Senate Public Safety Committee

so we'll now proceed to file item 6 AB 1546 by Assemblyman Schultz and good morning. Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Vice Chair. Hey, how are you? Perfect. Shall we? All right. Well, thank you very much Mr. Chair and Senators. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 1546 this morning which strengthens accountability and restrictions for repeat DUI offenders with the aim of deterring future drinking and driving incidents. We all know that California has a problem. The state has seen an over 50% increase in alcohol-related roadway deaths over the course of the past decade, an increase more than twice as steep as the rest of the country, with over 1,300 deaths annually due to drunk driving incidents. Now, under current law, a third DUI conviction within 10 years may only be charged as a misdemeanor, with some exceptions accounted for by the law, such as if you were to seriously injure someone. Reporting from DMV has found that nearly 40% of drivers with at least three prior DUI offenses who were arrested in 2005 continue to receive subsequent DUI convictions. AB 1546 aims to remedy a serious problem in the state in the following manner. It would strengthen the law and bring it more in line with other states by, Number one, providing prosecutors with the option of prosecuting a third DUI offense within 10 years as a wobbler, meaning it could be charged as a misdemeanor or as a felony, something not currently allowed by law. And number two, requiring a fifth DUI offense within 10 years to be prosecuted as a felony. Number three, the bill would also increase the required ignition interlock device or IID for short installation period. This is a car breathalyzer that prevents a vehicle from starting if alcohol is detected. And the bill would increase that from three to four years for those convicted of five or more DUIs in a 10-year period. And lastly, the bill would increase the license revocation period from four to five years for those convicted of five or more DUIs in a 10-year period. In closing, Mr. Chair, we are losing far too many lives on our roads to drunk driving, and we are crossing, attempting to cross in the vehicle that is AB 1546, the partisan divide and trying to identify solutions to make our community safer. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And with me to testify in support of the bill today is Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. I want to start by saying I sincerely appreciate the body of legislation working through both houses on the DUI reform this year. I worked on DUI issues for 10 years that I been with the police chiefs and to see as it a concerted effort after having met so many family members who lost loved ones to DUI accidents especially due to repeat offenders It really moving and encouraging I won't get into too much of what the other chair has already outlined in the bill in terms of the policy, but I will say increased penalties are not just there for punishment's sake. They're there to ensure that the repeat offenders who have made a series of bad decisions are actually held accountable in a way that gives them an opportunity to be rehabilitated. If the shorter sentences, if the repeat offenses in the short time that they're doing doesn't actually get them to change their behavior, we clearly need higher levels of intervention. And we've all done a lot of work over the last 10 years to increase rehabilitative programs in our jails, in our prisons, milestone credits that they can earn through achievements. So this is an effort to actually try and help somebody who's clearly in need of help in making better decisions, protecting our roads. And for those reasons, we're in strong support. Ask your aye vote.

That's it for this morning, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman, members, Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC and support.

Serena Sahl on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

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

Good morning. Rhonda Campbell with mothers against drunk driving. I'm here in strong support. Thank you very much

Hello everyone, good morning. My name is Esther Mendez. I'm a deputy public defender in LA County and also a member of Local 148, and we oppose this bill. So this bill is making the law more strict for the people that we represent. I represent people that are indigent, usually the most vulnerable, neglected people in LA County that struggle with serious mental health issues and lack of resources. Right now, what this bill is trying to do is that it's trying to criminalize mental health even further. Right now, what's unique about DUI charges is that there isn't a mental health diversion option that is often available for other charges. And I believe that that's something that should not keep getting ignored by the people enacting the laws. And the reason for that is because there's a direct correlation between the behavior and people that commit DUIs more than once. In the DSM-5, there is a recognized disorder called substance use disorder. And it still kind of astonishing that we don have a mental health diversion option these charges And the reason why I believe it very important is because when we able to address the mental health issue that at hand in these cases we able to prevent more conduct like this and we're able to provide a safer community for everyone. What this does is just repeating the same cycle that everybody has been doing when it comes to enacting DUI laws, which is punish them more in hopes that they would change. but we already know that that hasn't been working. I do believe that the efforts being made are honorable, right? And I feel that the motivation should go towards actual recidivism and not just locking people away, hoping that when they get out of jail, that they have changed because those kinds of miracles just don't exist in jail. So, one thing that I really want to highlight is the undocumented community that would be impacted in this law. Justice requires foreseeable consequences for all communities and California has already recognized that the law does not impact all communities equally. The undocumented community does not have the same level of access to healthcare that is required to make sure that people don't keep offending this way and also I just want this to be highlighted that the DUI classes that people take and going to jail does not mean that they're going to get the health services that these people need to make sure that they don't keep drinking and driving thank you are

provide me to testimony in opposition to AB 1546. Good morning Liz Blum-Guterres on behalf of Debt Free Justice California and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Emily Harris on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in opposition.

