Senate Public Safety Committee

Good morning. Like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Committee on Public safety for Tuesday, March 17, 2026. I'm Senator Jesse Odean, the chairman of the committee, joined by Vice Chairman Kelly Sierto, and we do not yet have a quorum, but we will begin our hearing to begin with bill presentations from authors. Once we're able to establish a quorum, we will call the roll and take action on bills. Just a few announcements as we start today's hearing. File item 1, SB891 by Senator Cervantes is on the consent calendar. And the way we'll conduct public comment is we will give two minutes for principal witnesses in support and opposition that have been designated either by the by the bill sponsor or opposition witnesses who provided written written comments in the official record, after which time we will take general public comment from members of the public. And your public comment will just be limited to state your name, your organization or what city you're from and your position on the bill. We will not take any other comments. We welcome your comments in writing. We do review all written comments that are submitted through the portal and thank you for joining us today for this hearing. So with that, we'll begin with file item two, Senate Bill 936 by Senator Blakespeare. Good morning. Center whenever you would like to begin.

Well, thank you very much. Chair hello Members, Good morning. I'm happy to present today SB936. SB936 takes a measured approach to addressing the dangerous rise of nitrous oxide misuse in California. Nitrous oxide has become a popular recreational drug among youth, but it can have deadly consequences, especially for those who choose to drive while intoxicated by it. In particular, it can cause impaired brain function, loss of motor control, asphyxia or death, and repeated exposure has been linked to long term neurologic damage. To be clear, nitrous oxide does have several important legitimate uses, such as an engine propellant in the automotive industry, laughing gas for dental procedures, and as a culinary component in restaurants and coffee shops. And my legislation would not impact that. What SB936 would do is prohibit the retail sale of nitrous oxide canisters that are larger than 8 grams, while preserving legitimate uses in medical, dental, culinary and automotive settings. Currently, large tanks labeled for culinary use are widely available through retail shops, often with flavored varieties and branding that appeal to young consumers. And Chair I have brought in an example that I would like to show here of what you can purchase, like locally here in Sacramento called Hot Whip and this is a nitrous oxide canister that is clearly from its marketing indicated that it is being sold to children and there is a convenient way to access it. So you just access the nitrous oxide in this big container. And so this is what we would not prohibit for sale these large containers that are clearly marketed. This one is watermelon hot whip. These also come in bubblegum, vanilla cupcake and tropical punch. The widespread use of nitrous oxide as a drug is dangerous to individuals and to public safety. While under the influence of nitrous oxide, drivers are impaired and can get into traffic incidents that can easily become deadly. In one incident in my district, a local officer responded to a multi vehicle crash and after guiding two people affected by the crash off the roadway, he checked on the driver who had consumed nitrous oxide prior to the crash. A second driver, allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, crashed into the stopped vehicles, killing both the initial driver and the responding officer. These incidents are not isolated. Across California, emergency department visits related to nitrous oxide increased 246% between 2018 and 2023. For these reasons, several local jurisdictions, including one of the two counties I represent, Orange county, and the cities of Costa Mesa and Newport beach, have already restricted the retail sale of these nitrogen oxide tanks. SB936 builds on these local efforts by establishing a statewide standard for nitrous regulations. The bill does not ban it outright and it does not affect the standard 8 gram whipped cream charges that are commonly used in culinary settings. It also does not create new possession crimes or further criminalize Californians who consume nitrous. Instead, it reduces access for non legitimate uses. SB936 is sponsored by the rural county representatives of California, the National Stewardship Action Council, Orange county and San Diego's District Attorney Summer Steffen. And with me today in support, I have Supervisor Madeline Klein from Mendocino county and James Fontaine, a narcotics expert with the San Diego District Attorney's Office.

Good morning. Chair Eric Een and committee members. My name is James Fontaine. I am the chief of the Major Narcotics division at the San Diego County District Attorney's office and a 26 year prosecutor. Our District Attorney Summer Stephan is a proud co sponsor of Senate Bill 936. Nitrous oxide has been used and abused for over 250 years. What's changed is its availability, the mechanism of its delivery and its popularity. The small 8 gram chargers have been replaced by large tanks of flavored nitrous oxide being sold out of smoke shops and convenience stores, not for any legitimate culinary purpose, but for the sole purpose of getting people high. The Harms There are very real harms associated with the misuse of nitrous oxide. Harms to the direct users include hypoxic brain injuries, nerve damage, incontinence, and in rare cases, paralysis and even death. The harms are not limited to the direct users. I reviewed every case prosecuted by my office between 2015 and 2025 where nitrous oxide was either charged or was meaningfully involved. We had 118 cases. 74 of those cases happened just in 2025 alone. So that's 63% of our cases involving nitrous oxide happening just last year. Vehicles were involved in over 70% of our cases. The cases ranged from a father losing consciousness and crashing into a fence, grabbing his two children, ages 2 and 4 and fleeing from the scene, to a young man losing control of his car, ignoring requests to stop, inhaling while driving, crashing and ending the life of his 17 year old passenger to what the Senator just mentioned, a crash on a local freeway that took the life of a 19 year old driver and the 25 year old police officer who responded to the scene. And I could go on. The common denominator large tanks of flavored nitrous oxide. These are real events with real people suffering significant, sometimes tragic, fatal consequences. SB936 seeks to intervene before tragedy strikes, and it does that by imposing measured and reasonable restrictions on those containers and devices most commonly involved in the cases we're seeing in San Diego county and and undoubtedly causing harm throughout the rest of the state. We respectfully urge you to vote aye on Senate Bill 936. Thank you.

