Public Safety — 2026-06-16 (partial)

Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, June 16, 2026. We do have a quorum, so if the committee is assisting, please call the roll. Aragin? Here. Aragin here. Sayarto? Here. Sayarto here. Caballero? Here. Caballero here. Cortese? Here. Cortese here. Perez? Wiener. Okay. Just a few announcements as we begin today's hearing. First, a number of items have been pulled. File item 1, AB 1568 by Assemblymember Alanis has been pulled and will not be reset for a later hearing per the author. File item 10, AB 1810 by Berman has been pulled and will be heard next week. File item 11, AB 1816 by Davies has been pulled by the author and will be heard next week. File item 13, AB 1927, Correll has been pulled and will also be heard next week. And file item 14, AB 1889 has been pulled and will be heard next week. The following bills are on the consent calendar. File item 2, AB 1645, Mark Gonzalez. File item 4, AB 1688, Carrillo. File item 8, AB-1759, El Hawari File item 9, AB-1778, Patterson File item 12, AB-1820, Krell File item 15, AB-2018, Ramos File item 17, AB-2147, Chavo File item 18, AB-2720, Chavo I'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar

Aragene?

Aragene, aye

Ciara Tau, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez, Wiener. We'll keep the consent calendar on call. So we'll now proceed to our first bill presentation, File Item 3, Assembly Bill 1662 by Assemblymember Wilson. Good morning. And if there are any principal witnesses, you're welcome to join us here at the table. And good morning, whenever you're ready to present.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Justin Vance on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. You'll be seeing a lot of us this year. There's a number of bills coming over. we've seen a great large number of bills introduced after the Cal matters article last year kind of really shown how desperately we're in need to reform how we're punishing people who are either driving drunk or doing multiple driving infractions on our roads and really appreciate the author for bringing this forward I guess the analogy I would use is I could leave here today run a stop sign get a ticket, get points, and that's my punishment. But if I get diverted from that, none of that happens. So it seems like a very fair and reasonable point. And again, to Mr. Feldman's point about this is our civil remedy, that's exactly what it is. It not interfering with the criminal procedures of how a diversion program works We appreciate your support this morning Thank you Thank you very much Will I take me to testimony in support of AB 1662

Good morning. I read Arapi Chon on behalf of AAA Northern California in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and the Riverside County District Attorney's Office in support.

Mr. Chairman, members, Dan Filizotto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support. Thank you very much.

Simran Carr with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

I first want to thank the Assemblymember for this bill. I think it's a very important bill. It's part of a package of legislation in both houses to improve road safety and address the issue of reckless and impaired driving. At the beginning of the year, Senator Cortese, Chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, and myself as Chair of Public Safety held an informational hearing on the issue of reckless driving, impaired driving, and road safety. And we had the director of the Department of Motor Vehicles present at the hearing about their department's enforcement of impaired driving laws. And clearly the reporting in CalMatters illustrates that the department has not done a good job of investigating reckless driving. And we've seen tragic consequences of people after multiple incidents of reckless driving who have killed people. And so I think this bill is really about making sure that DMV gets the information, that they're able to take action early in the process so that we don't lose more lives on our roadways in California. So I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward. Thank you.

You said it well. Any other questions or comments?

I want to take a motion on the bill.

Okay, moved by Vice Chair Ciarto. Thank you. Unless there's any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back over to Assemblyman Wilson to close.

We have a motion by Vashar Sciarto. The committee assistant can please call the roll.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Weiner. We'll keep that bell on call. Thank you. Okay we are going to wait for another author to appear so we recess the committee for five minutes Okay, we're going to reconvene the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing and proceed now to our next bill presentation, file item 5, AB 1741 by Assemblymember Pacheco. Good morning. And whenever you're ready, Assemblymember, you may present on your bill.

Great. Thank you very much. Welcome. You each have two minutes to present on the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Erin Harper and I am a victim advocate speaking today in support of AB 1741 on behalf of crime victims and survivors. For victims, sexual battery is never a minor violation. When it occurs after someone has unlawfully entered a person's home, that harm extends far beyond the physical act itself. Survivors often describe this experience as one of the most terrifying moments of their lives. Imagine waking up in the middle of the night to find a stranger in your bedroom, or realizing that someone has entered the place where you and your family should feel the safest and commits a sexual battery against you. Even after the offender is gone, many victims continue to live with fear, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and a profound loss of security. As a victim advocate, I frequently hear survivors of this type of crime say that they no longer feel safe in their own homes. They check locks repeatedly, leave lights on, have trouble sleeping, and sometimes move altogether because of the lingering impact of this type of trauma. Their home, which should be a safe haven, becomes a place of fear. Current law recognizes the heightened danger of harm of home intrusions for offenses such as indecent exposure and child molestation. However, there remains a gap in the law when an offender enters a home without consent and commits a sexual battery that does not meet the other elements of another felony offense. AB 1741 closes that gap by allowing prosecutors and courts the discretion to treat these offenses as either misdemeanors or felonies depending on the facts of the case. It simply recognizes that violating someone's bodily autonomy after unlawfully entering their home is a more serious offense that warrants greater accountability. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1741 Thank you for your time Thank you very much Will not take me to testimony in support of AB 1741 If you can please state your name organization and position on the bill Good morning Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association

Dan Filizotto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Thank you.

Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers and the Riverside Sheriff's Association and the Crime Victims Alliance, in support.