and criminal penalties. Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1546? Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Sierta. Thank you very much. I want to thank the author for trying to tackle this issue because the drunk driving issue is becoming more and more prevalent out there. Obviously what we're doing isn't working, and including sometimes the first-time offenders. Most of the ones I know get to go to get to go to counseling. They are having their issue addressed. And if other issues are are are come to light while they're addressing the alcoholism issue, they are also can be referred to mental health services. That doesn't mean they always get it because sometimes we make those optional. And and most people choose not to option for that. They do the minimum and then they go back out there and then they repeat whatever offense they been doing In this case drunk drivers are a danger to public safety They a danger to our kids They a danger to our teenagers They in danger for and some of them are teenagers And we treat those differently. This is third offense. This is a third offense. If you haven't figured it out after three offenses, and you're drunk driving again three times, then it is time for you to take a time out. And when you're in custody, whether it's for 120 days, 16 months, 2 or 3 years, depending upon what the judge determines, that is the opportunity for you to have all of the above addressed so that you no longer have to be a public safety risk. That's one thing to try to treat somebody and get them out of their thing, but when they are a public safety risk, when you have people that are getting killed walking across the street, minding their own business because somebody is drunk or high or whatever it is, they're impaired, there is no more excuse for that. We're sick and tired of watching people die. I was sick and tired of watching people die week after week after week. with nothing happening to help somebody. Sometimes incarceration is helping them. Sometimes what people have asked for, Prop 36, is helping people break the cycle that you're talking about. So this is something, this is an approach that we need to start taking because what we've been doing, like I said, isn't been working. And I think people are fed up. You know, it is heartbreaking. It is heartbreaking to hear some of the testimony or when you know people that are being killed every day by irresponsible drinking, irresponsible driving. and in its high time we do something about it and stop and stop making excuses when people are not when people are not seeking the real help that they need and they refuse to do so that means we have to make them do so otherwise they will never get better so with that I'd be more happy to support your bill when we have a quorum okay thank you we do not yet have a quorum so any to that motion when we establish a quorum. I'm going to turn it back over to the author to close. Well, thank you very much. I just want to make two very brief points. I do want to thank the opposition witness for her testimony today, and I think that there were some good points made and some common ground to be found. I don't believe we're doing all that we can do in terms of a treatment-focused approach, especially for first-time offenders. I'm a believer that diversion is a tool that can work. I've seen it work. And I think that to the extent we can make and should make more investments to ensure that we don't have repeat offenders in our system. I share that goal and that commitment that they held in their hearts. But I just want to close with saying I do echo some of the comments made by our vice chair in that this bill is trying to take a more narrow approach. We are looking at repeat offenders. And I agree with the opposition witness insofar as these are people that have an illness. They need help. I've seen it in my own family. But with that said, when you've had five DUI convictions in ten years, I don't know what else to do other than do everything in my power to take you off the road so that you're not a danger to others. And that's what this bill is trying to do. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Mr. Chair and colleagues. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. We don't have a quorum. We'll entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. So we'll proceed now to file item 7, AB 1595. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 1595 this morning, which strengthens California's criminal legal system by ensuring that courts can correct wrongful convictions while preserving appropriate judicial discretion. Over the course of the past decade, California's post-conviction statutes governing habeas corpus and motions to vacate have been amended several times and in many instances creating conflicting burdens of proof and inconsistent, often unclear standards for evaluating wrongful conviction claims. As a result, similarly situated individuals are often treated differently depending on the court or county in which they reside. In addition, courts expend significant resources litigating procedural disputes, and credible wrongful conviction claims are often delayed or never heard at all. Please allow me to give a brief example. Let's assume that a person convicted of a serious crime maintains their innocence, and years later new evidence emerges, such as previously unavailable records or information contradicting key trial facts that could not have been discovered earlier. Just go with me for a moment and make that assumption. Under current law, whether a court can meaningfully consider this new evidence may depend on which post-conviction statute applies, whether the person is still in custody or whether procedural rules bar the claim altogether. In some cases, courts apply different legal standards to similar claims or deny review without ever reaching the merits of the claim. The point that I'm trying to make is there is a great need to create a more consistent statewide framework to promote equal treatment and predictable outcomes across all 58 counties of California. AB 1595 seeks to achieve this by clarifying the court's authority to order discovery after an order to show cause, allowing courts to reach the merits of otherwise procedurally barred claims when new applicable evidence emerges, requiring courts to explain decisions rejecting prosecutorial concessions on a factual or legal basis for relief, and both clarifying and streamlining access to essential services to support people upon exoneration and release. The point that I'm trying to make, colleagues, is that this bill is important because Californians deserve judicial decisions grounded in merit and due process. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and with me to testify pinch hitting today in fact is Natasha Minsker with Smart Justice, California Okay, I'll now turn over to Miss Mitzker Natasha Minsker Smart Justice, California AB 1595 is sponsored by the California Innocence Network a collection of four organizations that work to free innocent people who have been wrongfully convicted. This bill is based on their years of experience. Under current law, the standards used for challenging a wrongful conviction vary based on the kind of evidence in the case. This makes no sense. It leads to confusion. It leads to years of litigation around what procedural rules to apply. AB 1595 corrects this problem, creating a single set of procedural rules to apply in all cases. Judges retain full discretion and will be the ultimate deciders as to whether the evidence shows that a wrongful conviction has been proven We heard concerns that this bill will lead to relitigation of old cases That is not true What leads to the re of old cases is the mistakes we made We are all human. We will always make mistakes. As hard as we try to always get it right, we will occasionally send innocent people to prison. Imagine if it was you or your child who had been wrongfully sentenced to life in prison or even death. This bill puts the focus where it should be. Instead of spending years litigating procedures, we will focus on finding the truth. The truth is what we all need for public safety, and the truth is what victims seek. They want to know that the right person has been convicted and that no one else will be subject to the harm they faced. We urge an aye vote on this bill as a fair process to correct the mistakes we make. Thank you. Thank you very much. Unless there are any other principal witnesses to support, we'll now invite anyone wishing to express support for AB 1595. You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Mark O'George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you. Good morning. Glenn Backus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Liz Blumgateras on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 in support. Avery Rodriguez with ACLU CalAction in proud support. Matt Sossman on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in support. Jim Lindberg Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Good morning Emily Harris on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in support. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in support. Good Good morning, Grace Glazer on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence and Support. Okay, thank you very much. We'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 1595. Good morning, Chair, committee members. My name is Ivy Fitzpatrick. I'm a Chief Deputy District Attorney in Riverside County, and on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and the Riverside County District Attorney's Office, we respectfully oppose this measure. I've been an attorney for 28 years and for much of that time I am a dork I specialized in habeas corpus law and post conviction matters previously with the Attorney General's office and then later with the Riverside County District Attorney's office and it goes without saying habeas law is extraordinarily complex it has deep historical underpinnings jurisprudence that actually stretches back to the Magna Carta and later enshrined in American law and then our California penal code at the time of the state's founding it has great importance to a free and just society I agree with Ms. Minsker I'm a firm believer in the courts ability to fashion appropriate relief in habeas matters including granting new trials and freeing the innocent but it's important to remember we're considering this bill that habeas corpus is generally a post conviction remedy and this bill attempts to combine pre basically merge pre remedies with post ones which are vastly different for good reason And it attempts to use standards in other areas of jurisprudence and put them into habeas law And that's going to actually unnecessarily impede our judiciary's ability to exercise their discretion as well. And it's unclear to me the problem that the bill is actually trying to fix. The current habeas standards are very clear. They have 150 years of interpretive California case law. They've evolved based on our society's progress, or sometimes it's lack thereof. And the courts have indeed granted new trials and freed the innocent. I, myself, our office, has agreed to such relief, including freeing the innocent, under those standards. And the new standards, while the goal is consistency, that's a laudable goal, but it's actually going to accomplish the opposite of that. It's going to upend those many established post-conviction jurisprudence, muddy the law for our courts with really no discernible benefit to the defendants. Like I mentioned, they're getting this relief all the time in our courts. And I want to touch upon the courts lastly. The caseload of our courts, our courts are struggling at the moment. I'm sure this committee has heard that many times. And the California Supreme Court laid it out in a decision last week that I encourage all of you to read in J.O. There have been vast changes in the law over the last several years. That have bombarded are already overburdened courts and if this bill passes the courts Especially our superior courts which are very much struggling will be the ones that are affected because they are the gatekeepers of habeas corpus and Every defendant who already had his claims evaluated by the courts under the previous standards is going to get another bite at the apple And really for no it's the question I have to ask is the juice worth the squeeze here So I think you wrap up your comment. Yes, so for those reasons. I respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you Are there any other principal opposition witnesses? Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1595? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero, we're on Assembly Bill 1595 by Assemblyman Schultz. Seeing no questions or comments, I'll turn it back for the author to close. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be brief, but I want to sincerely appreciate the testimony again of our opposition witness. Look, as a prosecutor who tried many cases over the years, I just wanted to drive home one point. Well, first of all, two points, I'll say. I appreciate the comments in CDAA's letter, which even acknowledges that trying to standardize and have one approach is a laudable goal. I won't repeat myself, but as I outlined in my opening comments, there is a lot of discrepancy under existing statute. and trying to have one uniform approach to provide more clarity is an achievable goal, one that we should all strive for. The standard that the bill seeks to impose would require a petitioner, someone seeking habeas relief to establish a reasonable probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. And as someone who tried cases, and I think that any good prosecutor worth their weight in salt would probably agree, that's the thing that keeps me up at night. Could I have gotten it wrong? The standard that this bill seeks to achieve to implement is fair. It is reasonable. It is grounded. In fact, I'll note that it's already embodied in Penal Code section 1473.5. It's a standard, the prejudice standard that we apply in Strickland versus Washington. It's a standard that applies in almost every ineffective assistance of counsel claim adjudicated, not just in the state, but in the country. So I bring all that up to say that this bill is about procedural fairness The justice system gets it right much more often than it gets it wrong But when there is a claim that someone is serving time for a crime that they did not commit we have got to have procedural safeguards like AB 1595 to ensure that someone does not serve a day in custody longer for a crime that they did not commit than absolutely possible. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote today and I'll just close with noting that while CDAA remains opposed, as always, my door is open. We look forward to working with them And to the extent that common ground can be found, we will endeavor to do just that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We don't yet have a quorum, so we're entering a motion when we establish a quorum. And with that, I'll see you very soon. Yes, you will. Thank you all very much. Okay. So just a few announcements as we proceed to our next bill. First, I'd like to ask that the sergeants call absent members so we can establish a quorum. And I ask that all members please come to Capitol Room 112 so we can establish a quorum and conduct business. Just a few announcements. Item number 28, AB 2108 by Assemblyman Rechard Collins, has been pulled and will be heard next week. And the consent calendar consists of file item 1, AB 277 by Alanis. File item 8, AB 1615 by Nguyen. file item 12 AB 2337 by Lackey file item 14 AB 2204 Gabriel and file item 25 AB 1994 by Alvarez will entertain a motion on the consent calendar when we establish a quorum so with that we'd like to proceed to our next bill and file order file item 2 AB 292 by Assemblymember Patterson and if there are any principal witnesses they're welcome to join us at this time at the table. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members or senators. Sorry about that. I appreciate the opportunity this morning. I'm here to present AB 292, which is, I think this, I've been a legislator now for four years, and I think this is the fourth year I've had this bill, and the first time I had the opportunity to present it in the Senate. Originally, this bill started as a bill to penalize, to make felony domestic violence a violent felony. And after many years of negotiations, we settled at the very last minute with Mr. Schultz on amendments to to make sort of create a timeout for those individuals convicted with multiple felonies of domestic violence. violence and the you know the bill lays out actually pretty nicely I think what what kind of crime we're talking about and multiple offenses and it says a person who willfully inflicts corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition and so these are really some of the worst cases of domestic violence and we're just saying hey look if you commit this on multiple occasions that there must be a mandatory jail sentence. And as we know, study after study shows individuals convicted of domestic violence, unfortunately have a pattern of much more even violent crimes than that. The San Francisco Chronicle pointed out that almost every individual who has committed a mass shooting actually has a history of felony domestic violence. Of course, that doesn't mean that everybody who commits felony domestic violence is going to have a mass shooting incident, thank God. But what it does show is it shows a pattern that the propensity of these individuals to commit more violent crimes is something that happens. But again, this isn't somebody who's just done it once. It's a person who's done it multiple times, and we're just trying to create somewhat of a timeout. So I have with me Corey Salzillo from the California State Sheriff's Association to testify in support of this measure. Thank you very much. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Corey Sazillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association proud to sponsor AB 292 and the author did a fantastic job of laying out sort of the etymology of how we got here today With this bill and this language and where the bill started and where the bill started three or four years ago We we ultimately still think that there is a deficiency in as much as this very serious and violent crime Is not on the violent felony list, but we've had the arguments and the discussions about why that is is or isn't the case. And again, as the author said, there were quite a bit of negotiations and discussions and let's find a place where we can move something forward. You know, it's not an earth shattering change, but frankly, one that recognizes the violence that's inherent in what we're talking about here. And again, just to be clear, we're talking about someone who commits an act as described by the author. And it has to be within seven years of a qualifying prior felony conviction. So again, not someone who makes a one-time mistake, not someone who, you know, fit of rage type of thing. This is repeated behavior. This is calculated behavior. This is someone who has already been adjudicated to the level of felony punishment to say, you have violated the laws of the state. You have hurt somebody so badly that we are sending you away with a felony conviction. And now within seven years, you come back and do it again. We think this is a very modest change in the whole scheme of things. The author talked about where this came from and how much he worked with the assembly committee. And candidly, as we are going to hear from the opposition, we suspect, I'm not sure we really understand, or I understand what we're talking about, that this is incomplete. Not every bill can solve every problem and not Every bill can take every approach. But as the analysis correctly points out, there are complementary efforts out there, whether that's the enforcement of existing law or funds that are being appropriated or consider being appropriated to kind of create a holistic approach to how we in the state of California deal with this very pernicious crime. And I don't know how survivors of domestic violence are going to suffer from a bill that holds the abusers more accountable for longer periods of time. If nothing else, we're keeping them away from the people that they have abused. And so for those reasons, Mr. Chair, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll now invite anyone who'd like to express support for AB 292 to please come forward. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in support. Thank you. Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association, the Riverside County District Attorney's Office in support. Mr Chairman members Dan Philzotto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney Office and the Crime Victims Alliance in support Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support Thank you Thank you very much. Okay, unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for AB 292, we will now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to the bill. So we're taking two opposition witnesses, and the opposition must have submitted a letter in the portal prior to today's hearing. you're welcome to add me to testimony when we invite others to come up and express their opposition to the bill but each witness will have two minutes and whoever would like to begin thank you good morning chair and members I'm Grace Glaser and on behalf of the California partnership to end domestic violence we strongly oppose AB 292 the bill will have negative and long-lasting consequences and will not help survivors of domestic violence or their families AB 292 has been framed as a way to prevent domestic violence, but it will not do so. Slightly longer prison sentences will not have any significant deterring effect, and effective domestic violence prevention is not rooted in incarcerating individuals. Instead, it looks like educating people and communities about healthy relationships, the signs of abuse, consent, and providing resources when there are concerns. AB 292 also contributes to an already bloated CDCR budget and diverts state funding away from survivors. While it's the job of the appropriations to highlight costs of this bill, looking at the assembly appropriations analysis, the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in a state prison is $136,000. Now consider applying this to every individual who would be incarcerated for two, four, or five years. The increased expenditure required by this bill would take place at a time that domestic violence program funding remains flat, despite the increased number of individuals reaching out for support. While programs plan for budget cuts that will result in unanswered calls for help and fewer shelter beds, this bill would instead dump valuable state resources into an already well-funded prison system. In a recent report released by the Blue Shield of California Foundation, 79 percent of California-based survivors of domestic violence share that having an affordable, safe place to live was the most important thing to their healing, compared to the 23 percent that said having their partner sent to jail was important for their healing. There is a pathway forward to preventing domestic violence in California, and it requires long-term sustainable investments in violence prevention education and supportive services, not increasing mandatory minimum sentencing. For all the reasons outlined, we respectfully request your no vote today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chair, members, staff. My name is Claudia Gonzalez. I'm a senior program associate at Viera California, a local initiative of the Viera Institute of Justice. national research policy organization working to build safe communities. As an indigenous survivor of domestic violence and an advocate for criminal survivors, I'm here today to strongly oppose Assembly Bill 292 by Assemblymember Patterson. While AB 292 is framed as a measure to prevent domestic violence and hold people accountable, it will do neither. Instead, AB 292 will expand punishments that risk deepening the criminalization of domestic violence survivors who are often arrested for acts connected to self-defense or survival. When I was a young adult my then partner beat and kidnapped me at knife point forcing me to go on a crime screen I knew he was going to kill me because he had tried before Determined not to become another missing and murdered indigenous woman, I had to comply with him until I could find an escape. But when I finally did, by flagging down police, my nightmare continued. Despite being physically injured and visibly traumatized, police ignored my pleas for help. Instead, I was arrested and booked into jail. I struggled to understand how someone almost took my life yet I was being punished for it. I wish I could say that my experience was an isolated one, but it is not. For years lawmakers have ignored the voices of survivors, especially women of color, while passing policies in our name and increasing punishment in ways that hurt rather than keep us safe. Survivors of domestic violence are often arrested and persecuted prosecuted for defending themselves against an abusive partner. This is one of the reasons women's arrest and incarceration rates have skyrocketed across the country. My path to healing did not come from knowing my perpetrator was in jail. Incarceration did not address the root causes that led to his abuse. My healing came from being treated with dignity and respect and being recognized as a survivor, not as a criminal. It came from receiving resources and opportunities to help me thrive. If California wants to support survivors of domestic violence, the Senate should begin by listening to survivors like me who are often forgotten. As a criminalized survivor, I urge you to please not risk criminalizing more women. Please vote no on AB 292. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will now invite anyone who would like to express opposition to AB 292 to please come forward to state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Thank you. Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in opposition. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed. Free Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in opposition. Avi Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in strong opposition. Bernice Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong opposition. Nedric Miller, all of us in Sacramento, strong opposition. Matt Sosna on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition. Good morning, Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, respectfully opposed. I've also been asked to register opposition for Futures Without Violence, Stronghearted Native Women's Coalition, Deaf Hope, Family Violence Law Center, and the Humboldt Domestic Violence Services. Thank you. Emily Harris on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in opposition. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendez on behalf of Local 148 Union in opposition. Okay, thank you very much. I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments on AB 292. Okay. Unless there's any questions or comments on the bill. Senator Cortese. I just want to state my concern about the bill. I'm not going to be supporting it today. And you know having practiced in this area my own experience is that once a person is put on probation for an initial charge typically there's a seven-year period where a violation of probation brings them back in for just about anything that constitutes not obeying the law, which is pretty severe when you're practicing day in and day out in the courts, you see that for just about anything, including a traffic stop. I once represented an individual who was accused of stealing a hammer and was brought back in on a violation of probation and extradited in from another state just because of that. But moreover, we have judicial discretion that oftentimes pre-sentences individuals on that first charge so that it really takes away, you know, much in the way this bill would do, the judicial discretion later to automatically send somebody to state prison for that same violation, the same kind of violation I just described. So I don't want to add on any more severity to, you know, what is already, I think, a pretty full box of tools, so to speak, that the judges are using. I think they are pretty aggressive at times about making sure that people are set up to go to state prison if there's a reoffense, and I just don't think we need anything else at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, unless there are any other questions or comments from the committee, I'll turn it back for the author to make a closing statement.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. We don't have a quorum, but when we accept quorum, we're going to do a motion on the bill. Great. Thank you. Okay. I see we have Assemblymember Davies here. So we'll proceed out of file order to file item 17, Assembly Bill 1816.