Yes. Good morning Chair and members. I'm Madeline Klein, Mendocino County Supervisor. So local activism spearheaded the conversation around nitrous oxide in Mendocino county in 2022. A group of teens from the Youth Leadership Coalition took it upon themselves to advocate for Ukiah City Council to pass an ordinance banning the commercial sale of nitrous oxide canisters. During my first year as supervisor, a group of constituents came forward with dozens and dozens of Whippets canisters that had been littered across our valley. The large quantity of canisters, coupled with multiple incidents happening directly outside of retail locations that were selling these flavored nitrous oxide canisters, led to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors directing staff to prepare an ordinance to ban the sale of Such nitrous oxide canisters, we've heard overwhelmingly from the community that action is needed. We cannot keep allowing retailers to sell this message, this misleading and addictive product to our residents. Often aimed at kids and young adults, especially for the youth, limiting this access is essential. Our neighbors in Humboldt county, one of the first to ban the commercial sale of nitrous oxide, have experienced several tragic and devastating losses in their community. Just eight months ago, 19 year old Anisha Gutshall was killed two miles south of Fortuna. The driver was huffing on nitrous oxide, passed out, crossed the double yellow and hit a large truck head on. She was killed instantly and he lived. The car exploded because it had the medium sized tanks in the back seat of the car. DUI crashes and fatalities are being reported all across our state. Recent incidents happening in Humboldt County, Santa Cruz County, Sonoma County, Sacramento county, just to name a few. These are young adults, mothers, children, teachers, community leaders alike. All taken too soon. SB936 is a balanced approach for protecting community members and the environment. Thank you very much to Senator Blake Shspear for your leadership on this issue. And we humbly ask for an I vote on SB936.

the bill and chair. There was a handout that I'm not sure. Has it been distributed? It has. Okay, great. Okay, great.

Thank you. Mr.

Members, Julie Navoris on behalf of the

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Heidi Sanborn with the National Stewardship Action Council.

we strongly urge your support support.

Amy Jenkins on behalf of the Orange

Thank you.

Clara County Board of Supervisors, the Santa

urban counties of California in support. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors in support.

Jack Yannis on behalf of our college and support.

Thank You. Anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 936? If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Good morning, Chair and members. George Par, speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action. We are opposed to SP936 unless it is amended to take a regulatory approach. This is not a radical idea. Just two months ago, this committee considered a bill that would criminalize Kratom. In that instance, every single member of this committee, other than Senator Cortese, who was not on the committee at that time, voiced support for a regulatory public health approach. Following this committee's lead, we strongly urge the legislature to amend SB936 out of the penal code and to instead directly regulate businesses. For example, California's approach to regulating flavored tobacco products imposes civil fines and retail license consequences for businesses that fail to comply with the regulatory framework. Insofar as the sponsor's comments were about retailers and marketing, the proper avenue for the intent of SB936 is direct regulation of those retailers, not criminalization of individuals. I must note that the word retail or retailers does not appear in the bill. Lastly, SB936's current criminalization is exceptionally broad. Among its provisions, the bill would criminalize or make it a crime to sell, distribute, or offer any device that is capable of holding nitrous oxide. This broad language risks treating household items like Ziploc bags as illegal drug paraphernalia. There's no need to go after Safeway and soccer moms for a problem that can be solved by retail regulations of smoke shops. For these reasons, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. I heard the bill last. Was it last year or last month or whenever we. The Kratom discussion. Yeah. Time isn't all relative. And part of the challenge in that discussion was that we had testimony in support of a regulatory framework for Kratom and opposed, and it was conflicting. And so it called upon this committee to make an evaluation as to whether that particular product had any beneficial use, which is way beyond what the. What the committee does. And so I guess I'm having a hard time with this Ziploc bag explanation. So let me just also say that I really appreciate the testimony here today. The consequences of using this product irresponsibly is really what it amounts to is grave. And I think there has been. The canister is probably the best evidence of the enticement for young people to use it. It looks like it'd be fun, right? It's a party. Party thing, and that's really scary. So I really appreciate the youth coming forward and saying we don't, we don't want this because they're in the best age group to tell us what's going on in the community and how we can protect them, keep them safe. So can you address that Ziploc bag issue? And are you anticipating any amendments that might address the issue that's been raised by the aclu? Yes, and I'm not talking about the regulatory process because I really don't think we, in this instance, it's necessary. But I am concerned about other products and never heard of the product being put in a zip bag.

No, I'm fine. I just couldn't imagine somebody putting a gas into a baggie as an alternative method. And quite frankly, that little point you could put on it is. It makes it frightening, right? Pretty clear it's meant to be used for personal use. So I have no further questions. Thank you very appreciate it.

much and thank you for tackling this issue because it is a growing problem. When you put a nitrous, nitrous oxide gas into your lungs, it displaces the oxygen. That's what it does. And so for however long that's happening, you become hypoxic. And when you're hypoxic, your brain doesn't function right. And so since this is being targeted to our kids, this is a growing public safety issue and it's entirely appropriate for us to address that. And once we've addressed it, as far as the criminal part of it, if people know that this is what it's doing to kids and they're still selling them that item, then they certainly deserve, do have some kind of prosecution for trying to injure our kids. You know, sometimes adults are dumb enough to do it themselves, but sometimes kids don't know that when they're breathing the stuff in, it's displacing their oxygen, it's taking the place of oxygen. And the molecules won't, the molecules won't be carrying oxygen to the brain and things like that. So I think this is something that is entirely supportable. I don't think it infringes on anybody's rights. And I think it's going to keep our kids, one more thing that we have to do to keep our kids alive. And so therefore we'll be supporting this when the time comes. And again, I appreciate you bringing it up and appreciate the witnesses testimony.