Good morning. Am I on? Am I on now? Now? There we go. Okay. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition. Before my retirement, I worked in indigent defense for nearly 40 years, 27 years in Contra Costa County and another 12 to 13 in Solano County, ultimately running the Solano County office as chief defender. I'm also the co-chair for the California Public Defenders Association Committee on Legislation. As public defenders who represent 80 to 90 percent of all criminal defendants in California, we are in a unique overview of the charging of criminal offenses. The bill's sponsors claim there is a loophole in the law. There is not. There are myriad ways to criminally charge the behavior targeted in this bill, many listed in your committee's own analysis. Under the scenario offered by the bill's sponsors, an assailant breaks into a victim's home who is sleeping and sexually touches the victim. Individuals who do this are charged every day by prosecutors in California with violations of Penal Code Section 220 or other of the listed offenses that currently exist in the Penal Code. It is also frequently charged as attempted rape. I tried a felony case with facts such as the sponsors early in my career, some 30 years ago. That's how long this very behavior that has been charged exists under the law. AB 1741 is overbroad, casting too large a net, and this fact does create a new crime. A misdemeanor battery can include relatively minor conduct, including an unwanted kiss or attempted to grind while dancing. In a very common scenario for young adults, a person will attend a party at the home of a person they don't know, along with a group of friends. If later there is misdemeanor battery such as I had just discussed it could be charged as a felony simply because it occurred inside a house and the owner did not expressly consent to the person being in the house For these reasons we respectfully request your no vote Thank you Okay thank you very much Good morning Chair and Assembled Members My name is Mary Ray I an attorney with the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office, the largest and oldest criminal defense firm in the nation. I'm also an at-large board member with Local 148 and represent the 600-plus attorneys with that office. Every day we go into the largest court system in California and the nation and we represent your constituents who have been accused of crimes. Every day we defend the constitutional rights of Angelenos. I am here today to strongly urge you to vote nay on AB 1741. This is an unnecessary addition to our penal code. The scenario offered by the district attorney's office is already covered by existing law. Firstly, if an individual wrongfully enters into the dwelling place of another with the intent to commit any type of crime, misdemeanor or felonious, they can be charged with a first-degree burglary. If a person is present, as would be necessary for a sexual battery, that crime would be alleged as a violent felony strike pursuant to Penal Code Section 667.5, a crime that carries far more punishment than the non-strike opposed in the bill. While Penal Code Section 459 does not require sex offender registration, Penal Code Section 290.006 gives the judge discretionary power to add sex offender registration to any crime if the defendant committed the crime as a result of sexual compulsion or for the purposes of sexual gratification. I agree with the California Public Defenders Association. This bill is overbroad and will potentially over-criminalize the described conduct. That's why I urge you to vote nay on AB 1741.

Avery Rodriguez with ACU California Action and strong opposition. Similia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.

That is correct.

Thank you. So some confusion in the type of offenses here. When somebody breaks into a house but doesn't take anything, that's a trespass is not correct.

Right. And a lot of times if you know like in the case of an indigent person breaking into a house and then just laying down on the couch and going to sleep because they thought it was their house That often charged as a trespass because it would be difficult to prove felonious intent Right. So there's some discretion about what you're charging people with.

Yeah. So in this case, what we're trying to do is somebody that breaks in usually – well, it doesn't have to be at night, I guess – and approaches somebody who is unaware that they're there initially and touches them, yeah, that person needs to have some consequences. And I think that's what this bill is trying to do is ensure that there are some stiffer consequences in some of the cases where current law doesn't allow for a full sexual assault or anything like that because they were just standing above them and then touched their butt. I feel sorry for somebody who breaks into my house and does that. I think whatever they get charged with would be a whole lot better for them. That's ridiculous. So anyway, yeah, if they're breaking into the house, there's no excuse for that. And we've got to send better messages that it's time to stop making excuses for people that have that kind of behavior followed by – because you don't know what their intent is until they actually do something sometimes. And so it's hard to guess what somebody's intent was and prosecute that. It's like you have to wait until they do something, and then you get to do something about it. This is more proactive. This ensures that somebody that's breaking into a house and his behavior is driven by his compulsions or her compulsions to assault somebody, No matter how grave the assault is or how minor the assault might be, it's still an assault. And they shouldn't be there in the first place, and that message can be sent by a judge who can look at the circumstances. So I think this is a really good bill. I appreciate you bringing it, and I'll be supporting your bill today. With that, I'll go ahead and move the bill.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

AB 1741, Pacheco. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Searto?

Searto, aye.

Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Perez?

all right good morning chair and members today i'm here to present a Assembly Bill 2760, a bill that allows but does not require counties that already have an office of Inspector General to expand the OIG's oversight to include probation departments and animal control. Assembly Bill 2760 strengthens oversight of local public safety systems by broadening the OIG's jurisdiction. The bill promotes transparency, accountability, and also deals with consistent standards across agencies that play a critical role in the community's safety and well-being. Traditionally, the OIGs have focused on law enforcement entities, such as police and sheriff's departments, reflecting longstanding concerns around the use of force, misconduct, and also public trust. Public safety extends beyond traditional policing. Probation departments supervise individuals in the community, including youth and adults, and play a central role in the rehabilitation and recidivism. At the same time, animal control agencies are increasingly on the front lines of public health and also safety. They respond to issues such as dangerous animals, neglect, and disease risk. Counties are currently responsible for overseeing these particular departments, but unfortunately in my county, San Diego County, the board lacks the capacity to effectively fulfill this particular duty. This is why I brought forth this bill that simply allows the county that has an OIG to task the OIG with oversight of probation and animal control while reporting back to the county that exercises the same final oversight, say, that it does currently. This is not a new oversight, and I will state that again. This is not a new oversight, as mentioned by opposition, but rather a tool to allow counties to effectively do their jobs when they are unable to do so from a capacity standpoint. With me to present is Eric Henderson with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. But before Eric presents, if the chair will allow, I would like to read a letter of support from my county supervisor, Monica Montgomery Stepp, who was unable to obviously travel up today to this hearing to speak on their behalf as she is a proud co-sponsor.

Thank you so much. All right. It says, as vice chair of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, District 4, I am writing to express my strong support for Assembly Bill 2760. This bill includes the probation and county animal control departments under the jurisdiction of an office of Inspector General. Although the probation and animal control departments are under the direct purview of the Board of Supervisors, allowing the office of the Inspector General to have oversight over these departments would be another much-needed tool to ensure that public safety is achieved in a transparent, fair, and equitable manner. My office often receives complaints from parents of youth who are in detention facilities and from animal rights activists regarding perceived wrongdoings within our local animal control, and we do not have the ability nor capacity to investigate every complaint on our own. Allowing the Office of the Inspector General to have this broader jurisdiction, we greatly believe this burden, particularly at a time when San Diego's probation department is still under state investigation and complaints are numerous. While our local citizens' law enforcement review board, CLERB, has the authority to investigate probation, CLERB is often required to summarily dismiss those cases because they are unable to access records. Moreover, CLERB may only investigate if a complaint is filed, while the inspector general has the ability to conduct his own audits and inspections or conduct an investigation on his own initiative. And for these reasons I respectfully ask for your overall support and I vote for maybe 2760 Thank you so much for your time Signed Vice Chair of the County Board of Supervisors Monica Montgomery Great Thank you so much Thank you very much You have two minutes to address the committee on the bill

Good morning, Chair and members. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, proudly based in Oakland, in support of AB 2760. AB 2760 is a thoughtful and common sense measure to support counties performing their required oversight duties. At its core, AB 2760 is about accountability, transparency, and increasing the public's trust in agencies that wield significant power over their lives. Across the state, we see a need for oversight of probation departments. Some of the alarming instances that we've recently heard are abuse and neglect of individuals and agencies care, a lack of transparency about agency policies and accountability when these policies are not followed. Further, many departments are experiencing severe staffing shortages, and there are many more examples to share about probation and animal control departments. Even if the state were not facing an avalanche of reported abuses and mistreatments, counties are already required to oversee probation departments. AB 2760 provides them with a valuable opportunity to carry out that function by allowing, not requiring, counties with an office of an inspector general to move the oversight of probation and animal control to the OIG that then reports to the county. For counties that find that they lack the capacity to fulfill their duties due to resource constraints or capacity issues, they now have a tool to do just that instead of failing to deliver the oversight the public deserves. It is said that Sunshine is said to be the best disinfectant. If so, AB 2760 is a critical bill to ensure public trust and probation in animal control departments. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your yes votes.

