving six years or longer including one at 20. This creates a measurable strain on already limited county resources, increased classification and housing complexity, greater demand for programming, medical care and supervision, ongoing staffing and operational pressures. These individuals require a different level of management which pulls resources away from the rest of our jail population. The result is a system-wide impact, over pressures reduced program access operational inefficiencies and serious safety concerns for those incarcerated The fiscal impact to Riverside County alone is significant It costs approximately per year to house one incarcerated person Those three long-term individuals represent $177,000 annually and over $1 million for just their sentences alone. AB 2438 addresses directly, by establishing a clear threshold for individuals sentenced to more than six years, they should serve their time in state prison. This is fiscally sound policy. It shifts long-term incarceration costs back to the system that was designed to handle these individuals. But this is not just about cost. It is about doing it the right way. State prisons are built, staffed, and structured for long-term incarceration. They provide more appropriate housing, better classification systems, and greater access to programming and rehabilitation services. That ultimately leads to better outcomes for the incarcerated population and safer communities for us. County jails simply do not have the infrastructure to replicate those conditions at scale. AB 2438 reduces or restores the proper balance between county jails and the state prison system. It relieves pressure on local systems while placing individuals in environments better suited for their needs. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2438. Thank you. All right, thank you again, Assembly Member and Sheriff for making the effort to be here today. Next we'll hear from the Me Too's hoping to speak in support of the bill. If anyone would like to be heard in support, please come forward at this time. Okay, do we have anyone hoping to testify in opposition? All right, it looks like we have two. Great, we have two chairs with two microphones right down here, you know the drill. Two minutes, your time begins once you start to speak. Good morning, Chair and members. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and respectful opposition to AB 2438. To understand why AB 2438 is dangerous, we must understand the history of realignment. In 2006, plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits arguing California's dangerously overcrowded prisons were preventing the state from providing constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care to incarcerated people. A federal judge three panel agreed. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that finding and declared that the state needed to reduce overcrowding. And essentially, the court ordered the state to dramatically reduce its prison population. The 2011 Criminal Justice Realignment Act, also known as AB 109, was California's answer to that crisis, and it worked. California came into compliance with the federal population cap in 2015. The critical point is that court order has not gone away. The state is still required to maintain a durable, lasting solution to overcrowding. As of December 2025, California's prisons are operating at 122% of design capacity, and if passed, AB 2438 would send a significant number of people back to the state prisons. The bill does not just reverse realignment, it risks putting California back on a collision course with the federal courts, reopening litigation that cost the state significant sums of money, and caused immeasurable harm to incarcerated people and their families. And for these reasons, we urge your Novo. Thank you. Good morning, Elizabeth Kim, Policy Director at Initiate Justice. I respectfully oppose AB 2438 I want to build on what my colleague just raised about realignment and prison overcrowding At its core this bill expands who is sent to prisons that is already under significant strain without addressing the underlying drivers of risk or recidivism. I also want to acknowledge the concern underlying this bill. I understand that the intent is to ensure that individuals serving longer sentences, particularly those over six years, are placed in settings that the legislature believes may better address public safety risk and accountability. But this bill does not actually solve that problem. Under existing law, individuals are already sent to state prison when there are clear indicators of heightened risk, such as serious or violent prior convictions, sex offense registration, or other specified factors. This bill does not refine that framework. Instead, it creates a bright-line rule based solely on sentence length, which is not a reliable proxy for risk, rehabilitation needs, or likelihood of reoffending. And importantly, this bill moves in the wrong fiscal direction. At a recent Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing on CDCR, the legislature discussed ongoing concerns around cost overruns and structural spending pressures within the prison system. At a time when the state is actively trying to manage correctional costs and reduce reliance on incarceration, this bill expands the use of the most expensive part of the system, state prison, which costs $120,000 per person annually without evidence that improves outcomes. Thank you. Thank you both very much for your testimony. Now we'll hear from others hoping to register a position of opposition on the bill. Please come forward at this time. Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation. You don't have our letter yet, but we do have an opposed position. Thank you. Hananya Sundaraj at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defenders Office in opposition. Thank you. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Paloma Serna with Saving Lives in Custody California in opposition. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition. All right. Thank you all very much. I'd like to turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? Mr. Ramos. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And to the author, before realignment, what was the sentencing that the counties actually would hold in those then going to the state prisons? Was it three years, particularly? I don't know if I can hear you fully, but I think the answer is one year. You said what was it before? Yeah. One year. So being on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, we've seen the impact of realignment on the county. And we've seen how county jails served as more of a rehabilitation area prior to the realignment. And we're seeing the influx of, at least myself on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, seeing the influx of inmates wearing red suits, and that means high-level inmates. And so I think looking at this, we have to start to look at a balance that starts to look at counties and the state and the responsibilities that are there to justice in the state of California. So I just wanted to ask that question that's there and also make sure that reiterating on the county board of supervisors in San Bernardino County, we did see the impact on San Bernardino County. County. So it's more of a statement. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Are there other questions or comments? Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So opposition, you pointed out that 122% had design capacity for the prisons. What study was that from? I can follow up with you for the specifics. I believe it came from an LAO report, but I'm happy to follow up. Okay, well, I just want to point out that you both pointed out that there's prison overcrowding going on, but yet I want to say we're closing prisons, so I don't know how we could be closing prisons, yet there's still overcrowding issues. I don't understand that part, but my colleague made a great point as far as what sentencing used to be before AB 109. If you got prison, you went to prison. That's how it used to be when I was in law enforcement, and that's the way I think it should be. So obviously, AB 109 has done a big impact on the counties. Sheriff, I think I'd like to hear a little bit more about your county specific after AB 109, how it impacted maybe your probation officers, how it also impacted your community. Yeah, it's actually the entire criminal justice system from us, from law enforcement in the field and specifically the probation department. And it was truly, it may have been a great idea on paper, but there was no application to real world life. And once it was pushed onto us, all it really did is shirk that responsibility from the state onto county jails. So you can talk about the state prison for overcrowding, but all this bill did, AB 109, was make every single jail in California completely overcrowded. So it's not about responsibility. It was not about anything other than shirking a responsibility of housing these inmates. It's like one of the things that we tried to argue was that if you're a family of five in a two-bedroom apartment, you don't get to get rid of your kids. You have to build more rooms if you want more individual rooms for your kids. And it's no different. And the overcrowding that it has done to every sheriff in the entire state is, I mean, it's something that we are dealing with on an everyday basis. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. Any other questions from the committee? All right. Assemblymember, would you like to close? Actually, before you do, I apologize. Is there a motion? Motion. Is there a second? Second. Okay. With a motion and a second, Assemblymember, would you like to close? I would. Thank you, Chair. AB 2438 is a modest common sense change to our criminal justice system. I thank you to my colleague who brought up that this isn't just a Riverside County issue. This is a statewide issue. At a time when all of our state prisons are historically underutilized, we need real solutions to keep our community safe and ensure inmates are treated humanely. That is simply not possible under our current system. For those reasons, I respectfully request your aye vote on this bill. Well, thank you very much, Assemblymember. I don't mean to bury the lead. I will be recommending a no, but I mean it when I say that I appreciate you bringing the bill and raising what I think are legitimate issues. Even if we don't agree on the solution that's being proposed today, I think that the issues that have been testified to by the sheriff are real issues facing our local communities. Not long ago, as we all know, California's prisons were so overcrowded that the United States Supreme Court found that we had violated prisoners' Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment and ordered the state to reduce our prison population. Criminal justice realignment is one of the many reforms aimed at reducing these numbers to a constitutionally acceptable level Realignment limited which persons could be sent to state prison and required more persons to serve their sentences in county jail Now, here's probably the most important thing I'm going to say. Knowing this history, I cannot today support legislation that would potentially return large swaths of people back to state prison without considering the data that has previously been requested by this legislature. And I'm referring to, and you'll find it actually in the committee analysis on page six, Assembly Bill 1080 by Republican Assemblymember Tree Taw, which has a due back date by June 30th of this year. I'm even more concerned, separate and aside from that fact, given the research that demonstrates keeping nonviolent, non-serious, and non-sex offenders closer to their communities actually improves reentry outcomes and recidivism rates. In closing, I can't support your bill today because Assemblymember Ta has requested this data to study the efficiencies of realignment or the lack of efficiencies. This data is coming back in short order. And with all due respect, Assemblymember, I think your bill is premature. So with that, I am recommending a no today. For item 31, AB 2438 by Assemblymember Johnson, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? No. Schultz, no. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez, Haney, Carbidion, Blackie. Aye. Blackie, aye. When not voting, Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins. That measure will remain on call. We'll let you know the outcome. Assembly Member Johnson, I think that brings us to your second bill. This is 2450, is that correct? It is, sir. Great. We're ready whenever you are. Okay. Do we have a second while we're at it? I'm going to assume Mr. Lackey would second the bill. Yes, sir. Okay. Very good. Assembly member, whenever you're ready. Great. Thank you so much. I'm here in now switching hats to AB 2450, a bill intended to restore true judicial discretion for specific drug-related sentencing enhancements. For decades, California used enhancements like the Schoolyard Act and large quantity enhancements to protect children and detour mass drug trafficking. Recent legal changes have effectively nullified these tools. By requiring judges to give great weight to broad mitigating factors, essentially tying judges' hands, This dismissal has become the default, even in cases involving kilograms of narcotics or crimes committed on school grounds. AB 2450 changes the standard for six specific drug enhancements from shall to may. It does not remove a judge's ability to dismiss enhancement. It simply removes the near mandatory requirement to do so. This bill applies to high-stake drug crimes, including crimes against children, soliciting minors for drug deals on school or child care grounds, and manufacturing drugs where children are present and injured. The Schoolyard Act trafficking drugs in school zones, major trafficking, large quantity enhancements for the possessing kilograms of cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Drug crimes are extremely serious, especially those that involve children or vulnerable spaces and protected places. It is our sacred duty as a legislative body to protect the children of California. As a mother and a former mayor, I'm beyond heartbroken by the devastation caused by the drug trade. And for all the needless lives lost because of lacks and lacking enforcement I want to be clear there is absolutely no reason why anyone convicted of these crimes should get anything less than the full extent of the law leveraged against them. We have to draw a line and say enough is enough when it comes to our kids. Sentencing enhancements are a public safety tool that keep dangerous criminals behind bars and out of communities, and judges are best positioned to weigh the specific facts of a case. Rigid legislation mandates that force dismissal across the board undermine the transparency and accountability of our judicial system. With me to testify for this bill is Desmond Young, Business Development Director for Riverside County Resources, a nonprofit providing alcohol and drug addiction recovery and behavioral health services, and Rochelle Beardsley, Deputy District Attorney for the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office, here on behalf of California District Attorneys Association. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, members. I'm Rochelle Beardsley with the California District Attorneys Association. I'm here to testify in support of AB 2450, legislation that would responsibly restore judicial discretion in the application of critical sentencing enhancements in regards to narcotics offenses. Recent changes to the law, SB 620, SB 81, they basically act to compel courts to dismiss enhancements whenever broadly defined mitigating circumstances are claimed. Even when defendants trafficking massive quantities of narcotics or endangered children, this shift has undoubtedly undermined public safety and accountability in some of the most serious drug offenses. AB 2450 does not eliminate judicial discretion. Rather, it restores the balance by allowing courts to dismiss enhancements when appropriate, rather than simply requiring dismissal in nearly every case. This bill reinforces legislative intent by preserving enhancements related to soliciting minors for drug crimes, large quantity trafficking, manufacturing drugs in the presence of children causing great bodily injury, and meth and PCP violations on church grounds. These enhancements exist to protect vulnerable communities, to ensure proportionate consequences for high-risk offenders, and they reestablish meaningful judicial discretion. And because of that, I urge a passage today. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Schultz and members. My name is Desmond Young, and I am the Business Development Director. and community relations person for Riverside Recovery Resources. I come before you today as someone who has been personally active in the recovery community since 2004 and as a founding board member for Inland Empire Harm Reduction. My guiding principle in this work is responsible compassion, a balance between deep empathy for those struggling with substance use and firm accountability for their growth and for the safety of our neighborhoods. At Riverside Recovery Resources, been around for more than 40 years, our mission is to build stronger families and communities by providing the tools and sustainable healing. For healing to take place, our communities must be safe, yet current law has effectively erased critical protections for our most vulnerable residents. AB 2450 is a measured necessary step to restore judicial discretion for drug enhancements that target high trafficking and crimes against children I personally engage with formerly incarcerated people daily And all that I speak to will support this bill which is amazing I don't think people recognize that for those of us, and I'm fortunate that I have not been justice involved, but I'm working with people every day. And many of them say, if it wasn't for Judge So-and-so, I would not have stopped. I personally feel that I just don't understand why everyone wouldn't be in support for protecting our children. In my role, I see firsthand how open-air drug sales and manufacturing disproportionately devastate disadvantaged communities and families, restoring enhancement for crimes in safe zones like schools and child care centers is an act of equity for children living in those neighborhoods. it. We cannot ignore Riverside County is a major thoroughfare. I'm sorry, that's your time. Thank you very much. I look for an A. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Next, we'll hear from others who'd like to be heard in support of the bill. Come on down. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Corey Salzilla on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support. Good morning, Lieutenant Julio de Leon from the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco, who had to step away, in support. All right. Thank you both for your testimony. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition to this bill? Okay, there are two. Come on down. You know the drill. Your time starts when you begin to speak. Good morning. Good morning. Glenn Backus for Drug Policy Alliance. Drug Policy Alliance opposes AB2450 because it would encourage district attorneys to return to the failed policy of stacking enhancements onto base sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. Sentence stacking has the effect of forcing defendants to accept unjust plea agreements or be threatened with many years, even decades of incarceration, should they assert their constitutional right to a trial by jury. Sentencing enhancements have been one of the primary drivers of mass incarceration and prison overcrowding. They have caused intergenerational harm to tens of thousands of low-income families and wasted vast amounts of taxpayer dollars. The California legislature, working with Governors Brown and Newsom, have incrementally reformed policies related to enhancements, as well as policies related to drug use and drug sales, to better emphasize treatment and public health approaches. This bill would degrade the requirement to dismiss certain drug-related enhancements, even if the court determines that it's in the furtherance of justice to do so. AB 2450 would also require more severe punishment if drug sales occur within 1,000 feet of a school. These drug-free school zones, as they're called, encompass every inch of an urban area, and most residential parts of the suburbs as well. I'm sure it's not the intention of the author to punish people who reside in cities more severely than those who reside in rural areas, but that would be the effect. Respectfully, the Drug Policy Alliance supports policies to invest in drug use prevention, as well as drug treatment and public health programs to reduce death and disability caused by drugs. But we strongly oppose bills like this one as a waste of public dollars and a waste of human lives. Thank you. Danica Rodarma on behalf of the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union, Local 148. The basic premise of this bill is that allowing judges to choose to not impose an enhancement after finding that dismissing it would be in the furtherance of justice would somehow deter drug crimes strains credulity and would really result in absurd results. So we urge a no vote. All right. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's who'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill. Can you please come forward at this time? Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, opposed. Lynn Berkley-Baskin, Justice Jobs Coalition and La Defensa in LA, oppose. Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, oppose. Hanania Sundaraj at Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition. Paloma Serna from Saving Lives in Custody, California in opposition. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in opposition. Mr. Chair, I apologize. Here in support, Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association. And Riverside Sheriff's, I was stuck over in the Senate. My apologies. Not a problem. This is the second week. You almost had me going like, what is going on here? You're going to oppose this bill. I'm kidding. Not at all. Thank you, sir. Position of support registered and duly noted. Thank you. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Okay, we'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? I believe we have a motion and a second already. No questions, no comments. All right. My only question, but you can address it in your close, Assemblymember, is just hearing some of the concerns raised by the opposition. If you could speak to that in your closing, I'd appreciate it. But unless there's any other questions or comments from the committee, I will give you a chance to close. Okay. I'll keep it pretty simple. As a former mayor and experiences at the local level and government, I have seen this devastation that drugs can cause in our neighborhoods. I actually worked alongside my support testimony, Desmond, here today, boots on the ground, helping those, meeting them where they were, and offering services to help them say yes, hopefully. And as he responded in his comments that if it hadn't been for a certain judge, they never would have said that, yes, even though we had potentially greeted them 83 times in the field. So this bill isn't about unfair or unjust, Chair, to your question. It's not about unfair or unjust punishment. It's about giving judges the power back to impose appropriate penalties for dangerous offenders. And it's to protect our children. Enough is enough. AB 2450 is supported by California State Sheriff's Association, PORAC, the California Civil Liberties Advocacy, and Riverside County District Attorney and Sheriff. I'm going to keep it simple and strongly request and urge you for your aye vote on this bill. Thank you very much, Assemblymember, and thank you again to all of our witnesses for your testimony today. I know two minutes is, it sounds like a lot of time, it's not really a lot of time. I get it. Assemblymember Johnson, I understand wholeheartedly the desire in bringing the bill forward. It's my view that the courts already have discretion to not dismiss an enhancement. For the sake of time I won read it in its entirely but I would encourage everyone to refer to pages 8 and 9 of the committee analysis and I would point specifically to a recent California Supreme Court case People v Walker Citation there is 16 Cal 5th 1024 This is a 2024 case I'd like to read an excerpt, a short excerpt, if I might. This is the court's writing. It is clear that the structure does not presume an enhancement should be dismissed whenever an enumerated mitigating circumstance is present, but instead, the ultimate question before the trial court remains whether it is in the furtherance of justice to dismiss an enhancement. And this furtherance of justice inquiry requires a trial court's ongoing exercise of discretion. Thus, notwithstanding the presence of a mitigating circumstance, trial courts retain their discretion to impose an enhancement based on circumstances long deemed essential to the furtherance of justice inquiry. In rendering their position, the Supreme Court was citing a prior case from 2023, People v. Ortiz. Citation on that one is 87. Calab 5th, 1087, specifically pages 1098 and 1099. The point that I'm trying to make, Assemblymember Johnson, is while I do understand the impetus for your bill, the court has been clear, the Supreme Court of California has been clear in saying that the clause shall dismiss, notwithstanding that, the court retains discretion to dismiss an enhancement. Therefore, and with all due respect, I find your bill unnecessary, and passing a bill to suggest otherwise what is now well-established, well-interpreted law of this land risk jeopardizing what I view to be a very clear instruction to the trial courts that they do retain that discretion. So I'm sorry to say that I must recommend a no today. For item 32, AB 2450 by Assemblymember Johnson, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Schultz, no. Alanis? Gonzales? Haney? Harbidian? Lackey? Aye. Blackie, aye. When? When not voting. Ramos? Ramos, no. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, no. Okay, that measure remains on call for absent members. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you. Okay. At long last, Mr. Patient himself, Mr. Carrillo, the floor is all yours, my friend. I believe you have some demonstratives that you'll be showing today. Pictures, I believe. I do for one of my bills. If it's okay with you, Mr. Chair, can I start with AB 2104? Yes, absolutely. We can start with that one. Yes, the second bill will have pictures. All right, whenever you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2104. However, this bill will improve access to justice by requiring court hearings related to sexually violent predators known as SVPs provide a remote access option for viewing. This bill will only apply to hearings that have already been deemed open to the public by a judge. And our constituents have a fundamental right to view the decision making process. As of now, courts are not required to provide a remote access option, which means that members of the public must attend in person. Doing so can be extremely difficult for those with illnesses, disabilities, children or dependents and without reliable childcare, the inability to miss work and many other reasons why. Additionally, a lack of reliable transportation, which is a well-known issue in rural districts like mine, can make traveling to a courthouse nearly impossible. ACORS HAVE ALREADY IMPLEMENTED REMOTE ACCESS OPTIONS FOR CORE PARTICIPATION DUE TO THE COVID PANDEMIC AND AB 2104 WILL MAKE USE OF THIS AVAILABLE technology I do not have any witnesses with me today Mr Chair but I must mention a constituent in my district Mary Geaters, who has been a fierce advocate of improving this process. She would have loved to be here to be a principal witness, but she fell ill, and she's not able to be here today. So, thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember. Sorry, thank you, Assemblymember. And your constituents name one more time? Mary Jeters. Okay, well, Mary can't be here, but she's now on the record. So maybe that's some small token of her still being here with us. Thank you. Others hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Erica Schwert, and I am here in strong support of AB 2104. I live within two 15-minute drives of two of the predators that were released in the Antelope Valley. And if it wasn't for Mary Jeters, who was at those hearings, she was the only one that was able to make it, we would not have known that these were something that happens in our community. So it's important that we understand that this has to be a fair process for our entire community. And it's not fair that sexually violent predators are being released into our area at higher rates than more affluent communities. So I really urge you all to support and help our community out. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And Assemblymember, since you didn't have a witness, I'll let her go a little over. Thank you for allowing that, Mr. Chair. Of course, Assemblymember. Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, California District Attorneys Association, in support. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else hoping to register a support position? Okay. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition? Okay. I do see one, so come on down. You'll have two minutes whenever you're ready. Don't feel any rush. No rush until I start talking. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We are in respectful opposition to AB 2104, which seeks to mandate a one-size-fits-all policy and strips judges of their legal discretion and rulemaking ability. First, proceedings under the SVP laws like juvenile proceedings are generally not open to the public. Specifically, SVP proceedings are not punitive and are about determining an individual's mental status, which by their very nature turns on the individual's mental health records, evaluations of their current mental health. AB 2104 risks tainting a jury pool for an SVP case in smaller counties where broadcasting the proceedings makes it more likely that potential jurors will be prejudiced against the individual facing commitment or petitioning for release. Courts have held that is up to judges to determine which parts of SVP proceedings are public and which are not. Second, the policies of the 58 county superior courts, which allow remote access or video live streaming, vary widely from all public proceedings being remotely accessible to the public to none at all. For example Alameda and Yolo counties appear to allow public access to all public proceedings Other Superior Courts like Santa Clara and Santa Cruz appear to allow live streaming at the judges discretion I can go on with the counties, I won't. Even the courts like Los Angeles County Superior Court which prominently posts no public remote policies in their website have demonstrated that judges are best able to determine when it is appropriate to live stream hearings. However, in September 2025, LA County Superior Court judge sent out a press release inviting the public to appear remotely for an SVP hearing that generated a lot of public interest. I apologize. That's your time. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Are there others hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill? If so, Now would be the time to come forward. Okay, I don't see anybody, so we will turn it back to the deus. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Mr. Lackey. Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second? Okay, motion by Lackey, second by Wynn. Any other discussion? I do have a quick comment. Please, Mr. Lackey. I am greatly appreciative to the Assemblymember for bringing this to the attention of this committee. just so everybody is aware, we share, we live close to each other. And I will tell you that our region is frequently targeted for the placement of these individuals with this very severe problem. And it strikes fear in the hearts of those who share property nearby. And I think that what this bill just seeks for is a little bit more transparency so that everybody can be aware of what's actually happening and of our judicial process. I don't know what we have to hide. And I think that it's nice that it could build confidence in our system. And I don't know, again, I don't know what we have to hide. And so I completely support this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Any other questions or comments? All right. The only question I have is just in fairness to our opposition witness. I know you were in the middle of a point when I had to cut you off. If there's any brief other point that you'd like to leave with the committee. No, I would just ask for a no vote. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Mr. Correa, would you like to close? I would, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to present this bill. And to the comments by Assemblymember Lackey, thank you for your support. I know that you represented our area for 12 years this year. And as you mentioned, looking at placement of these individuals, they have to be placed somewhere. We all understand that. But the fact that we don't have one or two, but three individuals in the high desert is concerning to me, and it should be concerning to everybody that represents our communities. In fact, there has been talks about placing a fourth individual in our district. And one of those, personally, being there right now was actually placed there 10 years ago. He violated his release and he's placed back again. So I thank you for your support. Mr. Chair, thank you very much. With that, I just simply say that AB 2104 will reduce barriers to justice so that California residents can stay informed when decisions are made and that directly impact them. And that's all this bill is asking, just for more transparency in the process. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. Assembly member, I will be recommending an I, and I'd like to take this opportunity briefly to share what we've talked about in private in my office. I appreciate your approach to this bill, notwithstanding that there are some legitimate questions and concerns have been raised by opposition, and I trust that you'll continue to work with them to the extent possible to find that common ground. But I appreciate and I am supporting your approach today because we have designed a system in California that is wholly unfair in that we are not releasing SVPs in urban communities like my district. They're being funneled to a very narrow category of rural communities and is disproportionately impacting your communities. But also every year, and this is the word of caution I share to the capital community, we see bill after bill trying to add further restriction, further limiting where we can place these individuals. Not only is it unfair in that your districts are the ones bearing the brunt of that burden of giving them a place to go after they leave custody, It also jeopardizes rendering an entire system unconstitutional because these folks are not sentenced to life without parole. These folks do have an opportunity, a right to be released. And so my caution to the capital community is that we should be thoughtful about putting in place reasonable restrictions, but we should also be mindful of the impact that it bears on rural communities as opposed to urban communities, which are largely exempt from placement right now. And we cannot have a system that becomes unconstitutional because it's so darn restrictive there is no place to put these folks leave in custody. So I appreciate the opportunity there, Mr. Creo. I share that admonishment, that concern with the capital community. For today, I am proud to recommend an aye, and I'll be voting for it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For item 18, AB 2104 by Assemblymember Creo, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Haney, Harbidian, Blackie? Aye. Blackie, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, not voting. All right, that measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome, and I believe you have a second bill. I do have a second bill, and that's the one that I'd like to have some prompts, if that's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. While these pumps get placed so that you can see the severity of the issue in the high desert again. Once again, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2310. First, I would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee's amendments. The amendments were accepted will make sure that lower level waste transporters are not targets of this bill, and that those that use dump trucks to transport and deposit materials on contracted staging grounds will not be penalized. In other words, for those that are doing construction, like construction material. And lastly, these amendments will modify the penalty structure for the fourth and subsequent offense