Okay, thank you, Chair. Thank you for the good conversation today and to my witnesses for coming and to the ACLU for your engagement. I just have two final points I want to make. One is that it's not just that people are deeply impaired and shouldn't be driving. It's also that it's deep, it is seriously addictive. This is like crack cocaine. And when I've talked to other people who have had family members involved, things just escalated completely out of control in ways that were unpredicted because of the. Because how highly addictive it is. And the other thing I want to mention is that these canisters are very difficult to deal with on the waste side. So this cost for sale, $31.99, but it costs over $60 for municipalities to manage the waste on the back end. And so, you know, that's one of the reasons that we have so many of the environmental sponsors, because of the concerns about this, the waste product that's created here, that's not being dealt with. So. So it's just an further need for this bill. And with that, I thank you very much for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you. I see we have our next author, Senator Padilla, here. Okay. Well, now proceed to file item 3, SB 941, by Senator Padilla. And if there are any principal witnesses, if you can, please join us here at the table. All right. And stand up at the end whenever you're ready.

Mr. Chairman and members, I'm very pleased to present SB941, which, to make this brief, applies the framework this committee supported as familiar with of SB474, which limited markup for commissary facilities within state prison facilities to 35% above cost to avoid exploitation of people who often rely on those services and goods in an institutional setting. This bill would apply that to the private for profit entities under contract to the federal government currently which house detainees seeking asylum or who are in immigration enforcement processes. And what we know from studies conducted most recently by ucla that we have a significant problem with exploitation, we have markups for various necessary products in these settings by folks who are held in detention to as much as 300% above cost. So this basically mirrors that framework. It prevents that in these settings, these types of facilities in the state boundaries of California are 100% under private contract by the federal government. Obviously, the federal government will retain preeminent jurisdiction over operations and security issues. But as they are operating within the state's boundaries, we have the ability to set conditions with respect to commercial activity occurring there and how that may, you know, impact that setting from a safety and security and well being standpoint of the people being housed there, even temporarily. Often these costs are also passed on to families and others who are related to folks who are in this status because they pick up the difference when they're not meeting their basic needs or are being exploited by this loophole. So this bill seeks to close that. I'm happy to have with me today Mr. Chairman and members Elena Jung Fermuyulen. I think I may have messed that up, but I appreciate you, who is a Scadden Fellow with the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice.

Good morning. Chairs and members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Elena Jungheavermeulen and I'm an immigration attorney at the California Collaborative for Immigrant justice here to testify regarding the deep harm caused to California families by exploitative commissary prices. When ICE detains a Californian, a parent, a loved one, caretaker provider is ripped from a working class California family. One such person, Pavel, detained in the Imperial Regional Detentional Facility, shares the impact of detention. Even though we are detained, our bills, banks and taxes do not wait for us. We still need to find ways to pay for our family's rents, mortgages and loans or risk service cancellations, evictions and foreclosures. Commissary describes products sold in ICE custody commodified necessities that people in for profit immigration detention centers in California must buy with funds sent from family or the $1 a day they earn working in the facility. When detained, people have no other way to procure what they need. It's easy for companies to economically exploit them. Inflated commissary prices force additional expenses on already vulnerable Californian families. My client Fernando is a green card holder and father of two US citizens detained in Imperial. He explains additional expenses come in the form of hyper expensive essentials, including basic hygiene products and weather appropriate clothing that the facility and ICE deprive us of. Facilities do not provide us with essentials like deodorant, floss or soap. Pavel reflects that painkillers, anti infection cream, band aids and necessary health care items are only provided by the medical unit upon sick call. Requests that take days to process. To have these items available when they're actually needed, they have to be purchased from the commissary. Fernando and Pavel have been working in detention. For a day's work they are paid $1. It takes four days of work to save up for deodorant for $3.84, $7 to save up for a four ounce bottle of shampoo at $6.96, seven days to pay for a six ounce jar of peanut butter for $6.67 and 18 days to save up enough for an eight ounce jar of instant coffee priced at $18. Outside detention for the same products, deodorant is $1.34 less, shampoo $4.61 less, peanut butter $5.93 less and coffee $12.58 less. SB941 would limit the corporate exploitation of California's families. In Fernando's words, the current absence of limits on commissary prices means we have to depend on our already struggling families after being taken away from them. I was the sole provider for my family and now I have to ask them for help with no end in sight. Just as we have passed legislation to limit unconscionable commissary costs in prisons, we must have the same standard in for profit detention facilities. I urge you to vote in favor of SB941. Thank you.

Liz Lumgater is registering support on behalf of Smart Justice California.

Good morning.

Good morning. Elizabeth Kim in support on behalf of Initiate Justice. Thank you.

Rob Bonta who's a proud co sponsor

George Pamphleth on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Chairman members.

Policy center and strong support.

Thank you.

Evan Fern with Disability Rights California in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any Other members of public wishing to express support for SB941? Seeing no one else. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 941? Seeing none. Is anyone wishing to express opposition to Senate Bill 941 and seeing no one. I'll bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions or comments for members of the committee?

Are there any other questions or comments? I do not co author bills that come through Policy Committee until they're heard, but I strongly support this bill. As you had noted, this builds on a prior bill, Senate Bill 474, to ensure that that applies to these private federal detention facilities. It's outrageous what's happening. I really appreciate you bringing this for. I would love to be out as a co author at the appropriate time as well. And I'll turn it back over you to close.

Thank you, Senator. We do not yet have a quorum, but we'll entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. And thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see Senator Gonzalez here. We miss you on this committee,

we will now proceed.

Oh, file item 5, SCR 118 by Senator Gonzalez. And if there are any principal witnesses. Yes, you are welcome to join us up here at the table.