Good morning. I need to present. Thank you. I'm going to present your book.

of California thank you very much good morning good morning mr. chair and members Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California please to sponsor AB 1816 by way of background in 20 in 2020 Assembly Bill 1950 set the maximum term of probation for misdemeanors at one year two years for felonies this arbitrary capped moved away from really a truly evidence-based treatment focused time completion model to looking at kind of a focus on arbitrary time cap on probation terms what we're looking to do with this bill is really narrowly focused on sex offenders and the role treatment plays in their recidivism and lowering risk levels once they are back in the community AB 1816 would establish an appropriate pathway for the courts to extend probation up to an additional year to complete their treatment and as noted by the author this is to complete their currently statutorily mandated state sex offender treatment program which is already again on statute so those treatment that kind of treatment model already exists and this bill authorizes the court and does not mandate that extension research is clear that meaningful participation and completion of program are central at reducing risk promoting accountability and fostering protective factors that lead to long-term safety treatment it is a central mechanism for reducing risk and therefore treatment completion is all the more important. This bill ensures that courts can align those supervision treatment timelines with the needs of the individuals. The ultimate goal here is to lower the risk level for those convicted of sex offenses that again already have requirements to complete state mandated treatment. So for those reasons we ask for your aye vote today. Thank you very much. Anyone wishing to express support for AB 1816 to please come forward. Mr. Chair, members, Randy

behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and the

Office in support mr. chair and senators Cory Salzillo on behalf of the

good morning my name is Tracy Olson I'm the chief public defender of Yolo County and I'm speaking on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association I noticed the author said she accepted some amendments I'm going to trust that that my comments are all still relevant based on that. But the bill does not promote public safety. AB 1816 suggests that individuals who have been deemed suitable for community supervision somehow remain a threat to public safety until they complete treatment and programming. However, probation is discretionary. No judge will ever put somebody on probation unless they've already made a determination that they are not a threat and do not pose an unacceptable risk to the community. That's why probation is granted in the first place. The bill is problematic because of the subjective nature of it. What does substantially complete probation or treatment mean? Different probation officers, treatment providers, and courts can reach different conclusions, leading to inconsistent outcomes across California. The bill is unnecessary. If someone is willfully refusing treatment, despite having the mean and opportunity to participate, existing law has remedies. If someone's willfully choosing not to participate probation can seek revocation and then revocation tolls the time for for probation to end and The bill is costly treatment delays can and do occur for a lot of reasons that are outside of any individuals control Treatment programs have wait lists. Some programs are unavailable Individuals can lack transportation childcare insurance coverage and financial means to pay for treatment Extending probation because of programming remains unfinished risks punishing people for systemic shortcomings without fixing those barriers. What the bill will do is create more opportunities for technical violations. The longer someone remains on probation, the greater chance they will miss an appointment, arrive late, or violate a condition that has nothing to do with public safety. Those technical violations lead to incarceration even when no new crime has occurred. and experience tell us that people who are going to willfully violate do so early longer probation terms mostly punished poverty instability and technical non if California wants people to complete treatment California should invest in expanding access to treatment not extending probation And for those reasons I urge a no vote Thank you Thank you very much.

We should express opposition to AB 1816 and please come forward, say your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendez on behalf of Local 148 Union in opposition.

Matt Sosna on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in Opposition.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions. So I think my biggest concern, and I thought Senator Cortese talked in the prior bill about probation and some of the risks involved in probation, the risk being the myriad of opportunities to violate that are outside of your control. And a lot of it comes back to poverty just not having the resources Everything costs Being on probation costs there a fine we be dealing with the forfeiture fees that we put penalties The classes, if you don't have good transportation, that becomes an issue. So here's part of the challenge, is that any of the programs, well, let me ask in regards to the mandated program, and I had it written down here somewhere what it's called. Is that program longer than a year? It can be at times, and that is part of, you know, when you look at kind of how KSOM, I'm sorry, through the chair, when you look at kind of how KSOM has structured completion of the programs, right, it is looking at their criminogenic needs and the factors involved in different things. So by when AB 1915 kind of arbitrarily cut terms short, programs can at times go beyond that two years. And so we are trying to, because this bill really, because research notes and shows that there's a direct correlation between successful completion of these programs and the treatment model for sex offenses in lowering recidivism and risk of reoffense, that that is a place where it felt appropriate to allow the court to extend. And, you know, I would note that I think all of the things that the opposition shared about challenges that our clients can face, we understand that. You know, probation, for example, has developed mobile probation centers to go out to unhoused communities to try to reach and connect with people so they're not missing their court dates. There's graduated sanctions, you know, and things that look at violations. We don't want to use detention as the first and only resort for violations. And really, for us, this bill is not about that. It's about the treatment component. we want to see people staying in their programs working that, getting there removing those barriers and there's a whole host of things that happen on behalf of probation with our clients to help them be successful in that so I think the extension of

I've got a bunch more so I'd like to be able to make sure I understand so I agree let me just say that I think it's important to focus on recidivism and the the hope that what we've done in putting people on probation is going to be successful we think we all want that and for good tested models we ought to be utilizing them as much as possible the challenge is is not all counties have the same capacity and not all programs start when somebody's ready to start and can accommodate the timeline that we're talking about so I want to make sure we're I'm supportive of taking the time that's required but I also want to make sure that number one we're not saying you're in violation of probation because you haven't completed your class and the person's going wait I started when I could and I'm doing the best I can and then they sit in jail and they lose their job or they miss more classes and they have to start all over again so so I'm looking at a system that's not punitive for that allows the extension not to be viewed as a violation of probation that ends up counting against them so they go back into jail and pay a higher fine that kind of thing if they've been cooperating and the the the authority to help this individual is in the county's hands it's it's in the county's probation department it's in the county's DA it's in the county's maybe public defender and so the court ought to be authorized to prioritize mental health services that are consistent with the program or that can help the individual get through the program in a much more expedited manner so that we're not using, oh, we can't do it, so we're going to have to extend probation. So I guess my thing is I want to be able to support the bill today. I think it's important for these programs to be efficacious. The public has an expectation that if we go in this direction, it's going to work. And I want to make sure that we're not setting up all these barriers so that then we violate people, we take them into custody. You know, there's nothing worse than working towards a success and then have someone pick you up and throw you in jail and then have to show up in court in chains. And so I'm looking for that, at least an explanation of how we don't do any of that in this bill, and if we need to make sure that there's amends in the next committee that they get made so that, for myself, in order to be able to be supportive, I need to make sure that those are the things we're dealing with. May I, through the chair, appreciate that, Senator.

So thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. OK, very much. We do have a quorum at this time, so I will ask the committee assistant to please call the roll. Arrigan I'm getting here say our toe Caballero Caballero here Cortese Cortese here Perez Wiener we're here okay thank you very much

Okay.

moved by Vice Chair Ciarto. Thank you. Unless there's any other questions or comments, I turn it

at again again I say our toe I say it oh I caballero caballero I Cortese Cortese not voting Perez Wiener we know now keep that bill on call for absent members thank you very much okay we'll go and try and get that well before you go into a motion on the consent calendar Oh move by Santa Caballero and consent consists of

item 12 AB 2337 Lackey followed him 14 AB 2 204 Gabriel and bottom 25 AB 1994 Alvarez the committee system could please call the roll I again I say Arto I say our toe I caballero I cortesi cortesi I Perez wiener wiener I okay we'll keep consent on call for our absent member as we proceed with our agenda we do take measures in file order as was noted on the agenda and I do see that assemblymember Avi Lafarious is here and so we'll proceed to file in nine a B 1624 so witnesses and support here thank you okay and I know we have a packed hearing room and we have people outside and so people enter and exit if you can try to close the door because it creates a lot of noise in here and makes it difficult for us to hear the speakers so assembly member whenever you're ready to present you may present on a B 1627 Thank You mr. speaker and members I'm pleased to

Testifying with me in support is Tracy Olson on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm here in support of AP 1627. This bill really is about public trust, professionalism, and equal standards for everyone exercising law enforcement authority. In my 28 years as a public defender, I have seen firsthand the importance of professionalism, well-trained law enforcement officers who treat people with dignity and respect, regardless of how they look, where they come from, or what language they speak. As public defenders, we see the real-world consequences when immigration enforcement practices include racial profiling, disregard for due process, and treatment that undermines the dignity of vulnerable individuals and families. When people are targeted because of their appearance, their accent, or their immigration status, trust does break down. And these concerns are not hypothetical. Federal courts have recently found that immigration enforcement practices likely violated constitutional protections by relying on racial profiling and denying individuals meaningful access to counsel. ICE and the Department of Homeland Security have been repeatedly accused of targeting individuals without legal basis. The resulting fear forces many people to live in the shadows, afraid to go to work, afraid to send their children to school, and afraid to seek help from law enforcement when they need it the most. We all know that peace officers wield extraordinary authority and power. Ensuring that those who hold such positions are properly trained and willing to demonstrate integrity is a matter of statewide concern and moral clarity. AB 1627 advances those values. The bill makes a simple, important clarification to existing law. It ensures that misconduct committed while working in immigration is considered when an individual seeks employment with a California law enforcement agency. This bill isn't about immigration policy. It's about ensuring everyone who exercises law enforcement authority is held to the same professional standards regardless of which agency issued that badge. And so I ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair and Senators, Adam Kegwin on behalf of California LULAC in support.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you.

Thank you very much for bringing this bill forward, and I'll turn over to close. Thank you, Chair and members. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, Senators. Thanks for having me today. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 1854, which is a simple law shielding medical procedures from disclosures. After Roe v. Wade got overturned with the decision of Dobbs, states around the country started passing various abortion bans, some so aggressive that they allowed states such as Texas and Louisiana to reach across their borders into the borders of California. In response, California and eight other states enacted shield laws shielding patients and providers from those types of persecutions and prosecutions and investigations from other states. Fast forward to right now, 1854 fortifies our current shield laws by ensuring that no extradition order that hasn't been signed by the governor will allow for an arrest of an individual based on an out-of-state extradition attempt. The other piece of this makes sure that our shield laws also apply to financial service companies that are doing business in California and could be subpoenaed for information about protected health care activities. If those companies do want to give over information, they will be required to have an affidavit accompanying the subpoena or arrest warrant just stating that it does not involve protected activity. And protected activity is defined under California law as legal health care activity that's lawful in California, access to abortion, obviously, and gender-affirming care. with me. All right, I'm alone at the altar here. But this bill is sponsored by the Attorney General's Office, also supported by Planned Parenthood. Happy to answer any questions and respectfully ask your aye vote.

Good morning. Glenn Backus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Chajun Liu, Electronic Frontier Foundation, in support.

Andy Liebenbaum, County of Los Angeles, in support.

Martin Radosevich, on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California, in support.

Matthew Ward, advocating for more mastectomies for minors, in support.