Good morning, Chair and members. Daniel Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California here today in respectful opposition to AB 2760. While County Probation Departments serve the counties in which they operate, they're also governed by a broad and expansive body of state laws ensuring both consistency and interoperability. These things require extra care with new laws authorizing individual counties to implement standalone oversight to ensure that these practices are not in conflict with or duplicative of authority held by other entities. For example, if there are differing directives from two entities at the state or local levels, how do you ensure the reconciliation of those in a way that does not actually impede the very things being sought by both entities or impeding of services? Additionally, this bill has implications around record sharing, confidentiality, and other things that must align with existing law. There are significant authority and inspection obligations currently covering probation and juvenile facilities. That includes the Board of State and Community Corrections, Juvenile Justice Commissions, Ombudsperson, Grand Juries, the courts, Departments of Public Health, Fire Marshal, Environmental Health, and others. I want to be very clear we are not in any way opposed to transparency oversight or the communication that necessary for the delivery of important services that probation provides But we do believe those things already exist at a very extensive level both state and local And we are concerned about the fact of adding a singular entity at the local level that there are complexities that have to be accounted for about how we ensure that all of these entities all of these structures, all of these frameworks work together in a way that is meaningfully providing the services and moving things forward. So, again, we believe that everything being sought in this bill is already an existing law. We're certainly not opposed to the notion of, again, having things in place that look at these processes, but believe that is already covered. So for those reasons, CPOC is opposed today. And I would just add that I have been asked by a colleague to communicate PORAC's opposition to the bill as well.

Mr. Chair and members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, also in respectful opposition.

Senator Cortese. Yes, just a question. I came in supportive of the bill. My understanding to the author, my understanding is that the bill is basically enabling legislation to allow a county board of supervisors, if they so choose to bring on an OIG, an inspector general or an office of inspector general. Is that correct?

That is absolutely correct. And I would just say I appreciate the comments of CPOC and the opposition. Having spent a dozen years on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, I feel like the board can, you know, weigh this out, weigh out the concerns that you brought forward and probably make a better decision locally depending on what's going on. It might be a lot of counties that don't have the need, the budget, or the willingness to go down that path. And then we had things like we had in Santa Clara County some years ago. So it was somebody murdered in the jails where on that side of the equation we decided, probably against my vote at the time, but we decided as a majority of the board to bring in somebody to do that kind of oversight, to try to wade through all the recommendations for straightening things out. So I can imagine out of 58 counties, 57 other ones would have never done that or had to do it. So I kind of see it as a local decision-making opportunity. And I think with charter counties, they may be already able to do this, you know, even without the legislation. I'm not sure. It does seem to me it doesn't hurt to have the legislation in place. So I'm happy to move the bill if it's timely to do that.

Clarification on this particular bill and what it does. So are you suggesting that right now that the OIG for, say they have one appointed for the sheriffs, they add more departments to that particular OIG? Is that what this does? Because I would think they would already have the capacity to assign an individual to each one of those things if they wanted to.

Okay, because it says it's currently limited to the oversight of the sheriff. They don't have one for the sheriff?

Okay.

Right.

But is this one OIG for all of these, or is it separate?

For all.

And if this gives them the authority to combine all these into one.

Oh, okay.

I appreciate you asking or answering the question.

So in closing, we do put trust in our counties to oversee the operations of our county department. And the public itself depends on the effective oversight. And unfortunately, sometimes counties, they're not equipped to carry out these particular functions. And so this particular bill will allow another voluntary pathway to make good on the promise to the public of truly effective oversight. So when doing so, 2760 will improve law enforcement, but also strengthen public trust. So with that, I do respectfully ask for an aye vote on 2760.

AB 2760, Sharp Collins. Motion is due passed to local government. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no.

Cortese?

Cortese, aye. Perez?

I think I can do it.

Thank you, Chair and colleagues. And first, I would like to thank the Chair and this committee for your thoughtful work on this bill and to let you know that I will be accepting the committee amendments. So thank you for that. Today I'm presenting AB 1753. It's called the Survivor Pathways to Safety Act. And I come to this bill as a former prosecutor, someone who's been at the gun violence prevention movement for 27 years since Columbine, the person in San Francisco who created the Mayor's Office of Victims' Rights, and also the daughter of a domestic violence survivor who was in a domestic violence relationship with my former stepdad for 41 years. So I come to this bill with a lot of experience, not just legal experience,

Chair Errigin, Vice Chair Sayarto, and members of the committee, my name is Ethan Murray, and I'm a state policy attorney with Giffords, the gun violence prevention organization founded by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords. In 2023 nearly 290 protection orders were reported to the California Department of Justice They one of the most important legal tools available for public safety For the past several years the California State Legislature has worked to improve implementation of these life-saving measures, and I want to situate this bill in that effort. One by one, the laws this body has passed have brought new innovations and consistency to how firearm elinquishment processes are handled, regardless of which type of protection order a person seeks. Since 2021, the legislature has created a consistent process for relinquishment that involves a referral to local prosecutors if a person fails to relinquish their firearms and created a standard policy for service of protection orders. AB 1753 takes the next step by ensuring prosecutors have a policy in place for processing these cases of noncompliance. You'd be surprised, but sometimes something as simple as sending it to the wrong email has prevented the implementation of these orders. Many authors have expanded remote hearing access in protection order cases because of what Assemblymember pointed out. That case in San Diego is a prime example. AB 1753 takes the final step to allow remote hearings for all restraining order cases, including workplace violence and school violence restraining orders. The legislature has recently created new offenses related to firearms, including threats to schools. AB 1753 makes the firearm prohibition consistent with similarly situated laws. AB 3083 by Assemblymember Lackey required judges to check California's automated firearm protection order in domestic violence cases. AB 1753 gives judges authority in all protection order cases. I say all this to demonstrate that AB 1753 and its many lengthy provisions represent a capstone project of sorts. This body has moved forward over the last decade. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in strong support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady Campaign and Brady California. Thank you. In support. Chairman members, Tim Madden representing the California Chapter for the American College

Mr. Chairman, members, Dan Filizotto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the Crime Victims Alliance. In support.

Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1753, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Thank you very much. Are there any other opposition witnesses? Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1753?

Thank you. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill, bring it back to the committee for any questions, comments, or motion. Vice Chair Certo.

100%.

No, the process can take a while.

Thank you, Senator. And we've worked with the Department of Justice and Giffords to come up with that, and I'll turn that over to the witness to answer. yeah so the the 10-year window is something that is already existing in california law ab 1753 doesn't touch that it adds some um violations to that already existing law to get kind of these things similarly situated all in the same place so the the school threats is a example That was passed last year It wasn included in that As far as why 10 years over five years or three years or whatever the mark is I not familiar with the exact California legislative history It was before my time. But there is developmental reasons for the length of time actually does increase recidivism, decreases, those kind of things. Right.

If I may.

So one of the things that we added is violation of a protection order. So that is someone that has become prohibited, got a protection order against them, and then proceeded to continue to have firearms, showing that they don't really have an appreciation for the danger or the law. In that regard, it's admittedly on the harsher side because they've already decided that they want to ignore the law for the initial period of the restraining order.

Senator Cortese?

I'll do my best. It is admittedly a lengthy bill. There's a lot of lengthy statutes that this bill touched, so apologies for all of you that had to read that. The main two are school threats, the law that passed last year, and then violations of protection orders. So those are the existing protection orders in place. If you maintain your firearms despite the prohibition having a restraining order against you, So those are the main ones that have been added to the 10-year prohibition. And then to your earlier point, the APPS personnel that go and inspect you, I couldn't agree more. That is a problem. One of the benefits of solving these things on the front end with strong relinquishment procedures, all these things are they decrease the pressure on that team and on the back end issue of people maintaining their firearms despite being prohibited.

We do not, and I'll recognize that motion. Thank you. So I'll turn it back over to close. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the thoughtful discussion, colleagues. I appreciate it. And I just want to say with regard to the five to ten years and what may seem like a burden on the abuser to maybe not get his guns back within five years I can tell you it's a relief to the victims who have been pistol whipped, who have been beaten with a gun, who've had a gun held to their head in front of their two year old, who have had a gun laying on the nightstand or in the glove compartment as they drive, as they feel threatened. These are real cases where people's lives are in danger. This is not just taking someone's guns away for no reason. These present real public safety threats, not just to the family involved, not just to the victim, but to society as a whole. When you look at the underlying causes of mass shootings in our country, began with domestic violence. These are real cases. So when I think five to ten years, I'm not burdened by the ten-year limitation because I know what these cases are all about. And I also want to say to the NRA's opposition, I welcome it because I know I'm on the right side of things. When you have an organization who completely refuses background checks on all gun sales at the national level after 20 first graders and six educators are shot at Sandy Hook, I welcome their opposition because I know I'm on the right side of history. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. I just want to clarify the committee amendments, which the author did accept. I just want to clarify that the amendments do not address at this time the conflict with Assembly Bill 1659-Rogers. As referenced in the analysis, Section 10 of the bill remains unamended. So with that, if the committee assistant can please call the roll.

Thank you. And then, Assembly of Stephanie, I believe you're presenting AB 1743.

Okay.

Good morning, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady Campaign, the sponsors of

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1743? If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1743? Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments or a motion. Can I pass the gavel over to you?

So moved by Vice Chair Sayarto. I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Okay. We have a motion. If the committee assistant can please call the roll.

Thank you. Okay. I saw Assemblymember Gibson, but I think he stepped out. So we're going to go to Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan, who has two bills to present today. And those are AB 2164 and AB 2664. So we'll start with the following 19 AB 2164. Good morning. Good morning.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you very much for your testimony. At this time, we'll take anybody who me to's up at the mic. State your name, organization you represent, and your support for the bill.

CATHERINE SQUIRE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IN SUPPORT. SIMRAN CARR WITH THE WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY IN SUPPORT JENNIFER ROBLES WITH HEALTH ACCESS CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT LESLIE CALLEDWELL HOUSTON FOR THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support Leslie Caldwell for the California Public Defenders Association in support

Thank you very much. At this time, are there any primary witnesses in opposition that wish to present? You may come up, sir. You have two minutes.