Oh, wow.

Okay. Senator Gonzalez, whenever you'd like to.

Absolutely.

Good morning.

Thank you. Good morning. Chairs and Senate Public Safety members. My name is Kay Buck and I'm the CEO of cast Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. We're headquartered in Los Angeles, but I have a team across the whole state. We're also the nation's largest comprehensive service provider to survivors of human trafficking. And we're here today in support of Senate Resolution 118. At CAST, we work with nearly 1500 survivors each year who have taught us that exploitation only thrives when systems fail. Too often, our everyday decisions, what we ignore, what we excuse, what we normalize or choose not to question, help reinforce these systems. The Epstein files are not just a scandal. They reflect a profound human rights failure. And so we ask what happens to survivors when these systems that are actually designed to protect them instead cause them further harm? California has been a leader in anti trafficking efforts since 1998. And now we have this incredible opportunity to set a global standard by making clear that we believe survivors, that we will fearlessly prioritize their dignity over those who abuse them with their unchecked power. This moment demands our courage and a call to action for transparency. Because that is what accountability is. It's transparency. We urge you all to stand with survivors, to stand with us and support this resolution today. Thank you.

Senator Caballero, appreciate the author for bringing this forward. I think this is really important. California needs to stand up on behalf of victims and survivors all over the world. So thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez, for bringing this resolution forward. This is important for the legislature to take action on because so many Californians were victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. And we wouldn't be in this situation if the administration, you know, was transparent and was releasing these documents. But there have been, you know, many delays and attempts to obfuscate. And I think it's important that this information be made widely available and that there's accountability for the crimes that have been committed. And I do agree that there's a lot that we have to do to prevent human trafficking and to hold those people who are engaged in trafficking accountable, which is why we have taken steps over the last several years, as the vice Chair noted, to strengthen criminal penalties and provide more resources for victims. And I see this as aligned with those efforts, which is why I will be voting for the resolution today. I'll turn it back over to close.

Chair.

Thank you, Senator. We don't have a quorum yet, but at the appropriate time, we'll entertain a motion.

Thank you. And is Senator Becker here? Okay, great. So we will go back to file item four, Senate Bill 1009 by Senator Becker.

If there are any principal witnesses, if you can please join us here at the table. And Senator, whenever you're ready to present.

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

Thank you very much. Hi, Good morning.

Thank you very much. Will now take any MeToo testimony from anyone else in support of SB 10 09. Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker center for Human Rights and support.

George Parenthu on behalf of ACLU California Action and the San Francisco Public Defenders. In support. Thank you.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate justice and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning.

Jesse's Place Organization and Justice to Jobs Coalition.

policy center and strong support.

Good morning. Andrew lassen with the california youth defense center.

aid at work, milpa collective peace and justice law center, restore180, restoring hope california rubicon programs, san francisco public defender's office, silicon valley, debug sisters warriors freedom coalition, starting over, inc.

success stories program.

Good morning, community. Jay vasquez on behalf of communities united for restore youth justice proud co sponsor, strong support. Also in strong support, california attorneys for criminal justice, the california youth justice project, change parallel project, place for grace, underground grid, universidad popular, unlocked futures, urban peace institute, urban peace movement, viet voices, youngsters for change, youth alliance, youth empowerment, youth forward, youth leadership institute and western center on long poverty. Thank you.

center for youth law and strong support

Good morning. Colin Ford, also with Fresh Lifelines for Youth and registering support for A New Path, A New Way of Life, Reentry Project, alliance for Opportunity, alliance for Boys and Men of Color, Anti Police Terror Project, Arts for Healing and Justice Network, Back to the Start and Brotherhood Crusade,

and Justice, Californians United for a Responsible

Good morning.

Strong support also from the Good Life

Thank you. Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 10 09? Seeing what no one else will take? Up to two principal witnesses in opposition. And you may proceed.

Good morning. Chair and Members Daniel Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in opposition to SB1009 today, while CPAC agrees both in mission and practice that detention should be a last resort probation, the communities we serve in the courts must have certainty and enough time to ensure that we can appropriately gather the information necessary for courts to make this level of a determination and that these decisions are grounded in a way that reflect the uniqueness presented by juveniles who commit crime and the threat to public safety. In these instances, this bill does not account for the type and scope of information that would be required to be investigated to look at less restrictive options and the circumstances around the particular case, with enough time for the courts to meet the determination of a clear and convincing standard. In light of these timelines and processes for detention hearings. Accordingly, we're deeply concerned that the bill's unintended consequences include youth being returned to unsafe home environments or other determinations that we again have not had the time to take a look at and for the judges to look at the various alternatives and the public safety needs. It is important to note that probation, along with many partners of the courts, counties and additional stakeholders, have done significant work over the last decade to use evidence based practices which has resulted in a 70% decline in juvenile detention rates. But it is equally important to note that where juveniles are being detained that these offenses for youth who are charged and adjudicated for are statistically the most serious and violent felony offenses. Following the closure of djj, the rate of youth felony arrests for violent offenses increased by nearly 70%. Despite the intent language that the bill seeks to align with the DALT system, it should be noticed that the state has made a very focused public policy decision that juveniles and adults should be treated differently in numerous aspects with regards to crimes. There obviously are various ways in which the two systems differ, one example just being that adults can be released to their own responsibility. In certain cases youth have to be returned to a parent or guardian or other placement. And so there are a whole host of things that have to take place when deciding are less restrictive options available. So in practical concern, in practical terms, the concern is that this bill would require prioritization of community placements over community safety by inhibiting the court's ability and time to make safe and appropriate detention decisions and could result in youth with the most serious offenses being released. So for those reasons, we ask for your no vote today.