to a wobbler penalty in place of the original misdemeanor penalty. AB 2310 is a measure that strengthens enforcement against large-scale and repeat illegal dumping, holds responsible parties accountable for cleanup costs, and protects communities for environmental harm. Illegal damping has the potential to cause widespread environmental harm to the soil and water if chemicals leach down into the water table as well as in the air Depending on the types of materials gases or chemicals can be found in these waste deposits Furthermore profit illegal dumping has long since been an issue for Californian communities across the state. According to the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, as well as the District Attorney's Office, more than 240 properties in Los Angeles County are currently under investigation or enforcement review for alleged illicit dumping activity. Areas significantly impacted include Lancaster, Palmdale, Lillano, and the Antelope Valley. Additional reported cases exist in Santa Clarita, Acton, Calabasas, Malibu, the San Gabriel Valley, and neighborhood in Ventura County. Existing law under Penal Code Section 374.3 prohibits the damping of waste material or rocks, concrete, asphalt, or dirt upon a public or private road, upon private property without the consent of the owner, or upon a public park or property. This allows a loophole, however, that private landowners and the bankrolling parties are able to exploit with the owner's consent to damp on property for a profit. This is why I'm here today to introduce AB 2310 to protect our national environments and urban communities from being affected by the damages caused by harmful material deposits. In order to ensure the safety of our national environment, we must bolster our productive measures relating to these kinds of repeat violations. This piece of legislation will be essential to providing law enforcement tools they need to safeguard our environment, health, and discourage these repeat offenders from engaging in this illegal activities. As you can see on these props today, these are the amounts of trash that are being dumped in the high desert in my district. You can see the pictures here, how tall they are. There's a picture that show the height of a person. One of them is me visiting those sites. And just the amount of trash that is dumped just on the desert, is it just something that needs to be fixed. Enforcement is one issue, but there's also a lack of enforcement capacities and also the penalties that keep getting ignored. But as you can see in these props here, if you were to a landfill, that's what you see, a legally processed landfill like waste management and of the other ones. I would argue that this is the same thing, except that it's injuring our communities. Like I said in my talking points, it is the environment and the health of the constituents that I represent in the high desert. With that, joining me to testify in support and answer technical questions is Tamar Talcott with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and Erica Schwartz with South Bay Center for Counseling. Go ahead with your witness testimony. Stay with the time frame, please. Thank you. Good morning, members, and to the chair when he returns. I'm Larry Drager. I'm here on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, where I'm the head deputy of our Environmental Crimes Division. So we are proud sponsors of AB 2310. AB 2310 addresses a very timely, significant, and emerging environmental justice issue in communities throughout our state. The problem is the ever-increasing use of lands by profiteering private entities, businesses, and corporations that are essentially creating private, illegal landfills, dump sites where many, many tons of waste material, construction debris, and trash are being dumped on open land. In Southern California this problem became particularly acute after wildfires swept through L County last year Debris from the fires contained hazardous and toxic materials such as lead asbestos arsenic and other heavy metals Contractors trying to save a buck by not disposing of the debris properly started dumping it illegally in open piles in the Antelope Valley and other areas The illegal dumping of this fire debris was only the latest example of an ongoing problem that has been increasing in severity for many years throughout the state. Waste is dumped without any of the protections to the environment or local communities that are seen in legal landfills. It's spread over vast acreages and left to seep into groundwater and be swept by the winds into the surrounding areas and communities. The impact is severe on areas that the public relies on to experience nature, and neighborhoods are almost always inhabited by disenfranchised and underserved communities. AB 2310 will fix this problem. It will strengthen the existing statute by ensuring those who cause large-scale damage are treated differently from small-scale offenders, and it will allow much-needed accountability for these large-scale operators, corporations, and business entities that are adopting 50 cubic yards or more of waste. AB 2310 provides important and necessary tools to deter intentional widespread pollution to the environment and harm to the communities. Thank you so much for your attention to this bill, and on behalf of the L.A. County District Attorney's Office, I ask for your aye votes. Thank you. Do you have another witness testimony, Assemblymember? I do, sir. Thank you. Go ahead. Hello, Chairs and members of the committee. My name is Erica Schwart, and I'm here on behalf of South Bay Center for Counseling, as well as the community members across the Antelope Valley in strong support of AB 2310. I am a resident of the Antelope Valley, specifically in the rural community of Lake Los Angeles. For nearly a decade, since around 2018, our communities have been living in ongoing impacts of illegal dumping. This is not a new issue. It is a persistent and growing problem that has gone unaddressed for a long time. Our communities are not just witnessing the illegal dumping, but we are also its victims over and over again. First, we are penalized by doing the right thing. we pay to have our waste properly disposed of, yet some companies pocket the money and illegally dump these materials instead of complying with local law enforcement. Second, we are victims of the direct environmental and health impacts. Toxic waste is being dumped in our backyards. We are dealing with spontaneous fires, harmful fumes, and pollutants that threaten our soil and water. Families are exposed to conditions that should never have existed in the first place. And third, we are victims as taxpayers. We fund cities and county public work departments, as well as taxes for CalRecycle, to clean up illegal dumping. Yet resources are limited. Some sites are addressed, while others are left behind to sit and decompose and off-gas toxic humes over a period of time. Most concerning is the impact on public health, especially for our youth. In some areas, dumpings exist near schools, which kids walk through on a regular basis because we're rural communities. No community should have to accept this as their normal. California Assembly Bill 2310 is a necessary step forward by clearly defining what qualifies as compost, mulch, and organic waste versus solid waste. This is something that will help close the loopholes on how illegal dumping is being disguised as legitimate activity. It gives agencies the clarity that it needs to identify violations and act on it. This bill is a step in the right direction in ensuring waste is properly categorized, regulated, and no longer used to cover harmful substances. I support this and I hope that you do too. Thank you so much Those in support Good morning Rochelle Beardsley California DA Association Support Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you. Travis Legault with the Rural County Representatives of California, reviewing the amendments, but in support. Hello everyone, my name is Sikhala Lee Shreer and I am 10 years old. Thank you for letting me speak today. I am representing both the school, I lead Lancaster's fourth grade class in a youth program called SBCC Escape Room. I've been participating in community cleanups since I was three, and a big challenge is that no matter how much we clean up, the commercial trucks full of trash keep coming. It has gotten more toxic for our community and is not safe for me to help clean up anymore. I brought with me a letter of support signed by my peers and community members from all over LA County and some from San Bernardino County. Please accept them. I urge you to stand with me in passing AB 2310 for better enforcement of illegal dumping in my community. I would like to grow up in an environment that is clean, but every time I see the trucks drive by, I know things are not going to change. Please help us. Thank you for your testimony. Testimony in opposition. Testimony in opposition? So, pretty hard to follow that up. Yeah. All right. Leslie Caldwell-Houston, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition to AB 2310. While we're very appreciative of the author's agreement to accept amendments, we continue to have some concerns. I do want to specifically thank the author's staff member, Jalen Wise, for reaching out to us and having some discussion with me as late as 9 p.m. last night. We remain opposed unless amended as this bill continues to expand liability to individuals who may lack the requisite intent and who may be acting at the direction of another. Although the amendment attempts to address this by clarifying that individuals acting at the direction of an employer shall not be charged with dumping commercial quantities, this protection is likely too narrow in practice. It would require individuals to establish that the person directing them qualifies as an employer under the law. Many indigent clients work for informal or precarious arrangements that may not meet that definition, yet their conduct would still fall within the statute's reach. Further, the bill with the amendment still risks disproportionately impacting indigent individuals while offering meaningful protection primarily to those in more formal employment relationships who are, in many cases, more likely to have the requisite intent. We are also concerned about the fourth-time misdemeanor provision. Additional criminalization and penalties are always of deep concern. For the above reasons, we respectfully request your no vote. Thank you so much. Go ahead. Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action. While we are very appreciative of the author accepting the committee amendments, we continue to have issues with this bill, increasing criminal penalties of an existing crime and expanding illegal dumping to include construction debris, which isn't properly defined. And as someone who's worked on remodeling homes for many years with my dad, that can contain a lot of different materials. I'd like to also start by noting that for the record, if a person transporting illegal dumping materials has the specific intent to commit illegal dumping, that person can be charged for attempted dumping under current law, Penal Code 21A. This would make the proposed provisions in this bill to explicitly include transporting these materials for the purpose of illegal dumping unnecessary. And as noted in the committee analysis, evidence shows that growing criminal fines increase recidivism, specifically among a population that historically has faced disproportionate punishment in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, there is a great amount of study and evidence surrounding the efficacy behind increased criminal penalties and its impact on crime deterrence. Evidence indicates increasing criminal punishment fails to deter crime. Other studies find that the severity of punishment does not generally have an increased effect on deterrence. Rather, it is the certainty of punishment that has a greater deterrence effect and the severity of the punishment itself. We encourage legislators to reconsider non-carceral alternatives that attempt to get at the root causes of crime and address it there. We must reimagine our approach to our criminal legal system by moving away from the tired and old carceral solutions that plague much of our state. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2310. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Those in opposition? Any in opposition? Bringing it back to the dais, is there a motion or a second? Move the bill. Second. There's been a motion and a second. You have closing remarks? I just wanted to. Oh, go ahead. If I'm not already, I'd like to be a co-author to this. I just want to thank the author for this bill and thank the young lady for giving her testimony as well. We work with Caltrans on a lot of these issues. We work with community cleanups. Earth Day is just around the corner. I represent downtown Los Angeles and surrounding communities, which has become the epicenter in addition to the Anil Valley where people are dumping couches. They're dumping furniture. They're coming from the west side. They're coming from the south side, the east side, the north side. And they're treating our community like it's absolute trash. And that's what this is about. They're telling our communities that we are trash. And that's what this is about. And it's upsetting. It's frustrating. I know that my particular street where I live in downtown is oftentimes illegal dumping as well, where they've thrown couches. And then, unfortunately, individuals have set those couches on fire, which set my apartment building on fire, and they had to deal with that situation. And so if they're not getting penalized and they're continuing to do this, they're going to continue to do it over and over. And we sat through this committee where I had a copper wire theft that talked about how this is a part of that issue because when the lights are out, nobody's watching what's happening, and there are no cameras or anything that's working in that area, so they constantly dump it. And so I challenge those who have concerns about this to join me off the 110 and the 10 freeway, off of Grand Avenue. And you see this happening time and time again. And it's really disappointing that that's how they're treating our community. And just the amount of debris and trash that gets picked up from the side of the freeway. Now, it does provide good jobs, but we don't want to trash California. I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward today And I like to be listed as a co Absolutely Thank you Assemblymember Gonzalez Gonzalez Senator Morales I like to just say something really really quickly This is not the first legislative remedy that been brought forward to this body And I will tell you that all previous attempts have failed. And it's very, very frustrating being a person who lives out in these rural areas. The desert is a target-rich circumstance because we have miles and miles and miles of open desert. And I appreciate the fact that you kind of gave a visual impact of how that's just one spot. Yes. I'm telling you, it's all over. And there is incentive because of the regulatory circumstance on how to get rid of trash and especially hazardous waste. There is a huge financial incentive for a lot of professional dumping. And that is what's happening. It's professionals. As you saw the amount of debris that was dumped there, that wasn't somebody from their backyard. That was very, very professionally dumped. And there's no real disincentive to stop it. So this is what this bill is trying to do, is bring attention and express intolerance for this kind of behavior. As a society, we need to actually, I mean, there is a lot of intent for regulatory circumstances with how we manage our waste. But sometimes it has a negative consequence like this because there's such a regulatory limit and it's so expensive to process that waste. They're encouraged to do this. And right now, even if they're caught, even if they're caught, it's still well worth it. So we've got to stop that. And this bill attempts to do that. And so I'm very thankful that you brought it forward, and I pray it survives. Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. Any other questions, comments from the dais? I'm here. Sharp call. Thank you. I, too, would like to thank the author for bringing this forward. I did not plan on speaking on this, but after even seeing the pictures and hearing more, I do want to acknowledge that I also understand the opposition's positions as its concern about the increased penalties and putting penalties on property owners and others who may not have been responsible for the dumping permitting and so forth. So I completely understand that as well. In one of my unincorporated areas, which is Spring Valley, they're doing exactly what you're showing. This land has become a dumping ground, and it is professional dumping that's happening over there. And we have a lot of unhoused population that is also there. And so I've taken the tour, I've done the walkthrough, and I've asked how is this even possible to have, I mean, when I say the pictures you showed, it's about that much, if not more. The smells, all these different types of things, and it's right in the heart of the unincorporated area of Spring Valley. So I understand where you're coming from. I do appreciate you bringing this forward. I'm in the process of addressing this now in my own district. We're talking to our county board of supervisors and others to figure out how we can get this cleared out. But I wanted to acknowledge that I also understand the issues in regards to the penalties and so forth. But we have to do something because the air itself is unbreathable, honestly, in those areas because of the amount of product that's being dumped. So, go ahead. Thank you for that. Any other questions, comments? Mr. Chair, if I could just add something I completely forgot, Ms. Sharp-Collins reminded me. Many commercial properties in my area as well. I represent the arts district and the industrial district in Los Angeles. And many of my businesses have been complaining that their insurance is getting cut because of the legal dumping and debris in those areas In addition when they challenge the insurance companies who don want to insure the properties their insurance companies are sending, to my understanding, drones to go double check if the commercial property owners are lying or not. And then when they start to see the debris, they immediately cancel them and then they can't get insured. And so many times when there's broken windows or there's other issues as a result of the dumping, it's cheaper for them to just pay out of their pocket to replace it than it is for them to go with the insurance. That's if they're even still insured. And so to Ms. Sharp-Collins's point, yes, I agree with you and your points on that. So I'm hoping you guys can work to a happy medium on that. But but it is a fair point. So I do want to acknowledge that as well. Yeah. Thank you. If I might through the chair. Yeah, I just want to I appreciate your comments. And I'm obviously author and your reasons for moving this bill forward. But as the member from Palmdale mentioned that, you know, there is an incentive within the regulatory framework. And rather than trying to push carceral solutions to this problem, we should be looking at non-carceral solutions. And that's something that we should be examining more closely is trying to get rid of these incentives for people to illegally dump or have this profession even. And if they get caught, you know, it's cheaper for them to do that. So we just try to encourage members here to try to move away from these punitive approaches because we have so much in our punicle already. But thank you for raising those points. Thank you so much. Assemblymember Alanis. Thank you, Assemblymember Ramos. Love the bill. Obviously working in the county as the deputy sheriff and seeing illegal dumping going on everywhere. It's great to see this bill. And I'm obviously big on consequences, but I'm also about rehabilitation. So I think consequence parts, I'm hoping will deter a lot of this from happening or continuing to happen. So I appreciate this. And I'd also ask to be a co-author. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. Any other questions, comments? Hearing none, would you like to close? Thank you. Thank you all for your comments. As you stated, this is not unique to the high desert. It's in big urban areas like in downtown LA. More work needs to be done, absolutely. We need to continue working on this issue, which again is affecting not only urban areas, but rural communities. And the effects of what the environment is going to encounter is directly related to those that live nearby. So with that, I thank you for your comments. This bill will combat unlawful dumping by closing the gaps, so remaining enforcement tools to address repeat offenders, large-scale commercial dumping operations, and property owners should knowledgeably facilitate such activities. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Carrillo. And just to confirm, you have accepted committee amendments? I accepted committee amendments, yes, sir. Thank you. With that, Chair Schultz recommends an aye vote. Please call the roll. For Item 28, AB 2310 by Assemblymember Carrillo, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Horabidian? Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins, aye. Thank you, committee members. Thank you. I almost called you up All right. Thank you, everyone. We are going to take Assemblymember Kalra's bill next, followed by Assemblymember Wyn. I will just note that because she has press involved, we're going to advance that bill earlier in the day. Mr. Kalra, you'll be presenting on AB 1958, correct? Yes. All right. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Chair. Thank you. AB 1958 makes several clarifying changes to the procedures for establishing a disparity claim under the California Ways for Justice Act to streamline litigation and provide consistent guidance to the courts. Since the RJA went into effect over five years ago, only four disparity claims have been litigated to conclusion, and in only one of those cases, the trial court found a violation had been established. This lack of claims can be attributed to several factors that have created unnecessary delays, problematic barriers, and inconsistent application across the state. First, defendants often face difficulty obtaining relevant data, either because district attorney's offices claim it takes years to assemble or that their data systems do not capture it. Second, defense attorneys have had to repeat resource-intensive litigation to request nearly identical data sets in different cases across the county rather than relying on already produced data. Third, courts have been inconsistent on several procedural aspects of the RJA, including whether claims require both a statistical analysis and non-statistical evidence, when a district attorney must present race-neutral reasons and how to analyze race-neutral reasons, and whether the RJA was intended to apply to the entirety of the criminal process, such as plea offers. AB 1958 will provide procedural clarification for the requirements to establish an RJA disparity claim under Penal Code section 745A3 or A4. Specifically, that a defendant is not required to conduct both the statistical analysis and present non-statistical evidence, which was the original intent of the RJA, and that the prosecution must produce evidence showing disparities are explained by race-neutral factors. Additionally, the bill will reduce delays and decrease duplicative time-intensive litigation by allowing counsel to request previously produced data in comparable cases. Lastly, AB 1958 makes it explicit that no part of the criminal process is insulated from the RJA, including plea bargains. Altogether, these changes continue to build upon the legislature's work to address racial discrimination and bias in the criminal legal system and make it so the RJA can be implemented as intended, whether that be answering procedural uncertainties or closing unintended loopholes. Here to testify and support are Belle Yan, Assistant Professor and Supervising Attorney at the University of San Francisco School of Law Racial Justice Clinic, and Cecilia Chavez with Silicon Valley Debug. Good morning. My name is Belle Yan, and I'm an Assistant Professor and Supervising Attorney at the University of San Francisco's Racial Justice Clinic. The clinic focuses on addressing systemic racism within the criminal legal system, including supporting the implementation of the Racial Justice Act and litigating post-conviction RJA claims. In 2021, the legislature enacted the RJA to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing. And in 2022, it extended the RJA to individuals previously convicted. Under the RJA, an individual can challenge racial disparities in charges, convictions, and sentences. is. A disparity exists when people of one race are charged, convicted, or sentenced more harshly than people of other races who do the same thing. In the five years since the RJA has been enacted, only four disparity claims have been litigated to completion. This is not because racial disparities don't exist in the criminal legal system. In San Diego County alone, 14.9% of black defendants convicted of killing a white victim received the death penalty, compared to 3.2% of white defendants killing a white victim. In the past 50 years, not a single white defendant convicted of killing a black or Latinx victim has been sentenced to death in San Diego. These disparity claims are not failing on their merits. They're unheard because of the procedural paths of proving them is unclear. AB 1958 makes three targeted changes to ensure that the RJA's original intent is effectuated. First, it clarifies that a disparity violation can be established by using either statistical or non-statistical evidence. Both are not required. Second, it requires that the prosecution, when refuting a claim, must prove by preponderance of the evidence that any racial disparity is due to race-neutral factors. And third, it saves judicial resources by allowing counsel to use data from prior cases, avoiding duplicative requests. AB 1958 also makes clear that no stage of the criminal legal process, especially plea negotiations, is exempt from the protections of the RJA. AB 1958 will provide courts consistent guidance by giving attorneys a workable framework and individuals a genuine opportunity to present their claims. We strongly urge an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. You're next. And good morning. My name is Cecilia Chavez. I'm an organizer with Silicon Valley DEBUG, a longstanding community organization based in San Jose that supports families and loved ones across California who are facing the court system. As a proud co-sponsor of the bill, we see this as a vital need to clarify and make the RJA as consistent as possible throughout California. We support over 10 different directly impacted community organizations across California who are actively participating and supporting families in court who are seeking relief under the RJA. The procedural barriers that many families have faced could be solved with the clarification that is spelled out under AB 1958. We sat in courtrooms for the RJA hearings all the way from San Diego, Orange County, San Mateo, Yolo, Contra Costa, and especially our own Santa Clara County. And in most cases, the holdup has been access to information to sustain a claim. Although data accessibility has been addressed in another bill, its access in a timely manner continues to be prevalent. As we heard prosecutors say, the data collection would take years, in some cases even up to 5 to 10 years, all while incarcerated loved ones wait for their day in court. Other prosecutors have stated that defense was going on a fishing expedition and wanted to limit access to data already produced. In the same county, DAs are restricting the use of data that was produced for one case to be used in another case, even though the data fields requested were the same. This delay in access is just one barrier their loved ones face. If you couple that with not only needing to show disparity with limited data, but also having to show non-statistical evidence, we land at the current place that we're at. People having to wait years for their claim denied because of the way the court interprets the RJA. What we're saying is simple. If data already exists and has been made available to the defense, make that data accessible for similar cases. And if there is enough statistical data to show disparities, that should be enough to move forward with the claim and allow the court to analyze if a violation was committed. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. And Assemblymember Cara, thank you for the presentation. Next, we'll take the Me Too's in support of the bill. Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, Priority Support. Lynn Berkeley Baskin Justice to Jobs Sacramento and La Defensa in LA in support Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California proud co and strong support Good morning. Emily Harris on behalf of Californians United for Responsible Budget in strong support and Sister Warriors in support. Danica Rodarm on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union, Local 148 and Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, proud co-sponsors and support. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and Enthusiastic Support. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice and proud co-sponsors and support. Thank you. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice and Strong Support. Courtney Hanson with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners and Strong Support and Co-sponsor. Morgan Zamora for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, proud co-sponsor of this legislation, as well as for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in strong support. Coloma Serna from Saving Lives in Custody, California, in strong support. Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California, in strong support. Emiliano Del Rio, representing Fresh Lifelines for Youth, in strong support. Duan Williams with Silicon Valley Debug, in strong support. Alicia Chavez with Silicon Valley Debug, in support. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support. Glenn Backus, Drug Policy Alliance, in support. Ariana Montez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support. Leilani Maldonado with Fresh Life Science for Youth with strong support. All right. Thank you, everybody. Next, we'll take the opposition testimony. Come on down. We have two chairs, two microphones, and you have two minutes each to address the committee. Good morning, Chair and members. Rochelle Beardsley with the California District Attorneys Association. I'll start off by saying that CDAA believes that any discrimination on the basis of race has no place in the administration of justice. It's because of these steadfast principles and our commitment to the rule of law, the fundamental principles of the proper presentation of evidence, and our obligation to protect justly obtained verdicts that we must oppose AB 1958. There are several issues with the current makeup of the bill. I would borrow some words I heard in the committee this morning. It's premature. Historically, the improper influence of bias was already a means of redress in both state and federal courts. The Racial Justice Act actually provides a broader relief for racial discrimination in the criminal justice system that is available under federal equal protection principles. It's premature because California courts are still addressing the proper measure of implementation and whether there are constitutional infirmities within its framework. The state of the already developed jurisprudence implementing the act would be open to new questions with the fundamental altering proposed by this piece of legislation. We also cannot ignore the fiscal impacts of this bill. Statewide these impacts can be ignored Based on current Racial Justice Act litigation Contra Costa County estimated no less than 81 in DA resources being consumed per case just for discovery alone In Santa Clara, they ran a test case to measure the cost of pulling, reviewing, and properly redacting files and determined that one single case could cost up to $750,000. dollars. There's also an issue with undefined terms and shifting standards of proof of a negative. This bill would change the basis of comparing cases for disparate treatment or impact. So under current law, claims made under the act are analyzed between cases. So you're comparing the same case or the same crime to the same crime. This would change that to a comparison of similarly situated individuals who have engaged in civil conduct. What does that mean? I apologize to cut you off there, but it has been two minutes. Thank you. We'll hopefully get an answer when we go to the Q&A portion. Next witness, two minutes. Mr. Chairman, members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC. The main concern, we have several concerns that we agree with the DAs. We appreciate it. But our main concern is about the empirical data. Our question, I guess, to the author and to the sponsors of bills, whether or not they consider the RIPAA data that's by the Racial Identity and Profiling Committee to be empirical and to be used by the courts. We have constantly disagreed with the reports coming out, how they use it, their methodology. We've actually hired and used national experts on racial identity issues to look at their reports annually and to do basically an additional report using the correct methodologies. They've disagreed with them. So, just to be clear in this committee, that body was created to help create policies, recommended policies, and training for law enforcement, not to have their data used in the courts as empirical data. I just wanted to state that for the record. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Perry. Next, we'll hear the others hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill. Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, also in respectful opposition. Thank you. All right. Anyone else hoping to be heard? Handsome man. Hmm? Handsome man. I'm going to ask you a question about that. All right. Next, we'll go to questions from the committee. Mr. Vice Chair, you ready? Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So as comments were being made, I was writing down some notes. So from University of San Francisco or even Ms. Chavez, you guys were talking about data collection will take years. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that? Like what collection are you talking about? So the data collection that I think Ms. Chavez was referring to is the data, it's actually the data that the prosecution's offices already have. But the time that it's supposed to take years is the time that the DA is saying that they have to retrieve it from storage, from their computers, etc. We're looking, often defense attorneys are looking for charges and convictions, all of which are being filed by the district attorney's office. and that's why we believe that they're the ones who have that data. Okay, and so in more of my notes as I was going, as you guys were talking about, so the data that's being requested or the data that's not being available, this is the data you're talking about? That is most of the data that we're talking about, yes. Okay, and then opposition just brought up data collected by the RIPA board. Is that also the data we looking for as well I believe the data excuse me I believe that the RIPA data is available publicly And is that what we want to be allowed into courts I believe, depending on the relevance on that data, I believe the court, excuse me, the judges will then adjudicate whether that data is relevant to the claim itself. Okay, and then the other thing I have, and Arthur, if you want to, you can jump in as well, but this was, I thought I wrote down the year, this was what, 21, I think it was? and since then, the courts have only done four cases or six, somewhere around there, very low number. Do we know a little bit more? Can we elaborate a little bit more on that on why? So the four cases that we're discussing are the disparity claims. There's four ways to show a violation of the Racial Justice Act, two of which is about racial disparity specifically. So there has been many more than four claims in the two other ways that the Racial Justice Act could be violated. but in relation to the racial disparities showing that a group of people of one race is charged harsher, excuse me, charged, convicted, or sentenced harsher than people of another group. Of those kinds of cases, there's only been four that's been litigated from the beginning to the end. So there's been other cases that's been brought forth to the courts. The courts have just only chosen to act on it on the four or six cases. But disparity claims are one of the types of claims that can be brought. So in terms of disparity claims, only four have actually gone all the way through litigation to conclusion. And so do we think that's the judiciary's maybe lack of the intent knowing of the bill? Or do we think it's like an educational component that we need to work on? I think it's a combination of factors. I know there's a suggestion that there's a lot of like every year there's an RJA bill. And the reason why is both in terms of clearing up procedural aspects of it, as well as ensuring there are remedies, as well as ensuring that in this case here, there's race neutral reasons that are put forth as to why disparities exist. And so like any other piece, I presume like any piece of landmark legislation, especially in the early years, it does require more guidance from the legislature to ensure that the intent of the legislation is being pursued appropriately. Thank you. And for opposition, I know I've been asking, you guys have any comments on that as well? No. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair. Other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. Is there a motion? Okay. We have a motion by Ramos, a second by Dr. Sharp-Collins. All right. Mr. Colorado, would you like to close? I just want to thank the chair and the committee staff for the work on the bill and thank my colleagues and would appreciate your support. Well, thank you very much, Assemblymember. Members, I am recommending an eye on AB 1958, but I would like to give a bit of context to the recommendation. I hope you'll indulge me. The Racial Justice Act was a truly historic piece of legislation that sought to confront a reality that many of us who have practiced criminal law have long been conscious of, the systemic racism inherent in our criminal justice system. For decades, people of color, particularly black and Latino people, have suffered disproportionate charging and sentencing practices not suffered by people of other races, and that's borne by the data. The RGA's promise was providing meaningful judicial review of those discriminatory practices and, where appropriate, providing a remedy to ameliorate the attendant harms, both to the individual and community. However, a word of caution, since it was enacted in 2020, the legislative process has amended the RJA on three separate occasions, not including the proposal before us today. Courts and practitioners have repeatedly expressed concerns to this committee that the evolving changes to the act's requirements are making it difficult to develop reliable precedent. The many RJA cases before the Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court may provide some clarity, but that process is complicated, in my view, by regular changes to the law. So I offer this as a comment of the perspective of the chair as we approach next year in the legislative session. I think we would be wise to give this important law a chance to breathe and to develop the precedent that we need before making major programmatic changes. With that said, I want to thank you, Assemblymember Kalra, for your tireless commitment to fairness and equality in our criminal courts. I believe that your efforts, as well as those of your sponsors and everyone speaking in support today, have made a better criminal justice system for Californians. With that, I do recommend an aye. We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll. For item 10, AB 1958 by Assemblymember Calra, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? No. Alanis, no. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Harbidian? Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Wynn? Wynn, not voting. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins, aye. That measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everyone. And next, we have Assemblymember Wynn presenting AB 2727. And then before the lunch break, we will hear Assemblymember Soria's bill. For Mr. Gonzalez and any other bills outstanding, we will probably take those up after the lunch break. Mr. Jeff Gonzalez, correct. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I first want to thank you and the committee for working with us through many of these amendments. I'm sorry, one moment, Assemblymember. If we can, to the best we can, keep that door closed just to keep the hallway noise out. That's great. Okay, Assemblymember, please restart whenever you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And members, I want to first thank you and thank your team for working with us through the amendments and strengthening this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. I'm here to present AB 2727. It is about making sure elderly parole system reflects the seriousness of certain crimes. Okay. Excuse me. I'm sorry. If we could have the sergeants please inform folks we're not going to let them in the room for a period of two to three minutes so we can all hear Assemblymember Wynn. The committee is telling me they're having a difficult time. Okay. Please hold everyone out in holding. We'll bring them in in a moment. Assemblymember Wynn, when you're ready. Thank you Mr Chair I here to present AB 2727 It about making sure our elderly program system reflects the seriousness of certain crimes especially when it comes to sexual offenses against children When predators prey on our children, the impact is devastating, and it stays with victims for life. These are real people and real families who carry that harm long after the crime itself. We've seen cases that raise serious concerns about how this program is being applied to individuals convicted of violent sex offenses, and it's clear we need to draw a clear line. AB 2727 takes a targeted approach. It will be clear this bill is focused on the most serious cases, especially those involving children and multiple victims. It raises the threshold so that individuals must be at least 65 years old and have served at least 25 years before they can even be considered for release. It also strengthens the review process by requiring that these individuals are screened before release, and if concerns are identified, referred for further evaluation. This adds an important layer of review to make sure these decisions are being made carefully and consistently. This bill addresses a real gap in the system and ensures we are getting this right for the most serious cases, especially when it comes to protecting victims. At the end of the day, this is about protecting our communities and making sure the most serious crimes are treated with the seriousness they deserve. Members and Mr. Chair, here in support today is Sacramento District Attorney Tin Ho, a co-sponsor of the bill, along with Orange County District Attorney's Office and a crime survivor, Tarina. I'd like to turn it over for Tarina to speak. Good morning, Chair and Committee. I'm here to tell you a story regarding one of the worst days of my life. While I was seven years old playing outside, I was approached by a man named David Allen Funston. He approached me with a necklace trying to get me close to him. He then asked me to take pictures. I knew better, so I did not go close to him. He left and came back approaching me with candy, trying to get me to come close to him again. He would leave again, approaching me with more candy, open candy, touching me. I fastly moved away from him. He was able to eventually lure me into a laundry room where he asked to see my bottom and attempted to pull down my pants. I quickly ran away from him. I was able to do that and return to my mother. I was only seven years old. I testified in the trial where he was convicted. and sentenced to life. Now, 30 years later, I am hearing that my real-life boogeyman is able to get released early. Now, 30 years later, with children of my own and a daughter that is the mini sorry sorry It a mini me Sorry Have about 30 more seconds. Whenever you're ready. I'm so sorry. 30 years later, with a daughter that is a mini me, I'm hearing that my real life boogeyman can get released early because someone believes that that he is old enough elderly. He is only 64. He will never. He will never stop hurting children. He is dangerous. He is always, always be dangerous. He please fix this terrible law. I know it affects my case and many others. Please help Assemblymember Nguyen pass the bill and protect the children. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. District Attorney, the floor is yours. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I also want to thank Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen for her courage and dedication in bringing this measured balance balance and necessary bill forward. At its core, AB 2727 is about keeping our communities safe, but also honoring the promises we make to victims. Because right now, those promises are being broken. When we prosecute violent sex offenders, victims step forward. They testify, they relive the trauma. They endure hours of cross-examination. And when a sentence is finally impose, they trust that that sentence means something. They believe that the person who harmed them will never see the light of day again and remain behind bars. But when the sentence is shortened by elderly parole, we are breaking that promise. And the damage is not just abstract. It is personal. It is lasting. And it undermines the confidence, the very system that we have in place to protect victims. I've heard directly from victims. This is about justice. It's about public safety. Many of the individuals being released have not completed the programs necessarily to make sure that they are rehabilitated. And in many cases, these programs aren't even in place to be able to assist those individuals. AB 2727 addresses that. By raising elderly parole to age 65, requiring at least 25 years of continuous incarceration and expanding the eligibility to include sexually violent predators designation, it will protect victims and uphold our promises. It closes the gap, and we have seen the gap. Most recently, we have David Funston in this case that we're talking about. We also have Paul Vogelsang, who molested six little boys between the ages of 4 and 11, who was sentenced to 355 years to life, and yet the parole board initially recommended release. We oppose that. And right now we are asking that you vote yes for AB 2727 because it ensures that we keep our promises to victims. Thank you. Thank you both very much for your testimony. And ma'am, thank you very much for your bravery and your courage to be here today and to share your story with all of us. Of course. All right. Next, we'll take the me tos. Please come forward at this time. Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association. Strong support. Mr Chair and members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff Association in support Robert Messman on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney Association Proud co support Julio DeLeon on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and support. Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Riverside County District Attorney in strong support. My name is James. I support. Rochelle Beardsley, California DA's Association, Sacramento County DA's Office. Strong support. Heidi Gurke with Love Never Fails in strong support. Ashley Faison in strong support. Daniel Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in support. Emerald Bay Rubio, therapist and survivor of decades of sexual violations and trauma. Strong support. Vanessa Russell, founder of Love Never Fails, and strong support. Charlene Richardson, and that's my daughter, strong support. All right. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. I see a few folks coming forward. Once you take your seats and begin speaking, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee. Oh, I apologize. You can come forward and take your seats, but I'm told we actually have more folks hoping to be heard in support, so we'll bring them in at this time. But if you're testifying in opposition, you can definitely grab a seat and get ready. Okay, and if you're walking in and you want to be heard in support, please use the microphone over here by Mr. Weber. Mr. Bullock, we were waiting for you. Thank you, sir. David Bullock has to be in lines in strong support of this legislation. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I believe that completes the support testimony. Now to our opposition witnesses. Great. Thank you. My name is Courtney Hanson, and I'm here representing the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. We've worked with people in California women's prisons for over 30 years and have supported hundreds of people through the life or parole process. In March, we released No Time to Wait, a report with the Policy Advocacy Center at UC Berkeley on the aging population in the women's prisons and the need to release more elders from these facilities. Elders in prisons face unique and often severe health care issues that go unaddressed. The costs to their health are magnified by higher rates of pre-existing health conditions. Inadequate or in some cases abusive health care in prison exacerbates conditions associated with aging. Research proves that people age much faster in prison. Chronic illness, long-term stress, and limited health care mean incarcerated people often experience serious health conditions similar to people 10 to 15 years older in the general population. In reality, most people are far older than 50 by the time they are actually released because many are denied parole multiple times before their grant. As just one example of the impacts of aging in prison, two of our members who are in their 60s and living with dementia don't even know where they are, and they are unable to receive the assistance they need. Many of our members have been in specialized medical beds for years, unable to take care of themselves. California is paying an astronomical amount to keep older people in prison who are safe to bring home. without the custody costs, CDCR health care for one elder per year costs as much as $237,000. thousand dollars. With custody costs, that's well over $300,000 per year, and these costs continue to rise. Before long, we'll be looking at half a million dollars per year to incarcerate a single elder. Between 2014 and 2023, an average of only 12 people per year from both women's prisons were approved for elderly parole. We strongly believe that California should be strengthening, not undermining the elder parole program to address the crisis of its rapidly aging prison population. And I'm sorry, that's two minutes. And for these reasons, we respectfully oppose. All right, well done. All right, two minutes, please. Good morning, I'm Keith Wadley from Uncommon Law. We represent survivors of harm who are incarcerated. One of our complaints about the parole board is that it hasn't come close to complying with the statutory mandate to normally grant parole, so we oppose this effort to further limit access to freedom for those who've been locked up for decades. Now, what do sponsors of AB 2727 mean when they call this early release? They don't mean earlier than public safety would require. There have been zero cases of sexual reoffense for those released on elderly parole. So don't they really just mean releases earlier than some survivors would prefer for reasons of their fear and anger? Penal Code Section 1170 says, quote, the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation and successful reintegration in the community, end quote. In other words, punishment driven solely by public outcry is officially not who we say we are. Instead, we say we believe in rehabilitation. We also have one of the strictest processes in the world for assessing risk. And although I believe we could safely release a lot more people, we do have one of the lowest recidivism rates in history. This bill seeks to capitalize off the anger of survivors instead of offering the healing most would prefer. Imagine how our policies would support a different response to violence if we embraced a universal right to heal. Nearly every person you would deny relief with this bill was a survivor of sexual violence, long before they harmed anyone else. Well, we think those survivors matter, too. Lastly, part of this bill seeks to extend the sexually violent predator law. But existing law allows civil commitment only when, quote, it is likely that the person will engage in a sexually violent criminal behavior, period. End quote. No person is ever granted parole by this board if they believe the person is likely to engage in violent criminal behavior. Therefore, this bill is redundant, expensive, and serves no public safety purpose. Please vote no. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's in opposition. Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed. Ariana Montez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition. Lynn Berkeley Baskin, Justice to Jobs Coalition, oppose. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the San Francisco Office of the Public Defender in respectful opposition. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. Paloma Center with Saving Lives in Custody, California in opposition. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Good afternoon. Emily Harris on behalf of Californians United for a Responsible Budget and Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in strong opposition. Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition. Katerina Sayeli on behalf of Community Works in opposition All right thank you everyone for your testimony today Just checking hopefully there no one else out in the hallway hoping to be heard Just going to give that a second. Okay, I think we're safe to move forward. Turning it over to the dais, Assemblymember Lackey. Yeah, thank you. First of all, let me begin by saying I would love to be a co-author on this particular bill. And I heard from the opposition a very critical term, and that's heal. We have a hyper focus on offender forgiveness and healing. But what we just saw today, just a few moments ago, was the fact that many, many, many years ago, something very terrible happened. and an offender engaged in behavior that is completely societally unacceptable. Did you see healing? I leave that up to you. The pain, the suffering, and the impact of such egregious behavior deserves consideration. Our system of justice is based on fairness. It becomes a very delicate, delicate issue when you talk about fairness. Because what is fair about certain behaviors? And how do we remedy that? And how do we forgive? Or do we forgive? And when do we forgive? One thing that I will clearly state is a 50. I don't care if you age a little more in a difficult environment. I don't argue that that's a reality. But there's a reason they're there. And I would tell you that they are not elderly at 50. They're not. Not by any reasonable assessment are they elderly. They might be older and they might have had difficult circumstances. I'll agree with that. But come on, we just saw before us the reality of a victim who suffered dearly. But yet we're quick to have these arbitrary determinations of when someone should be considered for release. when a judge and a jury have already imposed a sentence based on facts. But all of a sudden, we want to relax those judgments based on arbitrary decisions by public policymakers. Shameful. Thank you for bringing this forward, and it clearly has my support. Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. Mr. Ramos. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember Nguyen, for bringing this bill forward. And to your witness, your voice does resonate and does matter here, at least here within this diocese and in this room. And with that, I'd like to be added as a principal co-author to your bill. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Other questions or comments from members of the committee? Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, also would like to be a co-author if I'm not already. I was also disturbed by the comments made by the opposition actually my colleague had brought up actually underlined it saying universal right to heal you said but yet we had a victim right here a survivor here telling this Unlike most in this room I probably investigated more child cases than most in this room And dealing with my survivors and working with them and making sure that they're in a safe place is really hard to get to. And when you're in the court process and they do take, they get the sentence that they think they're comfortable with and they were able to live with, and then to find out years later that it meant nothing. All those days, weeks spent in court, testifying, finding out what charge or what sentence they were going to get, just to find out that years later they're just going to get out and they're going to be there wherever they want to be and enjoy themselves. I came up here four years ago, and I've noticed, as was pointed out today, that the victim's voice doesn't really matter so much. It's usually the responsibles, the abusers that are normally getting the voice up here. And I am happy to say that, yeah, I do hear more victims' voices are being heard now and are hopefully getting louder and louder to help make sure that they ensure that justice continues and that the ability to deal with what's going on up here hopefully makes sense to some people. So I, for one, hope to see more bills like this, and I'm very happy. I mean, I wouldn't mind raising the level up a little bit more than what you're asking for, but I'm good with what we have for now, and I'll take it. So thank you, and I'll be supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Anyone else hoping to make a comment? Okay, I believe we need a motion and a second. Second. Okay, motion by Alanis, second by Lackey. Seeing no further question or comment. Chair, do I get, can I respond to a comment? No, you can't. I'm sorry, you can't without a question. I thought there was a question about the right to heal. Sir, I'm sorry, I understand your desire to speak. I'm happy to ask you a question, but it is wholly inappropriate to have an outburst like that. So I will ask you, if you have a brief response, maybe a minute or less, to any questions, please, at this time, I would like to hear it. I appreciate that. It's about the universal right to heal. I mean that. Universal. Everyone should have a right to heal. Imagine if we embraced that. If we embraced that, we wouldn't have 30 years from now survivors who are in prison trying to find their way home. We also wouldn't have survivors who are coming to this hearing, to this committee, seeking relief from the harm they experience and seeking it from a system unable and undesigned to deliver it. Universal right to healing would fix all of this. Thank you. Thank you for the answer. Okay. No other questions? Assemblymember Nguyen, your chance to close. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for your words. I want to thank Tarina for finding the courage to come here and testify today. She has lived this trauma and this nightmare for over 30 years now. And I agree there needs to be a universe to heal, that we all need to heal. But some people, when this trauma happens to them, they use it as a way to fight back and they use it as a way to be able to spread the word about what had happened to them and don't want it to happen to any other child, especially their own. Others use it in other ways to be able to harm others. Those aren the ones that I feel like have healed in the way in which we should continue to release them out in the community to cause more harm I want to be clear that I am in no way trying to take away the elderly parole program I believe in it I believe that there have been individuals that are incarcerated that have rehabilitated that deserve to be released out here and be contributors to the community. But when you create or when you harm children as young as four years old multiple times, and when you have had multiple victims to where you have found a way to lure kids in and be able to violently sexually molest or rape them, then no, I don't believe those individuals deserve an opportunity to come out here without guardrails, without experts, without a clear line to decide whether or not these individuals are going to continue to exercise these horrible, horrible, horrible offenses again and cause harm to other little children or other individuals. This is my second attempt at running this bill. And I've worked really hard in ensuring that we not only protect families and children, but made it so that way those that qualify for elderly parole still do qualify for this. And with that, Mr. Chair and members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Assembly Member. I'll be brief in my comments. I really mean it when I say that I understand and respect and appreciate the passionate testimony that we hear from all sides on this issue. There was a reference to 1170 of the Penal Code, and I wanted to briefly cite it because all too often in this committee we talk about what are we doing here? What's the purpose of the Public Safety Committee and our criminal justice system? And I actually think what's been codified in law says it pretty clearly. The legislature finds and declares that the purpose of sentencing is public safety and not either or, but and to reduce recidivism achieved through punishment, rehabilitation and restorative justice. The point that I'm not I'm trying to make is that as you come, as all of you who will come back before me in this room, I encourage you not to think of it as an either or. It's a three legged stool. It's all the above. The purposes of our justice system is to punish and deter criminal conduct, but it is also to promote rehabilitation, to seek restorative justice, and to allow for those who will reintegrate into our society a true pathway to have a second chance in life. You don't get to come in here and say it's one or the other. It is both. It is all the above. The last thing I'll say, Mr. Vice Chair, piggybacking off of your comment, in my short time here, I believe that every voice is being heard. I take pride in the fact that a lot of you walk out of this room probably unhappy with me to some degree, but happy in other ways. That shows the process is working. Every voice matters here. The scales of justice should be balanced. It shouldn't be weighted so heavily that one side feels they have no voice at the table. I believe this bill furthers that purpose, balances the scales. And for that purpose, I do recommend deny for today. For item 36, AB 2727 by Assemblymember Nguyen, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Parvidian? Blackie? Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? That bill is out. It remains on call for absent members to be added in. Thank you, everybody. Sincerely, thank you. Colleagues, we are going to stay a little bit late. We're going to hear one more bill before the lunch break. We have Assemblymember Soria who's been patiently waiting to present AB 2276. Staff for Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez, if they're listening in, he will be reporting right after the lunch break to room 127 across the hallway to present his bill. All absent members will need to report at 1.30 p.m. promptly. Assemblymember Soria, thank you for your patience. We appreciate it. The floor is yours. And I will note, Assemblymember, you did ask for prior permission to use a visual. Thank you for asking for prior permission. That is granted. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments, and I thank the chair and committee for the work that you guys did with us to get this bill to the place it is today. AB 2276, as proposed to be amended, establishes a targeted five-year pilot program in seven counties for the installation of active intelligence speed assistance, or ISA devices in the vehicles of those convicted of severe speeding and reckless driving offenses. California continues to experience a traffic safety crisis. An average of 12 people killed on our roads every single day, and one-third of those fatalities are speed-related. Speeding doesn't just increase the likelihood of a crash, it dramatically increases the severity of injuries and the likelihood of death when a collision occurs. These are not just statistics. Behind every one of these preventable deaths are devastated families and communities. While existing traffic fines influence the behavior of many drivers, they have proven insufficient to deter super speeders. License suspension is likewise flouted by approximately 75% of drivers with suspended licenses. To address this problem, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators released model legislation earlier this year supporting the use of active ISA for drivers convicted of serious speeding offenses, an approach also supported by the National Transportation Safety Board. Active ISA is an aftermarket device which can be installed on vehicles to directly prevent the driver from accelerating beyond the local speed limits. States across the country are advancing policies requiring the installation of active ISA devices for those convicted of serious driving offenses. It is time that California adopts the use of life-saving technology. AB 2276 creates a framework for courts to order the installation of the active ISA devices for offenders convicted of speeding over 100 miles per hour, reckless driving, or engaging in an exhibition of speed. This is a targeted evidence-based intervention focused on drivers convicted of serious speeding offenses, not a broad mandate for ordinary Californians. Judges would have the discretion to order ISA device installations for up to six months for a first offense with longer mandated installation terms for repeat offenders based on the number and severity of prior convictions. Costs for the ISA device are structured on an income-based cost schedule to ensure fairness and accessibility. In the end, AB 2276 will save lives and hold those who recklessly speed accountable in a way that directly addresses their dangering driving habits. Here with me today to testify in support of AB 2276 are Dr. Julie Nicholson, a member of Families for Safe Streets, and Larissa Cespedes on behalf of STEER Safe Partnership Good morning Chair and Committee I Julie Nicholson I a crash survivor I'm also the mother of three. I'm an educator and as introduced, I'm a member of San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets. On January 4, 2020, I was running in the Panhandle in San Francisco. And I want you to imagine being me because I was just running along listening to music and enjoying myself when a speeding driver ran a red light and was so reckless that he ricocheted off another car and came into the park. Or I saw him coming at me. He crashed into me head on and threw me about 20 feet. Now I broke my neck and my back and I survived. And I'm here as a survivor, one of the lucky ones. I want to show you the picture of this beautiful human, Paul Martinez, who is the son who was tragically lost by one of our Families for Safe Streets members, Joe Martinez, who is here with us today. Speeding kills, and we know that it is the single most common behavioral factor in crashes. And we also know from the data that a very small group of extreme and repeat speeders are the ones who disproportionately cause the most harm. We can't rely on fines and license suspensions. We need a system level guardrail. And that is what intelligent speed assistance is. It directly prevents speeders from speeding recklessly like the one who hit me. It will immediately improve public safety for all of us. And we have strong evidence that it works. I'll just share that in New York City with ISA, the people stayed at or below the speed limit 99% of the time. In Washington, D.C., speeding incidents dropped by 91%. Active ISA is targeted, it's court ordered, it's focused on the most dangerous speeders. I apologize, but that is time. support AB 226. Thank you very much. Next witness please. Thank you chair and members and in the interest of timing I'm gonna cut my comments. I just want to say one I'm letty's assessment is here on behalf of the steer safe partnership which represents advocacy organizations including manufacturers of active ISA devices so I'm happy to answer any questions with regards to the technology. I want to express our sincere appreciation to your staff for working on amendments to approve the bill. I also want to thank Assemblymember Gibson and some of the local advocates who introduced a very similar bill that was passed unanimously out of this committee last year. This bill includes some important improvements based on the model legislation that Assemblymember resoria referenced, including a clear definition of active ISA. This bill will stop a crash before it happens. This is something that is going to prevent the punitive measures that have been debated in prior bills. So I want to sincerely express our support and ask for your aye vote. Well, thank you for the presentation. Thank you both for your testimony. Next we'll hear the me too's. Anyone else who'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time. Good afternoon committee and members My name is Mark Vuksovich Director of State Policy for Streets for All Proud to support the bill and also proud to be a sponsor of the bill last year that was referenced by Assemblymember Gibson Appreciate Assemblymember Soria picking up the mantle. Thank you, committee members. My name is Allie Geller in strong support from Families for Safe Streets National Organization and San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets Organization. Hello, members. I'm Paul Martinez's dad, Joe Martinez. Thank you for your support of today's bill. I am a constituent of Esmeralda Soria, also a member of Families for Safe Streets, and strongly ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I read it on behalf of AAA Northern California in support. Mr. Chair, members, Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California. We support the bill and urge your aye vote. Thank you all very much. Next, we'll take opposition testimony. Okay, great. We have two seats with your names on them. Good afternoon. Glenn Bacchus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We respectfully oppose to AB 2276. We want to state that Ella Baker supports efforts to improve road safety, because after all, we share the same streets and highways as everyone else. We thank the author's office for meeting with us and addressing some of our concerns through amendments. This bill, as proposed to be amended as we understand it, would create a pilot, but it's a pilot that covers over 19 million Californians, almost half the state population. It contemplates for that half of the state higher penalties for drivers who exceed the speed limit, engage in reckless driving in any location, or participate in speed contests in abandoned parking lots or the middle of a busy highway. It treats them all the same, so therefore it's overly broad, overly punitive, and it's incredibly expensive for families. This bill, in addition to existing fines for speeding and other traffic infractions, imposes additional financial burdens on low-income families. While the income levels were adjusted in amendments, the costs are still too high for many. It doesn't seek to reduce current fines in exchange for what may be a promising technology. It would add additional cost burdens onto low-income families. The bill relies on installers to assess fees based on a sliding scale for which they have no incentive to administer well. The state does not pay for the devices or the installation or promise to make the manufacturers and installers whole for putting those devices in poor people's cars. It hasn't worked well for interlock ignition devices, for alcohol detection. We don't believe it will work well for this new technology either. Note that there is no state board or agency with the capacity to ensure compliance with the ability to pay standards. Lastly, if the state wants to require IEDs and speed suppression technology, it should fully cover the costs. Enforce clear vendor standards and ensure that the inability to pay never leads to a loss of driving privileges. With changes that address the high cost to families, Ella Baker Center would consider removing their opposition. But sliding scales seldom work, and increasing penalties are anathema to the administration of justice. Thank you. Good timing. Thank you. I did timing it. You did, yeah. Next witness, please. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition to AB 2276. While we are very grateful to the author for accepting the amendments we have remaining deep concerns First mandatory active ISA systems may inadvertently undermine driver safety In real world sorry world driving conditions motorists occasionally need to accelerate beyond postage limits to avoid collisions, merge safely, or respond to immediate threats. A system that automatically restricts vehicle speed removes this critical layer of human judgment and could place drivers in dangerous situations. Second, ISA technology is not yet sufficiently reliable for universal deployment across California's diverse roadways. Variations in terrain, frequent construction zones, and inconsistencies in digital speed limit data creates a significant risk of system error. Incorrect speed restrictions may disrupt traffic flow and increase collision risks rather than reduce it. Third, mandatory ISA systems raise significant privacy concerns. These technologies rely on continuous monitoring of vehicle location and speed, potentially generating sensitive data about drivers movement. Without robust statutory safeguards, this data could be vulnerable to misuse or accessed without appropriate legal protections, raising concerns for California's strong privacy framework. Fourth, such a mandate may exceed appropriate regularity regulation authority if not clearly authorized by the legislature. Sweeping requirements affect all vehicles and should be carefully evaluated to ensure they remain within constitutional and statutory limits. Fifth, the economic impact on consumers and manufacturers cannot be overlooked. Increased vehicle costs and potential retrofitting requirements would disproportionately affect low and middle income Californians raising equity concerns. Thank you. Request your no vote. Okay. Fit all that in in time. Perfect. All right. Next to the me to's in opposition to the bill. Please come forward at this time. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and respectful opposition. Looking forward to review the amendments and reassess our position. Thank you. David Bullock is an individual in opposition. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. All right. Thank you very much, everybody. Now to the dais. Questions, comments. Mr. Haney. I appreciate the author and your leadership on this important issue. I know that was initially put forward as a statewide bill, and then a number of counties were chosen as pilots. I've since had a significant amount of outreach from San Francisco leadership, including elected officials this morning, asking whether they could be included and whether San Francisco City and County could be included. What was the process in terms of determining which counties would be included, and has that been finally decided, or what is the sort of openness to that dialogue if there are counties who would want to be included in the initial pilot? Thank you, Assemblymember, for that question. And so just obviously this initially was a statewide bill. We worked very closely with the chair and the staff to select a representation of counties, rural and urban, where we can pilot this program. I would love to include San Francisco. I think that's something that I'm open to discussion, but I do want to respect the fact that the work that the committee did, the chair and the staff in agreeing to move this bill forward. But obviously, we would like this bill to be statewide, but understand, obviously, the desire to include San Francisco. I wouldn't be opposed, but again, being respectful of the work that the staff and the chair did to get this bill to this place. Sounds like we have something to talk about on Thursday on the floor, Matt. Yeah, well, of course, and I understand the desire to have it be a pilot, and I hope that's something that we can discuss, and hopefully the chair will be amenable to that conversation if that is something that, you know, there's broad support from the Board of Supervisors and our county transportation folks. So thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Assemblymember Haney, any other questions or comments or motions? Okay. We got a motion by Gonzalez, second by Ramos. Seeing no other discussion, Assemblymember Soria, would you like to close? Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote. Well, thank you very much. In the interest of time, I do recommend and I appreciate the author working with us to take amends. Conversations will go on. All right. That let's conduct the roll. For item 25, AB 2276 by Assemblymember Soria, the motion is due pass as amended to the Privacy and Consumer Protections Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alaniz? Mark Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Haney, aye. Harbidion? Lackey? Nguyen? Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Okay, that measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome when absent members add on. All right, everyone, when we come back from the lunch break, we'll be in the room across the hallway, 127, only one bill up. Jeff Gonzalez, AB2701, staff for Mr. Gonzalez, please have him there at 1.30 p.m. sharp. And for anyone who's not checked in for committee today, please show up so we can be out of there by 2. All right, I'll see you all at 1.30. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to Assemblymembers Lackey and Wynn for being here. Mr. Gonzalez, you can have your witnesses come up at this time. You can sit in those two chairs We might need to rearrange when the opposition witnesses come up but we can deal with that at that time Just a call out if you are staff or a member of this committee who is not in the room right now If you can see them on screen please have them report to room 127 This is our final bill of the day, and then we'll be doing add-ons, and I'd like to get everyone out of here as soon as possible. So please send your member here post haste. Mr. Gonzalez, I believe you're here to discuss AB 2701. Is that right? That's correct. All right, sir. The floor is yours. As a reminder, Once you're done with your presentation, your two witnesses will have two minutes apiece. I'll give a signal as you're getting close to like 30 seconds remaining, and we'll go from there. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and member, members. I'm honored to present AB 2701, which would create a publicly available registry for those convicted of the most serious domestic violence offenses. Let me repeat, the most serious domestic violence offenses. I want to start by clarifying that this bill does not change the requirements for convictions. It does not include low-level domestic violence offenders. I repeat, it doesn't change the requirements for convictions, and it does not include low-level domestic violence offenders. Registration is only required for those who are convicted of specified, aggravated forms of domestic violence, and this does not include victims who are simply defending themselves. Additionally, given the importance of protecting survivors, AB 2701 specifically prohibits all information identifying the victim from the publicly available website. Protecting victims and preventing future abuse is really the goal of this bill. As domestic violence continues to be a multifaceted public safety issue, AB 2701 is a preventative measure seeking to stop abuse before it begins. Oftentimes, the early signs of abuse are not recognized for what they are. Victims are not to be blamed, as without proper context and knowledge of someone's history. Certain behavioral patterns may appear to be harmless. However, those behaviors often evolve into more pronounced forms of abuse, thus perpetuating the cycle of dependence and harm. Many survivors remain dependent on their abusive partners, making truly ending domestic violence difficult. This is complex. This is not an easy thing that we're trying to tackle here. AB 2701 recognizes this struggle and seeks to prevent those dependent relationships from forming in the first place. So social awareness is one of the main focuses of domestic violence prevention. Recent efforts through social media and networking have highlighted the need and want for some kind of public awareness and education tool. However, these efforts have lacked concrete and legally backed support. AB 2701 codifies such a support system and a statewide legal framework upon which public social awareness can be based Importantly AB 2701 includes criminal and civil penalties for the misuse of registrant information thus preventing the registry from being used by vigilantes to target registrants. Members, this is about protecting victims and ensuring that the public can be properly informed and aware of the signs of domestic violence. This awareness and early prevention will help prevent abusive relationships from even forming and will help break the cycle of abuse. To protect victims and increase public awareness, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I have with me today Chief Deputy District Attorney William Robinson and Assistant Director of Victim Services Patricia Cárdenas to testify in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is William Robinson, and I'm a Chief Deputy District Attorney at the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. I'm here today in strong support of AB 2701. Domestic violence is one of the most dangerous and persistent threats to public safety in California. Each year, law enforcement in our state responds to over 160,000 domestic violence-related calls for service. And while some reporting has declined over time, the severity of these incidents is increasing, with more cases involving weapons and serious violence than we've seen in decades. At its core, domestic violence is about patterns, patterns of escalation, control, and repeated harm. Yet currently, California lacks a centralized, accessible tool to track and identify the most serious and repeat domestic violence offenders. AB 2701 addresses that gap. This bill creates a registry similar in concept to our sex offender registry that is narrowly focused on the most dangerous domestic violence offenders, including those with repeated convictions, those who use weapons, and those who cause great bodily injury or worse. This is not about low-level offenders. This is about individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of serious violence. This registry will provide critical, real-time information to law enforcement responding to volatile domestic violence calls, which would give officers the context they need to assess risk and protect themselves and others. It will also provide victims and communities with increased awareness, helping to prevent future harm before it happens. And importantly, this bill includes strong safeguards. It protects victims' privacy. It creates penalties for misuse of registry information. And it allows individuals to petition for removal if they demonstrate rehabilitation. This is a balanced, thoughtful approach that prioritizes safety while respecting fairness. We know that domestic violence often escalates. We know that repeat offenders pose the greatest risk. And I know that earlier... I'm sorry, sir. That's your time. I'm sorry. I know two minutes goes quick. All right, ma'am, you have two minutes as well. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Patty Cardenas, Assistant Director for the Division of Victim Services at the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. And I'm here in strong support of AB 2701. Every day we meet survivors who entered a relationship believing they were safe, only to learn, often too late, that their partner had the documented history of violence. Too often survivors only discover that history after the manipulation the fear and the violence have already taken hold I think of a woman whose case we prosecuted who later contacted our office to tell us that her former abuser went on to murder a new girlfriend And in our own community, a man recently shot his girlfriend in front of her children and abandoned her body in the desert. That case, too, revealed a prior pattern of domestic violence, warning signs that were hidden until tragedy struck. These incidents reflect patterns of escalating harm. Prior domestic violence, strangulation, stalking, and violent assaults are amongst the clearest predictors of homicide. Research shows that victims who have been strangled are up to seven times more likely to be killed by their abuser. Individuals who commit strangulation are also more likely to assault law enforcement, posing a broader threat to public safety. AB 2701 provides access to critical information so people can make informed decisions about their safety. This bill is narrowly tailored to focus on the most serious and repeat domestic violence offenders with strong safeguards to protect privacy and ensure fairness. In 2024, California recorded 163,000 domestic violence-related calls for assistance, many involving weapons, more than 9,000 involving strangulation, the very behavior most associated with future homicide. AB 2701 is about prevention, transparency, and saving lives. For the survivors we serve, it represents awareness, accountability, and the possibility of safety. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you for your time and your commitment to protecting survivors. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. Come on over to this microphone by Dr. Sharp-Collins whenever you're ready. Good afternoon. Julio DeLeon on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and support. Good afternoon. Michelle Beardsley, California DA's Association, in support. All right. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? We do. Okay, so could I maybe get the two of you, if you don't mind, just to – okay, great. And if there's questions, we'll call you back up. But all right, so if you two don't mind, I think you can take these chairs and these microphones right here. Yes, and if one of you wants to sit next to Assemblymember Gonzalez, one of the supporting witnesses, we do have a chair there. Oh. I'm squeezing here. I know. Well, good afternoon, Chair Schultz and members. I'm Grace Glazer on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, California's DV Coalition, representing the 140 agencies across the state that support survivors. The partnership strongly opposes AB 2701. This bill will have negative and long-lasting consequences for survivors of domestic violence and their families. AB 2701 would result in many survivors of domestic violence being listed publicly on a registry with severe repercussions for their lives. Frequently, survivors themselves are arrested for domestic violence, whether it's for self-defense or because abusive partners manipulate the systems designed to protect them, Many are unjustly accused and incarcerated for domestic violence. Surveys have suggested that as many as one-third of survivors who call the police for domestic violence have been threatened with arrest or have been arrested. Many of these unjustly criminalized people would be listed on this registry publicly shaming them, hampering their employment prospects, and impeding their road to healing. A related fear is that a registry would be dangerous for immigrant survivors and their families and would facilitate the targeting of these individuals by immigration enforcement. At a time when ice has ripped through our communities and torn families apart, we do not need to give them more access to information to seek out individuals. Survivors are already experiencing an unprecedented wave of fear and threats of being deported. Listing people who commit domestic violence on a registry, including citizens who may have victimized immigrant survivors, could result in increased risk of arrests and deportation for survivors. A registry would be duplicative and by no means comprehensive. It's already possible to conduct background searches to find individuals who have been convicted of domestic violence, and outside of convictions, a large number of DV cases go unreported. Domestic violence offenses are also often played down and charges are frequently dropped, and many offenders have no prior criminal record. A registry would capture none of these nuanced situations. It would not prevent domestic violence. For all of the reasons outlined, we strongly request a no vote. Thank you. Two minutes on the dot. Well done. Very good. All right. Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Kate VanderTag, and I'm here on behalf of Futures Without Violence in strong opposition to AB 2701. This bill creates a DV registry, but in practice it will harm survivors. Firstly, this bill will actually discourage many survivors from seeking help. Survivors may depend on their partners financially or not want them on a public list. If reporting abuse could result in their partner losing access to housing or employment through a registry, survivors may not want to seek help at all. We've seen this with other registries. families lose stability and are pushed further into crisis even when there are protections in the law against such consequences. At a time when tens of thousands of survivors in California already face homelessness, we should not be doing anything that increases that risk. Second, though this bill is poorly framed as a prevention bill, there is no evidence that domestic violence registries prevent or reduce violence. This would, however, be a costly new system and it is unconscionable to invest scarce public dollars for violence prevention in something unproven while survivor services like housing counseling and actual violence prevention remain underfunded. Finally as the partnership explained this bill will harm survivors directly because many are wrongly arrested and labeled as perpetrators. A quick story. The Sacramento DV advocate program we've worked with a survivor recently who after being threatened with a knife by her partner pushed him in self-defense. When law enforcement arrived, language barriers led them to identify her as the primary aggressor. She was arrested, charged with domestic violence, and nearly lost custody of her children. Under a registry like this, survivors like her could be listed when abusers orchestrate survivors getting multiple arrests against them, deepening the harm they've already experienced. As a DV advocate, I can think of many clients with a very similar story for whom even before trial being listed as on a registry would be both financially and emotionally disastrous. Survivors tell us that safety comes from stability and support, not from dangerous policy that has no evidence behind it. I'm sorry to cut you off, but that's time. Not a single DV program in support of this bill. Thank you. That's time. All right. Thank you all very much. Next, we'll take the Me Too's in opposition. Please come on down. Anissa Ali from Futures Without Violence, and strong opposition to this bill. I'm also registering Me Too's on behalf of the following anti-domestic violence organizations, Stronghearted Native Women's Coalition, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Community Resource Center, American Nurses Association of California, Mirror Memoirs, the Collective Healing and Transformation Project, Los Angeles LGBT Center, Felony Murder Elimination Project, Peace Over Violence, Project Sanctuary, Lumina Alliance La Defensa Victims Empowerment Support Team YWCA of Glendale and Pasadena Real Life Potential Public Counsel Western Center on Law and Poverty Shelter from the Storm Community Solutions for Children Families and Individuals Asian Americans for Community Involvement and Californians for Safety and Justice Thank you Avi Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and Strong Opposition would also like to register opposition for California Public Defenders Association. Elizabeth Kim for Initiate Justice and Opposition. Glenn Backus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Opposition. Danica Rodarmel, the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148 and Western Center on Law and Poverty in Opposition. Mr. Chair and Members, Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in Opposition. Hi, my name is Henry Ortiz on behalf of Community Healers, Initiate Justice, and all of us in the Sacramento Chapter in Opposition. Thank you. All right. Thank you all very much. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, we can turn it back to the committee. Are there questions or comments from committee members? Okay, we have a motion by Lackey. Is there a second? Asking one more time, is there a second? Okay, Mr. Gonzalez, I'll give you a chance to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to address some comments in my closing and a perspective that I think is important for us to take a look at. I look at my colleagues on the dais and what if there was a registry that narrows down specifically the area, geographic area, where missing, murdered, and indigenous people were at? Would we spend the money for that? I know I would as an indigenous person. Absolutely. If we took the victim's perspective first and really worked on trying to make this something where we protect victims first, then we can do something. If we work together to advance this, we can utilize our collective effort to try and protect further victims. I appreciate the discussion as I'm in this closing. I just want to emphasize that this bill is about protecting and preventing harm. It's about breaking the cycle of harm. And ending domestic violence will be difficult, but it begins with increased awareness. Now, I'm committed to working with the opposition and addressing their concerns so we can get closer to the goal of ending domestic violence for good. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. I look at some of the comments, and it says that the comments that the opposition has made saying that it discourages survivors, yet survivors are the ones who talk to me about this. The comment that this bill was poorly framed we had legal experts that looked at this bill reviewed this bill and created this bill The comment that was the registry domestic violence registries don work we don have a domestic violence registry So how is that possible that it doesn work if we don't have that? Not a single DV program is in favor of this. I would push back on that because DV programs are the ones who came up with this. So to be in opposition and speak for the entire community of DV people is unfortunately a disservice to the entire community. Now, I can understand if the opposition wanted to say with respect to their community, but to say the entire DV community is a false statement. And it's unfortunate because we can work through this versus trying to close this down. So, Mr. Chair, as I close, every bill, every bill requires a collective effort. Every bill requires members from all sides to come together. But by choosing to advance this bill, we're saying that we are willing to take part in moving this forward. And if we choose to not advance this bill, it's a slap, I believe, my opinion, in the face of victims who have come up and spoken to me personally about this. So with that, Mr. Chair, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Assemblymember. And I apologize to you and to my colleagues. I missed Mr. Ramos, who I believe wanted to make a statement. I think, Mr. Chair, the point of personal preference or point of preference is that normally you run things a certain way. And yes, because I've mentioned indigenous people, I think my colleague is is asking to speak on that behalf. So I would ask the chair to maintain his consistency in in the way he he runs that if it be your prerogative. Well, thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. I'm happy to give you the final word as a chance to close, but I am going to afford Mr. Ramos an opportunity to speak. Mr. Ramos. Through the chair, certainly comments were made about missing and murdered Indigenous women. And as long as I've known the chair, he's been eloquently running these meetings professionally. So I want to make sure that that truly understands. You mentioned missing and murdered Indigenous women. Yet those that are on the front line, some stand up in opposition to this bill. So if you truly were moving forward in that you would have had dialogue with them before you presented here today, I'm hoping that you continue to have dialogue with them because this is an area that shouldn't be left alone. But trying to be a voice of those that are oppressed also is not the right way to move forward. So thank you for that. Thank you. And Mr. Gonzalez, in fairness, I'll give you a chance to respond, but I would ask you to limit it to a response to that comment. I don't want to have a back and forth. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague. the voice of the oppressed. There are many oppressed, and we can all agree to that. And it's my contention through my heritage, through my background, through my experiences, both on the pastoral side and through my family Chinanteco people and the Taino people that I speak from And this is not a back and forth So speaking for them as an outsider is not where I'm coming from. It's speaking with them as someone who is them is where I'm coming from. So that being said, Mr. Chair, I do know your consistency. C. And I do believe you are a professional. So there was nothing with respect to that, merely pointing out that you always stick to a certain game plan. And I appreciate that. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Well, thank you, Assemblymember. My wife would agree with you. I am a creature of habit. I even have my suits lined up every day of the week. And I was really upset because I couldn't pick up my dry cleaning yesterday. So I'm wearing yesterday's suit. It just has thrown me off all day. I'm not kidding. This is 100% true. I'm going to take, I was supposed to match him. Mr. Vice Chair, I'm going to assume that you are seconding Mr. Lackey's motion. Very good. I'll now make my recommendation. Mr. Gonzalez, I agree that domestic violence is a serious problem in California, and we must do more to prevent it in our state. That is why, and I'm sorry to talk about another bill, but it's important. That is why I have supported bills this year in this committee to help with the enforcement of restraining orders and to increase penalties for repeat DV offenders, most recently in the form of Assembly Bill 292 by your colleague, Mr. Patterson. However, after listening to the testimony here today and considering the letter submitted, I'm not convinced that a statewide public registry will have the intended effect that you, I do believe that is your genuine intent, but I don't believe it will have the desired effect, and let me explain why. The bill would, in my view, create a potentially unwieldy new database that both DOJ and locals would be responsible for updating and maintaining. What we learned when we reformed our sex offender registry, which is what I believe when there was a reference to other registries, I think that's where the comment was directed. When we reformed it, there were such high numbers of people required to register that local agencies were inundated with registration duties and paperwork and, yes, cost, although that's probably more in the purview of the Appropriations Committee. Now, some have argued that this bill is narrowly written to only address the worst of domestic violence offenders. I respectfully disagree with you, sir. While infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or partner is included, clearly, there's also a long list of registrable offenses in the bill, the triggering factor being if the crime, quote, involved domestic violence, end quote. But there's no clear indication in the bill for how involving domestic violence would be determined. Who would make the determination? Would this finding need to be pled and proved? And what standard of proof would be required to make this showing? In my view, Mr. Gonzalez, while I don't doubt your clear and good intention of bringing the bill forward, it's the lack of clarity to these answers that I believe would lead to wildly inconsistent results across the state. I will also mention, as a follow-up to some of the testimony we heard, I, too, share the fear that there could be a chilling effect on those seeking help from law enforcement if a victim knows that their partner may end up on a public registry. So with nothing but absolute respect for you, Mr. Gonzalez, I am recommending a no today. We have a motion. We have a second. Let's conduct the roll. For item 35, AB 2701 by Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez, the motion is due passed to the Judiciary Committee. Schultz? No. Schultz, no. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Mark Gonzalez? Haney? Harbidian? Harbidian, not voting. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Wynn? Wynn, not voting. Ramos? No. Ramos? Ramos, no. Sharp Collins, no, that measure Okay, that bill fails, Mr. Gonzalez. Reconsideration granted at the discretion of the chair. Unless there's any objection from a member of the committee. Seeing no objection, I'll grant the reconsideration, Mr. Gonzalez. We'll see you in two weeks. All right. Thank you to everyone who came and testified today. We are not yet done with our business. I believe we are missing Mr. Haney. If Mr. Haney could make his way to room 127, I'm sorry to call him out, but we do need Mr. Haney back. Colleagues, so I can let all of you go home, we are going to go through the agenda, so we'll have our fabulous secretary call through and folks can add on. We'll start at the top. For consent items, Harbidion. For consent items, Harbidion. Harbidion, aye. When? When? Aye. Item 1, AB 1588 by Assemblymember Stefani was pulled by the author. Item 2, AB 1628 by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez. This measure was on call. The motion is due passed to the Human Services Committee. Haney? Harbidian? Harbidian, aye. Lackey? This is item 2, AB 1628. Chair recommends an aye. I'm not voting. Lackey, not voting. When? When? Aye. Sharp Collins? Aye. I'm not here. Okay. Sharp Collins, aye, and will be added as a co-author. That measure passes. Okay. That bill is out. Item 3, AB 1753 by Assemblymember Stephanie. This bill was pulled by the committee. Item 4, AB 1759 by Assemblymember El-Hawari. The motion was due passed to the Appropriations Committee. This item was on consent. Item 5, AB 1867 by Assemblymember Tangipa. This measure was pulled by the author. Item 6, AB 1897 by Assemblymember Haney. This item was pulled by the committee. Item 7, AB 1912 by Assemblymember Hadwick. The motion was due passed. This item was on consent. Item 8, AB 1913 by Assemblymember Soria. The motion is due passed as amended. to the Transportation Committee. This item was on consent. Item 9, AB 1922 by Assembly Member Lowenthal was pulled by the author. Item 10, AB 1958 by Assembly Member Kalra. This item was on call. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Harbidian? Aye. Harbidian, aye. Okay, that bill is out. Item 11, AB 1959 by Assembly Member Patel. This measure was on call. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney. Harbidian? Aye. Harbidian, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Wen? Wen, aye. Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins not voting. Okay, that bill is out. For item 12, AB-1974 by Assemblymember Stephanie, the motion is due pass as amended. Harbidian? Haney? Harbidian? Aye. Harbidian, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sherp Collins, aye. That bill is out. For item 13, AB 1994 by Assemblymember Alvarez, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee This item was on consent For item 14 AB 2001 by Assemblymember Stephanie the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee This item is on consent For item 15 AB by Assemblymember Stephanie was pulled by the author Item 16, AB-2073 by Assemblymember Johnson was pulled by the author. Item 17, AB-2097 by Assemblymember Gornard, that measure was pulled by the author. Item 18, AB 2104 by Assemblymember Carrillo. This measure is on call. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney? Harbidion? Aye. Harbidion, aye. Okay, that bill is out. For item 19, AB 21-22 by Assemblymember Calra, this measure was pulled by the author. Item 20, AB 21-47 by Assemblymember Schiavo, the motion is due pass. This item was on consent. For item 21, AB 22-04 by Assemblymember Gabriel, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. This item is on consent. For item 22, AB 22-32 by Assemblymember Patterson, this measure was pulled by the author. For item 23, AB 2273 by Assemblymember Baines, this measure was pulled by the author. For item 24, AB 2274 by Assemblymember Baines, this item was pulled by the author. For item 25, AB 2276 by Assemblymember Soria, this measure was on call. The motion is due pass as amended to the Privacy and Consumer Protections Committee. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Harbidion? Aye. Harbidian, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. When? This is item 25, AB 2276 by Assemblymember Soria. When? Aye. Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins, aye. That bill is out. For item 26, AB 2286 by Assemblymember Bryan, the motion is due passed. This item is on consent. For item 27, AB 2297 by Assemblymember Stephanie, the motion is due passed. Haney? Harbidians? Aye. Harbidians, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins not voting. That bill is out. For item 28, AB 2310 by Assemblymember Carrillo, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Haney? Harbidians? Aye. Harbidians, aye. That bill is out. For item 29, AB 2318 by Assemblymember El-Hawaii. That measure was pulled by the author. For item 30, AB 2347 by Assemblymember Arons. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. This item is on consent. For item 31, AB 2438 by Assemblymember Johnson. This measure was on call. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Gonzalez? Chair is recommending a no. No. No. Gonzalez, no. Haney, Harbidian. No. Harbidian, no. Sharp-Collins. Sharp-Collins, no. That motion fails bill held in committee. For item 32, AB 2450 by Assemblymember Johnson, this measure is on call. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Chair recommendation is now. Alan Neese. Item 32. Yes, AB. Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez. Aye Gonzalez not voting Haney Harvidian No Harvidian no That bill fails Held in committee For item 33 AB 2556 by Assemblymember Foreigner The motion is due pass This item was on consent For item 34, AB 2698 by Assemblymember Ellis. This measure was on call. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Harbidion? Aye. Harbidion? Aye. When? Aye. When? Aye. That bill is out? Oh, can we do a vote change on that one now? Okay. Yes. Vote change. Assemblymember Sharp-Collins from not voting to aye. Okay. And that bill remains out. For item 35, AB 2701. by Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez. The motion is due to pass to the Judiciary Committee. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, not voting. Haney. For Item 35, 2701 by Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez. Chair, recommendation is no. Not voting. Haney, not voting. That measure fails. Okay. All right. Yeah, measure fails, reconsideration previously granted, without objection. Item 36, AB 2727, by Assemblymember Nguyen, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Harbidion? Aye. Harbidion, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, not voting. Okay, that bill is out. And I'll note that item 37 has been polled. To all of my colleagues except the fine member from San Francisco, thank you very much for being here. I will just note next week, colleagues, we have 46 items. So do plan for a long day and we'll find out. We'll know the consent calendar closer. It's all up to Tom and Juan. Thank you all very much. We're going to go through one more time for Mr. Haney. Item 1, AB 1588, was pulled by the author. Item 2, AB 1628, by Assemblymember Michelle Rodriguez-Haney. Haney, aye. Item 3, was pulled by the committee. Item 4, was on consent. Item 5, was pulled by the author. Item 6, was pulled by the committee. Item 7 was on consent. Item 8 is on consent. Item 9 is pulled by the author. Item 10, AB 1958 by Assemblymember Kalra. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Item 11, AB 1959 by Assemblymember Patel. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Item 12, AB 1974. by Assemblymember Stephanie Haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Item 13, AB 1994, was on consent. Item 14, AB 2051, was on consent. Item 15, AB 2052, was pulled by the author. Item 16, AB 2073, was pulled by the author. Item 17, AB 2097, was pulled by the author. Item 18 AB 2104 by Assemblymember Carrillo Haney Aye Haney aye Item 19 AB 21 was pulled by the author Item 20, AB 21-47 is on consent. Item 21, AB 22-04 is on consent. Item 22, AB 22-32 was pulled by the author. Item 23, AB 22-73 was pulled by the author. Item 24, AB 2274, was pulled by the author. Item 25, AB 2276, by Assemblymember Soria, has been dispensed with. Item 26, AB 2286, was on consent. Item 27, AB 2297, by Assemblymember Stephanie Haney. Haney, aye. Item 28, AB 2310, by Assemblymember Carrillo. Haney, aye. Haney, aye. Item 29, AB 2318, was pulled by the author. Item 30, AB 2347, is on consent. Item 31, AB 2438, by Assemblymember Johnson, Haney. Haney, no. Item 32, AB 2450, by Assemblymember Johnson, Haney. Haney, no. Item 33, AB 2556 is on consent. Item 34, AB 2698. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Item 35, AB 2701 was just dispensed with. Item 36, AB 2727 has been dispensed with. and item 37 was pulled by the committee. All right, that concludes our business for today. Just as a reminder, we'll reconvene back over in room 126 on Tuesday the 14th at 8.30 a.m. We'll see you all then. We stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.