We're talking about puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and surgeries on minors. This year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a peer-reviewed evidence review finding that evidence for benefit is low and evidence for harm is significant. England, Sweden, Finland, Norway have all pulled back for the same reason. The human cost is in the courtroom. In January, a New York jury awarded $2 million to a young woman whose doctors approved a double mastectomy at age 16 without meeting standards of care. Here in California, Chloe Cole is suing Kaiser for the same harm. AB 2164 extends legal cover to the very providers who are now being held liable. Second, abortion. California no longer has an ultrasound requirement and has expanded male oral chemical abortions with no in-person doctor appointment. An analysis of over 860,000 cases found a serious adverse event rate far higher than the label reports. So I have a simple question to ask. Why is safety never the thing we are worried about here? Look at those you are sacrificing to protect abortion and gender ideology. Please consider that those who see themselves as heroes are the last to see the harm. Finally, this bill raises serious, full faith and credit concerns. Your own analysis admits as much, but you are plowing ahead anyway, knowing you'll be sued for violating the U.S. Constitution. I encourage you to reconsider. Please oppose AB 2164. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anybody else that would like to come to the mic and express their opposition to the bill? If not, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions? We have a motion to move the bill. You may close. Thank you. Respectfully ask your aye vote on behalf of all of our health care providers. All right. Thank you very much. We have a motion by Chair Adekeen. Go ahead and call the roll. AB 2164, Bauer-Kahan. Motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee. Aragain? Aye. Aragain, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Caballero, Cortese, Perez, Wiener. All right. That bill will be held open. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us. I will now proceed to file item 20, Assembly Bill 2664. And whenever you ready you may present on AB 2664 Thank you Mr Chair and members I want to thank committee staff again for their work on this bill and the many conversations we had as well as the chair I'm here to present AB 2664, the Safe Worship Zone Act, a bill that ensures that all people can attend their place of worship without fear or harassment. This is a bill that is a priority of the Legislative Jewish Caucus because, frankly, this is our lives every day when we show up to worship in our synagogues. When I drop my kids off at Sunday school, I drive through a gate that I have to have a clicker for. On the other side is an armed guard. And my kids' doors have been replaced in case an active shooter comes in. This is what it means to worship in a synagogue in 2026. This should feel, and when I was growing up, my synagogue was my second home. It was one of the places I felt most safe. And yet today we live in a world that is divided, full of hate, not just of the Jewish community. I'm just speaking of my own lived experience, where houses of worship no longer feel as safe as they should. And we have seen here in California that people who are entering their synagogues or mosques, churches, other places of worship, as they enter, they are surrounded, they are yelled at, they are often trying to enter to pray, to pick up their kids at Sunday school or preschool or whatever is happening inside the facility. And so this bill is incredibly simple. It actually takes a narrow approach that is more protective of the First Amendment than a buffer zone. It says you can be within 100 feet of the place of worship, but within that 100 feet you can't come within 8 feet of the person entering or exiting. As I walk into my place of worship, I get a little bubble. It's like kindergarten where you get your space, your personal space, So you can walk in, people can express their First Amendment opinions, but I get to walk in and out without fear, intimidation, or harassment. So with that, I will turn it over to my witnesses with me here today in support. Our representative from Jewish California and the Anti-Defamation League Western Division. Whoever wants to go first. Great. Whoever would like to go first, you have two minutes to present on the bill. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Robert Treston. I am the vice president of the Anti-Defamation League for the Western Division. ADL is a century-old anti-hate organization with five offices across the state of California, and I am pleased to be here today to testify in support of safe worship zones to protect congregants across the state of California. Assembly Bill 2664 has one simple goal, to ensure that people of all faiths have the freedom to worship without fear. This bill does not ban peaceful political expression and protest, but rather is intended to ensure that worshippers can safely exercise their right to pray while protecting the freedom of speech and assembly. Additionally, it provides law enforcement with guidelines on how to protect worshippers. Across the country, individuals seeking to pray in houses of worship are becoming the targets of harassment and intimidation, interfering with their right to exercise. Last year, ADL tracked 817 anti-Semitic incidents across the state of California. 90 of those were people who were targeting synagogues and interfering with people's rights. According to polling conducted by Ipsos, there is broad support amongst Californians for safe worship zones with 66% of Californians supporting it. Additionally nearly 9 in 10 Californians reject allowing protesters to prevent people from attending worship services at houses of worship AB 2664 is modeled off of protections that have been upheld by the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court This approach is consistent with efforts in other jurisdictions across the country. The right to free exercise and the right to free speech can operate simultaneously without conflict, And AB 2664 seeks to accomplish this balance. Thank you for your consideration. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Miller Salzman, Director of Policy and Partnerships at Jewish California, formerly J-PAC. Representing over 40 leading Jewish community organizations across the state, Jewish California serves as our community's unified voice in Sacramento, advocating on behalf of Jewish concerns and broadly shared values, including working to combat hunger, poverty, climate change, and expanding access to health care and to support vulnerable communities. AB 2664 is a solution to a growing problem, violent protests outside houses of worship. On December 3rd at Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles, there was an interfaith gathering of Jews and Korean Americans, leaders in their communities. Outside the synagogue were violent protesters, shouting anti-Semitic slurs and even lighting smoke bombs. The synagogue houses a preschool, an elementary school, a social services center, and of course religious services. People approaching and leaving the synagogue were harassed and did not feel safe. People could not access their place of prayer and parents could not reach their children. This is one of many examples of a disturbing trend of increased protests at synagogues. According to the American Jewish Committee, 26% of Jews do not feel safe at Jewish institutions. And this doesn't just impact our community. We have a large, diverse interfaith coalition in support of this bill, including Muslim, Sikh, Baha'i, Christian, Armenian, African American, Korean, and Hindu organizations, all united in our need to protect two parallel First Amendment protections, our sacred rights to free speech and to worship. The goal here is for no one to be harassed or threatened when entering a house of worship. We have laws for obstruction and trespassing, but the gap we're trying to fill is stopping people from feeling unable to access their place of worship altogether. We respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2664. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2664? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Cliff Berg here on behalf of both Jewish California, formerly J-PAC, and 53 additional Jewish organizations in California in support of this legislation. Here for 30 years after, American Jewish Committee of Northern California, American Jewish Committee of Los Angeles, the Anti-Defamation League, the Bay Area Center to Counter Antisemitism, the Bay Area Jewish Coalition of Education and Advocacy, Hadassah, Beverly Hills Synagogue, Hillel of San Diego, Jewish Community Relations Council and Federation of San Luis Obispo, the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, the JCRC of the Bay Area, the JCRC of Long Beach, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento, the Contra Costa Jewish Democrats, Sorry, a very long list of organizations in support. Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Family Services of San Diego, Jewish Family Services of the Desert, Jewish Democratic Coalition of the Bay Area, Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, and Sonoma counties, Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley, Jewish Federation of the Bay Area, Jewish Family and Community Services East Bay, Jewish Family Services Los Angeles, Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, the Jewish Federation of Greater Santa Barbara, the Jewish Silicon Valley, Jewish Federation of Orange County, the National Council of Jewish Women, Jewish Federation of the Desert, Northern California Jewish Labor Committee, Oakland Jewish Alliance, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Palo Alto Jewish Alliance, Jewish Federation of Ventura County, San Francisco Jews in School, Northern California stand with us, Valerie Beth Shalom. I could continue, but I think you all get the point that this bill is supported by the mainstream Jewish community of California. We urge your support. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2664? Seeing no one else approach the microphone, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. All right, Chair and members, my name is Albert Rodriguez. I'm a alleged advocate with ACLU CalAction. The ACLU advocates for the principle that free expression for ourselves requires free expression for others, even if we vehemently disagree. The U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that public ways and sidewalks occupy a special position in terms of the First Amendment protection because of their historic roles as sites for discussion and debate. AB 2664 undermines this longstanding democratic practice by restricting speech within 100 feet of places of religious worship, which would needlessly include our public sidewalks and in many places even a person's private residence or commercial property. In McCollum v. Coakley, the Supreme Court ruled that the Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone constituted an extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. The court made clear that buffer zones, including those with floating buffers, around specific locations within public fora, satisfy the First Amendment only if the government has compiled a substantial record justifying the need for such a buffer zone. And even if the government can't establish a sufficient record of problems at a place of religious worship, it would still need to demonstrate that it attempted to employ other, more narrowly tailored methods to address them without success. For instance, if there's a record of people being harassed or assaulted near their place of worship, the government would need to show that it has attempted to enforce generic criminal statutes without success. Even then, the government would need to pursue alternative means, such as an injunction, without success before justifying a buffer zone of any kind. Beyond this issue, the further refinement of what constitutes content-based regulation on speech and Reed v. Townham Gilbert, we believe strict scrutiny would apply to this proposal and be ruled unconstitutional. Ultimately, we have an existing framework of laws with the Federal and California Face Acts to prevent the issues that proponents of this bill are citing. And as mentioned in this committee's analysis, there are multiple statutes that restrict a person's behavior outside a place of worship, including one we discussed last year, SB 19. Therefore, this seems to be an issue of enforcement and does not justify violating rights safeguarded by the First Amendment. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2664. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Osama Mukaddam and I the Legislative and Government Affairs Director for the Council on American Islamic Relations California here in respectful opposition As an organization representing a community that has disproportionately faced surveillance intimidation and violence directed at our mosques especially in the past 25 years we deeply understand the compelling interest in protecting places of worship. Ensuring the safety of congregants is paramount, and we recognize the very real fears that drive this legislation. However, this bill in its current form aims to achieve that by sacrificing our fundamental right to free speech. In addition to the severe constitutional flaws of this bill, my colleague from the ACLU just outlined, the chilling effect this will have on civic engagement, especially during an incredibly fraught political climate today is concerning. Places of worship are not solely spaces for prayer. They frequently host highly political events, commercial activities, and public policy discussions. By establishing this 100-foot buffer zone with criminal penalties for simply passing a leaflet or engaging in oral protest, this bill can easily be weaponized to shield institutions from lawful public dissent when they step into the political arena. Silencing dissent and shrinking our traditional public forums is a dangerous precedence to set. When peaceful protests devolve into violence or intimidation, the solution is not to categorically silence everyone. It's to enforce the laws that we currently have. And California already possesses robust criminal statutes prohibiting threats, harassment, obstruction, and vandalism. We have the State Face Act, comprehensive hate crimes laws, and strict penalties for threatening congregants. Addressing bad actors is ultimately an enforcement issue, not a lack of legislation, and we simply need to effectively enforce existing laws. We've been in communication with the author's office and look forward to continuing the conversation and have shared amendments regarding reducing the buffer zones, the distance starting buffer zones, the starting point for buffer zones, limiting the buffer zones to hours of religious services, not including public forums, etc. So we look forward to continuing the conversation with the author's office, but for now we must respectfully oppose the bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2664? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Hi, my name is Musa. I am a District 16 constituent, and I want to express my respectful opposition to AB 2664. Thank you. Thank you. Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in respectful opposition. Good morning, Chair and members. Patricia Rucker with the California Teachers Association in respectful opposition to the bill. Okay, thank you very much. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Cierta. So thank you for your bill I get where it trying to go and understanding why And it sad that we have to have a bill that tries to rein in not free speech but what people think is free speech What people think is free speech has turned into borderline riots It's turned into people intimidating others into thinking that they're not secure, they're in danger. And unfortunately, this is what it takes. Whether you're free-speeching within 100 feet of the religion, you still get the free speech. You can yell at people from 100 feet away. You don't need to be in their face. You don't need to be waving signs practically hitting them, making it look like you're going to hit them, throwing things, maybe not at them but at their feet. That's not protest. That's not peaceful protest. Peaceful protest, the line has blurred. And unfortunately, because of that, now we have to have bills that come out that help define that a little bit better. You know, when you go on a freeway and people walk on the freeway and start blocking the road, that's not a peaceful protest. That is violating the rights of people that are trying to go live their lives. And so this is a compromise between two of our sacred rights, the right to protest and the right to practice your religion. And I don't see it as unnecessary. I find it necessary now. And it upsets me that it is because we can't have civilized protests anymore. I see some once in a while, but a lot of them are not. And they're there to intimidate people, not protest. And because of that, it forces us to support bills like this. And so with that, I'll go ahead and move the bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to thank the author for this bill. that you and your family should be afraid to go worship your religion in California. And I will be supporting the bill today, but I do want to just touch on something we talked about yesterday, which is the definition of place of religious worship, which isn't just the entrance and exit of the actual religious institution or where there's educational activities or other religious activities occurring, but also the parking lot entrances, the driveway, the driveway entrances, and that just expands that 100-foot zone. And really what we're trying to do with this bill is to balance people's right to exercise their constitutional right to practice their faith of choice with that fear of intimidation or violence. That is a right that we must protect in the state. but also the right of people to engage in expressive conduct in the First Amendment activity. And so as this bill moves forward, I really want to encourage you to take a look at that definition of place of religious worship, which is much more expansive than some other legislation that exists, and give consideration to whether the driveway entrance should be included or the parking lot entrance, because that actually expands the space in which people can participate in expressive conduct while also protecting people right to be able to safely enter and exit a place of worship Because once again it about that balancing act But once again this doesn prohibit somebody from holding a sign within 100 feet It's just you can't just come so close to a person as they're entering or exiting that religious institution and really making sure that people can enter an exit without fear of harassment or intimidation or things escalating. There are statutes in the books that deal with violence or threats. This is dealing with just making sure people can safely worship in California without fear of intimidation or harassment so that people can practice whatever religion of their choosing in this state. So I thank you for bringing this bill forward. I do have an I recommendation. I'll turn over to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I should have said that in my opening. I'm not on top of my game after being on the floor until midnight last night. for the senators that don't know we got out very late last night on the budget but yes thank you for raising that and we did have that conversation and I'll note that I had a similar conversation with Senator Caballero and committed to her as well to continue to work on that so we will do that as it moves if it moves out of the committee today but I want to thank you both for your comments I also wish I didn't have to do this bill as I mentioned this bill wasn't on the books when I was growing up and I worshipped safely and always felt at home in my synagogue and I will just note and I said it in Assembly Judiciary but I'll say it again despite the fact that the ACLU continues to come into committee after committee and say that the state doesn't have an interest in this and never has yet to acknowledge the anti-Semitism the hate what is happening to our community I sincerely believe that not just for my own community does the state have a significant interest in moving this legislation forward but for all communities of faith and so with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. I believe we have a motion by Vice Chair Searto. The committee assistant can please call the roll. AB 2664, Bauer-Cahan. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Arrigin? Aye. Arrigin, aye. Searto? Aye. Searto, aye. Caballero, Cortese, Perez, Wiener. We'll keep that bell on call for absent members. Thank you all very much. Okay. I see we have the judiciary chairman here. We'll now proceed to file item 16, AB 2122, by Assemblymember Calra. And whenever you're ready, you may present on the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AB 2122 prohibits the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying offense is a vehicle code infraction and for non-vehicle code infractions allows for a non-custodial warrant to be issued. California courts process over 3 million infractions each year. These minor offenses include traffic violations that are punishable by a fine and do not require a court appearance if the ticket is paid. If a person fails to appear in court or pay a citation, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued, effectively converting an otherwise non-jailable offense into incarceration. Research has shown that alternatives such as improved notices and reminders are more effective than warrants at generating timely court appearances and payments. Additionally, at least 12 counties, including Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, and Santa Barbara, have reportedly already stopped issuing bench warrants and infraction cases without evidence of a reduction in compliance. Throughout this process, amendments have helped strike an appropriate balance of preserving accountability measures while also ensuring that people are not needlessly incarcerated for non-jailable infractions simply because they cannot afford a fine. Because of that work, the California District Attorneys Association and the Child Support Directors Association of California are neutral. Lastly, I'd like to address concerns that this bill will result in individuals disregarding infraction directly. Offenses. As aptly explained in the analysis, individuals are still civilly liable for these offenses, and court-imposed debt will continue to be collected through methods like wage garnishment and bank levies. This bill has received bipartisan support, and I'm happy to have here to testify in support, Marco Duncan, a Ronald Elder Freeman Policy Fellow at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, a member of All of Us or None, and Rebecca Miller, Senior Attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Great. Good morning. Whoever would like to begin, you have two minutes to present on the bill. Good afternoon, Chairman Adagin and the committee members. My name is Marco Duncan. I'm a policy fellow at Legal Services for Prisons with Children and a member of All of Us or None. I'm here in strong support of AB 2122 because I still live with psychological scars caused by repeated arrests for bench warrants stemming from infractions. Between the ages of 17 and 30, I was trapped in a cycle of pretextual policing and criminalization for being poor. During that time, I was routinely profiled and stopped for driving. Those stops oftentimes resulted in me being issued citations for minor infractions. Since I didn't have stable housing during that time, I usually missed the notices telling me when to appear in court. without stable housing, a job, family support, those tickets were not a mere inconvenience for me. They were an impossibility. I was struggling. I couldn't pay for them. So in good faith, I initially tried to engage the system. I went to court whenever I had the resources to do so. But when I couldn't pay, the court dates were continued and the period to pay, the fees were extended. Again, the problem was that I couldn't pay, and I had trouble keeping up with the growing number of court dates. If I missed a court date, a bench warrant would be issued for failing to appear, and I would then face additional fines and jail time. Those trips to jail often resulted in me losing cars, clothes, relationships, and my ability to get or keep a job. All of this took a devastating toll on my mental well-being. and just repeatedly losing any stability I had managed to create. And fines, bench warrants, nor the jail time did anything to help me fix a windshield or replace a tire. They just pushed me further into a hole and fostered a deep distrust of the system. And I believe that using the legal system to punish people for what they don't have, I don't think that aligns with American values. And based on that, I respectfully request your support for AB2122 to ensure that no one else have to live in fear for being poor. Good morning, honorable committee members. Western Center is a proud sponsor of AB2122, which seeks to end a wasteful and outdated practice that criminalizes poverty and increases the likelihood of law enforcement or ICE involvement for people with low-level citations. Treating infractions differently than other offenses recognizes the proportionality in our criminal system. Using the full force of arrest and detention for minor violations waste resources traumatizes individuals unnecessarily and undermines public trust in law enforcement Infractions are monetary sanctions and should be enforced accordingly Current law provides for ways to ensure accountability when people do not resolve their infraction tickets, including using county collection offices and the franchise tax boards court order debt program. Importantly, the penal code also allows for collection to begin as soon as the deadline to appear on or pay the ticket has passed, regardless of whether the person goes to court or the ticket has been adjudicated. People are also motivated to pay because unresolved infractions can appear on background checks and because you can be charged late fees, including $100 civil assessment. Happily, as an advocate, I've seen California move away from the use of infraction bench warrants. In response to Public Records Act requests, more than a dozen counties reported that they don't use warrants. This is common sense. Bench warrants are ineffective at resolving cases and waste significant law enforcement resources for low-level monetary violations that could be spent elsewhere. Where they are still used, bench warrants caused outsized harm to black and brown Californians who are exponentially more likely to be arrested on bench warrants. They can escalate a low-level ticket to encounter with police or ICE that can have profound impacts on a person's life. Now is the time to end this ineffective and antiquated tool of the mass incarceration era. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB2122? If you can please state your name, organization, or city you're from and position on the bill. Good morning, Chair. I'm Tremel Watson with Disability Rights California. We stand in support of AB 2122. Thank you. Thank you. Leslie Caldwell, Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association, in support. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California, in strong support. Hian Nguyen with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support. Nedrick Miller, all of us in Sacramento, strong support. Mary Rae with Local 148, the Los Angeles Public Defenders Union, in strong support. Bernice Singh, proud co-sponsor with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in support. Liz Blum-Guterres on behalf of Vera California in strong support. Shivani Nishar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support, also registering support for Community Works. Good morning. Marshall Ornwine on behalf of the ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, and a proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support. Good morning, Chair and members. Cleo Bluthenthal with the California Community Foundation, in strong support. Danny Kando-Kaiser, on behalf of the National Consumer Law Center, in strong support. Christopher Lopez on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support. Good morning, Natalie Spivak with Housing California in strong support. Renesia Rakser on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support. Thank you very much. I will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. Thank you Mr Chair and members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. Regretfully in opposition to the bill, understanding the amendments that have been taken thus far by the author, we remain opposed. If a person fails to appear in court, existing law generally allows a warrant to issue for the person's arrest, and this bill would eliminate the authority to hold that person in custody if they are arrested in compliance with such a warrant, if the underlying offense is an infraction. We fear this removes an important tool that encourages people who have been cited for infraction violations to appear in court or otherwise resolve their cases. The bill sends the message that it's acceptable to fail to appear in court, even after having promised to do so. So we understand there may be valid reasons why a particular person may not be able to pay a fine on a particular violation, but the answer is not to eliminate the ability of a court to compel the person's attendance in every case with a meaningful sanction, like a custodial term. The state has enacted numerous amnesty programs over the last several years, and this bill goes too far in trying to address the stated problem. And candidly, the other options that were cited by proponents is ways to compel conformity with or compliance with the sanctions are not going to work. If a person doesn't pay a fine, that's the sort of precate condition we find that underlies what we're talking about. And so threatening a person with more fines or fees or garnishment doesn't seem to be necessarily likely to be compelling if a person is refusing or unable to pay the fine in the first place. So taking away this tool, which again is optional, we think is problematic. So for those reasons, we ask for your no vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB2122? Seeing no one else, approach the microphone. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Okay, motion by Senator Cortese. Thank you. Unless there's any further discussion, I'll turn it back over the author to close. I want to thank the chair and staff for the work on this with our staff. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. We have a motion by Senator Cortese. If the committee assistant can please call the roll. AB 2122, Kalra. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Weiner? We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much. Okay, I think we have one more bill presentation from Assemblymember Gibson. Ask the sergeants if you