Good morning, Chair and members of the Committee. My name is Patrick Espinoza. On behalf of the California district attorneys association, CDA respectfully opposes SB1900. CDA supports efforts to reduce unnecessary youth detention and to expand effective community based interventions. However, SB 1009 would substantially limit judicial discretion at both detention and disposition in ways that may undermine public safety and the rehabilitative goals of juvenile court. SB 1009 establishes a presumption of release and requires courts to find by clear and convincing evidence that detention is warranted. Detention hearings occur at the outset of proceedings, often with limited but rapidly evolving information. Imposing a heightened evidentiary standard at the early stage will restrict courts ability to respond appropriately in cases involving escalating conduct, victim intimidation and repeated failures on supervision. The bill further prohibits detention in juvenile hall unless the court finds that a less restrictive alternative is unsuitable. While alternatives are appropriate in many cases, their availability varies significantly among counties. Courts and probation departments cannot order programs that lack capacity or don't exist. Sb1009 risks creating uneven statewide outcomes driven by resource disparities rather than individualized risk assessments. In addition, SB1009 narrows the principal detention basis to protection of the person of another rather than protection of the person or property of another. This change may limit the court's ability to detain youth engaged in serious or repeated property related offenses that pose ongoing harm to victims and communities. The requirement that courts reconsider detention upon request without requiring a material change in circumstance is also likely to generate repeated court hearings and additional burdens on already strained courts and probation resources. And finally, by requiring clear and convincing evidence that a less restrictive alternative disposition is unsuitable before removing a ward from parental custody, the bill raises the threshold for placements that may be necessary to ensure accountability structure and access to appropriate treatment. And for those reasons, the California District Attorney Station urges a no vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB10 09? Please state your name organization position on the bill. Good morning, Mr.

I'm sorry to interject. We were just taking MeToo testimony, but since you're a tweener, I'll.

I'm almost up.

So, to deliver services that have traditionally been provided by trained probation staff, which can create inconsistencies in supervision and accountability, and for these reforms to succeed, counties must have the workforce and infrastructure necessary to support youth and families safely in the community and respectfully urge consideration of implementation resources to ensure these goals can be achieved.

Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to repress opposition to SB10 09? Seeing no one else. We'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Any questions or comments. Senate Caballero,

kind

the.

Thank you, vice Chair.

Okay.

All right, thank you. I have some similar concerns. As my colleague has stated already, we have two problems here. One of them is the system itself. We need more investment in that system. The system needs to work the way it's supposed to work so that it is helping people that are essentially given the timeout, whether they're adults or they're juveniles, but especially in the juvenile section, we don't know why they're there. And, you know, I heard one comment, you know, this would allow them to get back into the community where they came from. A lot of times, the community where they came from is why they're there in the first place. And I have. I served 23 years of my career in a pretty challenging environment. And you do, you. You got to see what real life looks like. And real life looks like if somebody goes to juvenile hall for a crime that their friends committed with them, and their friends don't want to be implicated when they get out, they eliminate that person. It's that simple. And then we go, you know, as a paramedic, you go in and you have to try and save somebody that's been shot, Stuff like that happens out there. And so there are a lot of cases where you need to do the investigating to see where are they going back into. And that takes time. What environment at home has enabled this person to get to the point where they're in juvenile hall? And that Again, how does this bill allow for the time that it takes to investigate to ensure that the home environment is not one of the major problems? Because if it is, what happens to the 14 or 15 year old? They don't want to be home, they're not going to be detained to get help. They wind up in the street. You see that in the Covenant House commercials all the time. These young people in the street, there's a reason they're in the street because they don't want to be home and they have no place to go. So I think this is kind of getting into an area where we're trying to fix something because the system itself is not adequate to help. But certainly putting them right back into the environment that got them there in the first place is not the answer either. And so that's my struggle with this bill. And you know, I've been an advocate on both the juvenile and the adult systems that we need to make the appropriate investments in the court systems and in the probation systems and in the detention systems to accomplish the goal of helping people. Right, the ship, whatever ship, whatever rail they went off on, we need to get them back on. And there's a lot of failures in that. And some of our bills are more about not having them be part of that part than it is about actually helping them. Because they're going to wind up. Exactly. They're just going to wind up back again because they're being put back in the environment that got them in there in the first place. So that's my concerns with the bill.

Thank you. I'll just somewhat longer close because we heard some comments here but the and I just want to say a couple things. One for thank you for your point chair there about the wraparound services. And I just want to say that, you know, there are good people in the system. There are good people in the probation officer and DA's office and judge and try to make the right decisions. And that was true also 10, 20, 30 years ago. We have good people trying to make the right decisions for youth. So this bill I'd say is it's almost more of a real statement of our values and of our intent to some extent. Right. There is some, there's judicial discretion today. There'll be Jewish judicial discretion with this bill. But even what we heard from the probation officers, while I appreciate the great work to have a 70% decline in detention, that proves also that we were detaining way too many youth before.

So it's great we've had decline. But if you listen to the DAs and I've talked to many and public defenders for sure public defenders, we are detaining too many still today. And so this bill is really that statement of saying great, we're moving the right direction. Let's maybe it's time now to have an evidentiary standard that we haven't had before and that I think, you know, hopefully most of us can agree is actually a good one. The and I will say, and you know, we'll continue conversations with folks who have concerns, members and opposition. I would say even in, in before even putting this bill forward, I ran it by several DAs, including from Red, relatively red counties and who were, who were actually supportive of the goals this bill. So a little surprised to hear the, the opposition. But you know, we'll be, we'll be engaging with them. And what I want to make sure is we're not, not turning down good policy. We're not holding more youth for, you know, quote, unquote, practical concerns. Because I did hear some of the, you know, practical concerns, disparities around counties, you know, enough probation officers. If those are problems, we need to fix those problems. But the youth shouldn't suffer. And I think we can agree if, you know, the estimates are right, say, you know, 40 plus percent are nonviolent offenders. Do we necessarily want those folks in their, in juvenile hall with the violent offenders? Right. Is that the and in detention rather than, you know, in their, in their communities? So, you know, again, I just want to address that some of the concerns, not all of them, but really more than the practical, you know, side of this. So, you know, we do believe there's enough time. And by the way, again, judges still have discretion and if someone comes in for a serious, a serious charge, the judges are probably more likely, probably more likely than maybe some of us would like. And some of the public defenders would like to say, yeah, we should have restrictive detention. And again, it's clear that if someone's a threat to themselves or threat to the community, absolutely. That detention could be warranted and under this bill, you know, could be implemented. So with that, I do look forward to continued conversations. I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. First, I want to thank you as the chair of senate public Safety and the chair of assembly Public Safety for working together on this and the staff, the committee staff on both sides coming together to be able to present where we stand today on this bill. I presented here last year on this and we're bringing back what I feel like is a much stronger and balanced approach. I also want to thank CDAA, our Sacramento District Attorneys and several other DAs who've joined on as co sponsors, but also smart justice who came to the table and worked with us for hours and hours and weeks and months at a time so that we had something that was strong enough to present to us here today that would not only still keep mental health diversion programs in place, but also put some guardrails in place so that our judges have the opportunity to deny the mental health diversion program should they feel that it is a threat to to public, that it is a public safety risk. So AB46 strengthens judicial discretion and makes clear that judges may deny diversion when public safety is at risk. In 2022, in the Whitmill versus the people, the court of appeals interpreted the current law in a way that led courts to grant diversion even when judges may have concerns about public safety. When courts themselves point out that the current language limits their discretion and leads them to grant diversion even when there's a public safety at risk, it show that the current law needs to be more clear. And that's what we have today. Because judges shouldn't feel forced into decisions when they believe public safety may be at risk. Victims and communities deserve confidence that public safety risks are fully considered when diversion decisions are made. We need a justice system that supports rehabilitation, but not at the expense of safety and accountability, which is why AB46 is necessary. It puts community safety as a priority when preserving diversion as an important tool for rehabilitation. And I just want to be clear because this has come to our office several times. I'm sure it's come to your office several times. We are not trying to end the diversion treatment. This does not dismantle the programs. It's simply just puts guardrails around, empowers judges to do their job. It reflects more than a year's work of collaboration amongst stakeholders among both houses to get it to where we're at today. And I'm proud. I'm proud to where it stands as of right now. Here to testify is Placer County DA Morgan Guyer and crime survivor Amanda Ortiz.

Good morning, chairs. My family is very thankful to have been invited here today. There are no words strong enough to express the trauma and the anguish that's engulfed my family following the senseless and utterly preventable murder of my beloved Robert James. Robert James was a splendor of laughter and love. His spirit was radiant. His smart, his heart could melt. His smile could melt your heart. Today his absence has been replaced with unfathomable grief in the hearts of his parents, his grandparents and his six year old daughter, his uncles, aunts, cousins, families and many other people he has touched. Every day my family struggles to move forward and every day we collapse under the weight of the permanent sadness, emptiness, depression, anxiety in our hearts stemming from Robert James death. But we stand here today to lend our voices in support of necessary change to the mental health diversion law that robbed my nephew of his life. Make no mistake, my nephew's murder was all was altered was utterly and absolutely preventable without the direct aid of the state. By releasing my nephew's violent killer who was a repeat offender and giving him the opportunity to prey on the community again. We are not against programs, but we are against programs that lack complete transparency, accountability and fail to keep the community safe. Robert James parents made the unbelievably painful decision to remove him from life support after being shot in the head and deemed brain dead. They did that so Robert James could be an organ donator in an attempt not to let his life be in vain. The following day was Robert James 25th birthday. We had a celebration of life for him on his birthday and watched his six year old daughter sing happy Birthday to her dad. We as a family beg you to bury this law before another family has to bury their loved ones. Thank you very much for listening.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We now take any MeToo testimony from anyone else in support of Assembly Bill 46. If you can please approach the Microsoft State your name, organization and position on the bill.

Rochelle Beardsley, Sacramento County District Attorney, proud

Thank you.

Hi.

Katrina Ranum, justice beyond the Courtroom, in full support.

Thank you once again. If you can please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

We're not taking extemporaneous testimony at this time. We're just asking to state your name, organization, position on the bill.

We thank you for being here.

Thank you, sir.

I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Support. Sonia Martinez, satchel member of Voices for

Thank you.

Thank you.

James Ortiz Support thank you.