Okay we're gonna reconvene the Senate Public Safety Committee hearing and proceed to our last bill which is bottom 22 AB 2339 by Assemblymember Gibson and Whenever you're ready, Assemblymember, you may present on the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. My name is Candace Chung, and I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice, appearing on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is proud to sponsor this bill, and thanks Assemblymember Gibson for his leadership on this issue. Roughly 219,000 firearm-prohibiting mental health holds are reported to the DOJ each year. The DOJ is then tasked with entering these individuals as firearm-prohibited in our system to ensure that they are flagged if they attempt to purchase a firearm, and that existing firearms are relinquished. But these background checks only work if the information is complete and accurate. As the Assemblymember mentioned, there are a number of reasons why there's vagueness within the reporting obligation statutes. It's led to incomplete and inconsistent reporting. For example, we get placeholder names like John Doe or just simply initials being entered in instead of actual full names. There are data entry errors that result in names being misspelled, name order being transposed. And then in addition, sometimes you'll have like J.T. Smith and you might get a name and date of birth. Sometimes you might not get more than that, such as ethnicity or anything else that would help us identify. So with that kind of information, it makes it very difficult to maintain this database and make sure the appropriate people are flagged. Furthermore, there's no obligation for existing facilities to update or correct those entries. Even though oftentimes after the initial 24 hours, they'll get more information about the person's identity. There's no obligation to actually update what they've reported. So as a result, prohibitive individuals may not get flagged. This bill will improve accuracy and consistency in reporting. It clarifies what information needs to be reported, who's responsible for reporting it, and creates additional safeguards against errors by requiring supporting documentation. It provides clearer guidance to our hospitals on their reporting obligations. It provides clear guidance on what notification must be provided to patients and strengthens confidentiality laws regarding information reported. Preventing access to firearms by people suffering from a mental health crisis protects both the community and the individual, which is why it's critical that the data shared between the facilities and the DOJ is accurate and timely. I thank you and request your support. Thank you very much.

Moved by Senator Cortese. Thank you very much.

This is a simple bill. as the witness. I want to thank the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General for being here. This is a simple bill but has a lot of significant consequences. We're just trying to correct something to make sure that one, identification and information is corrected in the files moving forward. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much.

AB 2339 Gibson. Motion is due pass to appropriations. Aragain? Aye. Aragain, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye.

Thank you. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Wiener? Keep that bill and call for absent members. Thank you very much.

Current vote is 1-1. Cortese?

Cortese, aye.

AB 2164, Bauer-Cahan. Motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee. Current vote is 1-1. Cortese?

Cortese, aye.

AB 2664, Bauer-Cahan, motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is 2-0. Cortese?

Cortese, aye.

I think those are all the votes that Senator Cortese has recorded a vote on. Okay.

I think this is a chief on consent, right? Yeah. AB 1741, Pacheco. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 3-0. Caballero? What file number? Five.

We'll keep that bill on call.

We'll keep that bill on call.

We'll keep that bill on call.

Not voting. Caballero not voting.

AB 2164, Bauer-Cahan. The motion's due pass to the Judiciary Committee current vote is 2-1. Caballero?

AB 2664, Bauer-Cahan, motion is due passed to Appropriations.

Aye. Caballero, aye.

AB 2339, Gibson, motion is due passed to Appropriations.

Aye. Caballero, aye.

Two to one Caballero Aye Caballero aye We keep that on call Okay we going to recess the committee and wait for other members to arrive

So now we are going to open the roll and lift the call on all motions. Starting with the consent calendar, consent consists of file item 2 AB 1645 Marc Gonzalez, file item 4 AB 1668 Carrillo, file item 8 AB 1759 El Juare, file item 9 AB 1778 Patterson, file item 12 AB 1825 Correll, file item 15 AB 2018 Ramos, file item 17 AB 2147 Chavo, and file item 18 AB 2720 Chavo.

On the consent calendar, Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Wiener?

Wiener, aye.

AB 1568 was polled by the author. AB 1662, Wilson. Motion is due pass to transportation. Current vote is 4 to 0. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Wiener?

Wiener, aye. Okay.

AB 1741 Pacheco, motion was due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 4-0. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye.

Is item 4 on? 4 was on consent. Oh, it was on consent, okay. Laid out. Oh, laid out, okay. AB 1743 Wicks, motion is due pass to appropriations. Current vote is 3-1. Perez? Aye. Pérez, aye. Wiener? Aye.

Okay, that bill is out on a vote of 5-1. AB 1753, Stephanie, motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary Committee. Current vote is 3 P Aye P aye Wiener Aye Wiener aye Okay that bill is out in a bit of five to zero item eight and nine were on consent maybe 1810 Berman was pulled maybe 1816 Davies was also pulled maybe 1821 consent 1927 was pulled night 1889 was pulled. AB 2018 Ramos, that was consent. Consent. They're all there. Okay. Calra. AB 21, 22, Calra. Item 15 was on consent. Item 15 was on consent, yes. AB 21, 22, Calra. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is two to one. Perez. On. Call read. Item 21, 22. Yeah. Perez, aye. Wiener.

Wiener, aye. Okay.

So now we'll go to file item 19, AB 2164 by Bauer-Cahan. Motion is due pass to the Judiciary Committee. Current vote is 3-1. Perez? Give me one second. This is... Perez, aye.

Aye.

Okay, that bill is out on a vote of 5-1.

Motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 0. Perez? Okay. Wiener?

Wiener, aye. Okay.

AB 2339, Gibson. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 0. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Wiener?

Wiener, aye.

And lastly, file item 23, AB 2760, Sharp Collins.

2760, motion is due passed to local government. Current vote is 3-1. Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Wiener?

Wiener, aye.