Yes.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders association, first I want to say I'm so sorry for your loss. That's truly a tragedy. I was an Alameda county deputy public defender for over 30 years and for almost 30 of those years I spent almost every day working with Californians suffering from mental illness. I was assigned to the mental health unit for part of that time, but it didn't matter where I was assigned because the criminal legal system has become the de facto mental health system for the state. Case after case I had mental health. I had families ask me to help their child or brother or wife to get counseling for their mental illness. Many times these families were the victims of their loved ones mental delusions. I want to share one story about the father who begged me at every court appearance to get the son who had stabbed him out of custody and into counseling. The father broke down crying in open court when the district attorney demanded prison. That father and mother had tried over and over again to get help for their son before the stabbing, only to be turned away. That family story is not unique. It was representative of a failure to treat individuals suffering from mental illness in their families with the care that they deserve and that we want for our own loved ones. What these families want is more access to mental health care and an assurance that when a judge handles a case involving mental illness, they can consider each case individually to decide if court ordered treatment is the best possible outcome. Using the mental health diversion statute. California has been doing exactly that. Under its guidance, judges are permitted but not required to consider years long court supervised treatment as one way of resolving a case. Courts have used that discretion carefully. They have denied petitions for diversion in 96 of the cases. Only 4% have received treatment. Los Angeles is a successful case study. They've embraced this opportunity for change and invested hundreds of millions of dollars into programming and supervision for mental health diversion candidates. The results have been incredible. Over the past seven years, Los Angeles public defenders have watched men and women arrested while living in a cardboard box talk about how after two years in the diversion program, they are now medicated living in their own apartment, employed and reunited with the family they hadn't spoken to in a decade.

Discretion already exists in AB.

In the diversion statute. AB 46 is not thoughtful and it's not based on the data. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Good morning, Chair and members. George Bramthouse, speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to AB 46. This bill would effectively prevent courts from offering diversion. Under our current laws, a court can only grant diversion if a defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder. That disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense. A treatment program is available and the defendant can be safely treated in the community. As the legislature debates AB46, we should keep in mind the following facts about the current system. A judge is never required to grant diversion. In fact, as the Public defenders just said, judges grant diversion in less than 4% of cases. If you are charged with murder, you are not eligible for diversion. If you are charged with rape, you are not eligible for diversion. If you are charged with committing a sexual act against a child or most other offenses requiring PC290 registration, you are not eligible for diversion. If a judge finds that you would be at risk of committing certain violent felonies in the community, you are not eligible for diversion. Despite what some claim, our current laws are strict, only allowing judges to address root causes of crime in a subset of cases. We should not further restrict judges ability to offer treatment to those who need it. These programs are one of the most effective public safety tools we have. Graduates of LA's Mental Health Diversion Program have a 9% likelihood of reoffending. In contrast, individuals leaving our state prisons have a 42% chance of reoffending. The end result of AB46's limit on diversion will be that Californians with mental health conditions will languish in our prisons without treatment before they are released into our communities without support. This does not promote public safety. For these reasons we are in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Liz Blum Gutierrez, on behalf of Vera, California, Louisiana County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and the San Francisco Public Defender in respectful opposition.

Chair and members.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of the Ella Baker center for Human Rights and respectful opposition. Thank you for your work on the

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB46? Seeing no one else. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments.

Well, thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill forward today. And I want to thank you for being here. And once again, I'm so terribly sorry for the tragic loss that your family has endured. It's senseless and unacceptable. And I think our goal is one to make sure that people continue who are not posing a public safety risk and who would benefit from diversion and treatment, that they're able to get connected to the treatment, because we don't need more people locked up in our county jails and our state prisons who need care and treatment. But when somebody poses a significant risk to public safety, that needs to be factored into the detection, determination about whether someone is suitable for diversion so that more families don't experience the loss that you endured. I want to thank the author for all the work that's been done over the past year, working not just with prosecutors, but also with smart justice and really hearing the concerns. And when this was before our committee last summer, you know, I encourage you to sit down with opposition and, you know, hear their concerns and see if there's a path forward. And I think this bill very thoughtfully still ensures that in lots of cases, judges have the discretion to refer people to diversion, but changing the standard so that you're considering the risk to public safety. Because what I've heard from judges and from district attorneys is that the current statute is very restrictive in that unless you commit a super strike offense, judges feel like they do not have the discretion to deny diversion if they think somebody poses a public safety risk. And no doubt that there are people that do commit violent crimes that could benefit from treatment. But we've also seen the really terrible consequences that have happened when these people have been released back into the community. So I think this strikes a reasonable balance and ensures that we can continue to, in many cases with the discretion and the fact determination of each specific case to grant diversion, except when it proposes substantial undue risk to physical safety, because we need to balance those things. And so I thank you very much for the work, the partnership and bringing forward this bill. And with that, I'll turn over to you to close.

Chair. Thank you very much. Assemblember. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. We do not have a quorum at this time. We are working to. I know that there are some members in the Energy Committee I need to go and those in the Energy Committee, too. So once we establish a quorum, we're entering a motion on this bill. And we have one more bill to present. That's mine, so I'll turn over to the vice chair.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments which make clarifying and technical changes. For the record, I'm pleased to present before you Today Senate Bill 948, which strengthens firearm safety by requiring individuals seeking to obtain a firearm safety certificate, which is already current state law, to complete a comprehensive and meaningful training on firearm safety, transport and live fire shooting. Additionally, new California residents will be required to register their firearms with the Department of justice within 60 days and obtain a valid state fire safety certificate. Under current state law, firearm applicants are required to pass a Department of justice administered written exam to obtain a valid fire safety certificate. However, new California residents are not currently required to register the firearms with the state. When moving into California, I also want to emphasize existing exemptions will remain in place. Active or retired police officers, federal officers, law enforcement agents who are already exempt under current law will continue to be exempt. Firearm safety is essential in preventing firearm related incidents, especially those involving children. By strengthening training requirements and closing gaps in current law, SB948 will ensure responsible gun ownership to keep Californians and communities safe. And I just want to call attention to the analysis and just state for the record that I think there are some suggestions that community staff had raised, namely for people that are importing firearms, provide a little bit more time for them to complete the fire safety certificate. That's something we'll consider. This bill moves out of committee today and certainly wanted to call attention to the fact that the number of states have established these requirements already, including Oregon, New Jersey, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Maryland. And Maryland in particular, their law was the subject of a federal court case in which the court had ruled that their training requirements were consistent with the second amendment and with certain federal law. And so this is building on work that's already being done in other states and just recognizing that if you undergo this training so that you can safely handle a firearm, safely store a firearm, we're going to reduce the number of incidents where kids and other people are being shot. We're going to reduce the gun violence. We're going to ensure that people are operating their firearms safely. With me to testify in support of the bill is Rebecca Marcus representing Brady and also Ali Lindley representing Team Enough, a high school and college student group that's part of Brady. And we also have Steve Lindley from Brady who can assist with any technical questions.

Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Ali Lindley and I'm the founder and president of Team Enough chapter in Temecula. Teamin up is the Brady Campaign's youth led initiative that works to educate young people about gun violence and mobilize them to take meaningful action to prevent it. Firearms, by design, are dangerous. Responsible gun owners must exercise precautions to ensure their weapons are not used to cause preventable injuries and death. California has a strong system of gun related regulations designed to prevent such tragedies. However, these regulations can only be effective if gun owners are informed about what is required of them. Senate Bill 948 will require additional training and education to obtain a firearm safety certificate which is required to purchase a firearm in California. This additional training and education consists of eight hours of live range firearm training as part of the firearm safety certificate process. It is common sense that those purchasing a firearm should be properly trained in how to use, handle and store firearms and should participate in firearm training. Firearm safety is crucial and safety training needs to be at the forefront of everyone's minds when handling deadly weapons. According to the National Rifle Association's gun safety Rules at the nra, firearm and education safety is paramount. Brady and Team Enough agree with the NRA's statements regarding firearm training and education and we look forward to your support in this vital requirement as part of the California firearm safety certificate process. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and I ask for your I vote Good job.

Good morning Chair and Committee Members. My name is Rebecca Marcus. I have the privilege to be the lobbyist for both co sponsors of the Bill Brady Campaign as well as the Consumer Protection Policy center at the University of San Diego School of Law. CPPC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan academic and research center that has monitored and participated in legislative matters for the past four decades. As I said, we're proud co sponsors of SB948, which will ensure Californians remain responsible and law abiding firearm owners between 2016 to 2021, there were over 69,000 gunshot wound incidents that resulted in death or required urgent medical attention in California. Of those incidents, 31% were from unintended and accidental shootings. Beginning in 2020, firearms surpassed vehicle accidents as the number one cause of death for children in the U.S. further, most accidental firearm injuries among children occur within the home, with two thirds of the shooters having been playing with or showing the firearm to others when it was discharged and shot a child. Current law requires a person to obtain an FSC before they can purchase or receive a firearm within California with certain exemptions. As the Senator mentioned, they instruct Californians on state firearm laws, safe storage practices, suicide prevention, and proper handling instructions. However, there are no requirements for people moving into the state with firearms to obtain an FSC or to require a resident to complete an FSC if they receive a firearm in another state. We're just going to closing this loophole. Additionally, we would like to mention this bill is concurrent with the requirements under New York State Rifle and Pistol association versus Bruin. Under Bruin narrow, objective and definite standards, firearms safety courses are permitted to ensure only those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are in fact responsible and law abiding. For these reasons mentioned, we respectfully request your I vote. I've also been asked by my colleagues at Every Town Moms Demand Action and Gifford to voice support of the bill.

Thank you very much for your testimony this morning. At this time we'll take metoos in support of the bill. Just come to the microphone. State your name, your position and who you represent. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else at this time? I'll bring up the opposition, the primary witnesses for opposition. We can come up and have a seat over on that side.

Each of you have two minutes. They did a great job adhering to that. So.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much. And at this time, we'll take me toos in opposition. Anybody would care to come up and state their opposition to the bill, they can come up, state their name, organization they represent, and their opposition. Okay, so that ends that. Everybody has Done a fabulous job of presenting your opinions on this. We will not be voting because we don't have anybody here yet. And you may close, Mr. Attaking.

All right, thank you very much. We're done. Sergeants, we need some people.

No way.

Dean.

Sayrdo.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Present.

Okay, we have a quorum. Thank you very much. Okay, we have already had bill presentations, so I'll entertain a motion on consent. Move by Sierra to which is SB891. If the committee assistant could please call the roll.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Perez. Aye.

Weiner.

Aye.

So moved.

Arroguin.

Aye. Sierrado.

Aye.

Caballero Reyes.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay. Arraign.

Aye. Cerdo.

Aye. Caballero Reyes.

Perez.

Aye.

We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you. Moving now to file item four, SB 1109. Senator Becker. I'll entertain a motion on that bill moved by Senator Reyes. Thank you. The motion is due pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations.

Aye.

No.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Okay, that bill has enough votes, but we'll keep it on Call. Moving now to file item 5, SCR118 by Senator Gonzalez, entering a motion. Moved by Senator Wiener. The motion is to be passed to the floor.

Be adopted to the floor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

I'll move it.

Araguin.

Aye. Sierdo.

Aye. Caballero Reyes.

Aye. Perez. Weiner.

Aye.

Thank you.

Araguin.

Aye. Sierrado.

No. Caballero Reyes.

Aye. Perez. Aye. Wiener.

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call as well. Thank you, colleagues. We'll take a five minute recess, then we'll close the roll.

Okay,

Sure.

Aye.

Sure. Caballero.

Caballero.

Aye.

Caballero.

Sure. Se Ardo, Caballero.

Aye. Okay, that bill's on about a five to zero. Moving now to item six, AB46 by Assemblymember Nguyen.

Aye.

Okay, that bill is out in a vote of 5 to 0. And lastly, moving now to file item 7, SB948, by myself.

Aye.

Oh, five to one.

Sorry about that.