Good morning. My name is Lisa Disbro, and I'm with our duty. Under this bill, medical providers can perform sex-rejecting interventions on children without any fear of retribution. Medical providers can violate their own state's laws, sterilize children, circumvent parents, and watch their bank accounts grow, finding refuge in California. This bill ensures that when a child is taken across state lines and given irreversible medical interventions no one can find out who did it how it happened or prove it in court while California AG shields the providers who did it This bill violates a myriad of laws as detailed in our duty's opposition. It will also place at risk the billions of dollars California receives from the feds through the Violent Crime Control Act and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force. We have informed our many new friends in the federal administration about this bill. This is not an idle threat. Our groups are behind California's Title IX claims, the Mirabellati v. Bonta and AB 1955 cases, as well as the newly announced FTC investigation into the WPATH. Parents never forget and parents never forgive those who harm their children. Even the former president of GLAAD, Herndon Gradek, recognizes the harm to children. Gradek, who personally transformed that organization from an LGB group into a transgender advocacy machine, admitted when discussing sex-rejecting intervention for children, we should completely stop doing anything that might harm children, even if it means we admit that we got something really wrong. And my understanding is that we have. One of the main architects of the trans movement is confessing it harms children, and your answer is to shield the people harming them. Please vote no. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members. My name is Leander Wells with the California Family Council. AB 1854 turns California into a legal fortress for the abortion and gender transition industry, punishing any Californian who cooperates with another state's lawful investigation, even when the activity happened outside our borders. This is a sweeping attempt to explore a culture of death while shielding those who harm children and take innocent life. This bill doesn't protect, it punishes. Any person or entity in California that complies with a lawful subpoena from another state could face fines of $10,000 to $15,000 from our own Attorney General. That is not health care protection. It is compelled obstruction of justice. And who pays the price? Families and children. A newly released Finnish study tracking more than 2,000 adolescents found that severe psychiatric problems were already high before these interventions and did not improve after medical gender treatments. In fact, mental health disorders remained elevated or worsened over time. These findings should give every member pause. The evidence is increasingly clear. These sex-rejecting procedures do not resolve underlying distress. They often deepen it. AB 1854 doubles down anyway, shielding these interventions from scrutiny and accountability, even across state lines. It tells providers no matter what harm is done, California will protect you. And it tells parents in other states, California will obstruct your efforts to protect your own children. This bill also puts California organizations, including ministries, nonprofits, and businesses, in an impossible position, obey another state's lawful order and be punished here or refuse and face consequences there. That is coercion. Members this bill is not about care It is about control It elevates ideology about evidence politics above parents and power above the rule of law For the sake of children families, and true justice, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1854. Thank you.

Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General. Here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, we are proud to sponsor this measure and we We thank Assemblymember Maggie Crowell for authoring this piece of legislation. This bill clarifies and expands California's shield laws to protect patients, health care providers, and others involved in reproductive health care and gender-affirming care. That is legal in California. Since California's shield laws took effect, anti-abortion states have increased efforts to investigate and prosecute California providers, and some states have tried to extradite or take adverse legal action against California doctors. AB 1854 addresses these issues by expanding shield law coverage to more California businesses and individuals who receive legal demands. And it also clarifies that law enforcement cannot arrest someone if the governor refuses an extradition request. As the legal landscape continues to shift nationwide, AB 1854 ensures California will remain a safe haven for those seeking and providing reproductive health care. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. First of all, I move the bill. I want to thank the author for standing up for health care access and for members of our community who are being criminalized in other states. We have the threatening to put doctors in prison. They're threatening to take kids away from their parents. They're threatening to put parents in prison because they support their trans kids. It's really, it's sort of fascist level stuff. in terms of the government from a movement that claims that it wants government to take its hands off of people. It is they're advocating to have government completely control what families do as they claim that they want to let families make decisions. They claim to support parental rights, but they only support parental rights when the parents are doing what they want. So it's really about control. And we need to be clear here, in California, the age of consent for the vast majority of physical health care is 18, unless you're emancipated. And so these young people who are receiving any kind of physical gender-affirming care in California, and I suspect in pretty much every state, unless they're emancipated, are doing it with the consent and the support of their parents. in consultation with a medical provider. And the idea that government would get involved and criminalize these folks is disgusting. And California... has a responsibility to stand up and say we're not going to, unless the U.S. Constitution mandates us to do it, we're not going to be party to anything having to do with those laws, and we're not going to enforce those laws, whether it's the state or whether it's local law enforcement. So that's what this bill is about. It's strengthening our existing shield and sanctuary laws for these families, and we continue to see a propaganda campaign, which is, you know, there's an entire movement dedicated to spreading propaganda that trans people don't exist, that trans people need to be eliminated and erased, and California should not be party to it, so I move the bill.

Thank you Senator Wiener for your comments. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Assemblymember whenever you're ready you may present on the bill. Hi. Good morning again senators. I'm proud to present you with assembly bill 1927 this morning this is an important bill that seeks to prevent a pernicious practice of con artists basically scamming people the families of people who have been arrested and while we have a licensing system that involves licensed bail agents we also have people with no licenses at all who are getting arrest records and then reaching out to family members loved ones associates of people who have been arrested and pretending to be able to get them out of jail this is a pernicious form of fraud it preys on extremely vulnerable people who may be in a panic knowing that a loved one is behind bars assembly bill 1927 carves out a specific new penal code section that deals specifically with this and criminalizes anybody who impersonates and fraudulently seeks to solicit bail I also want to really thank the committee for their work on this bill and staff has been extremely helpful I accept the amendments and with me to testify here today is David Quintana Thank You

Thank you very much. Mr. Lund, are you also testifying the bill?

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1927? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you very much. Any other Me Too testimony in support of the bill?

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 1927, if there are any opposition witnesses in the room. Seeing no opposition, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions, comments, or a motion. Okay, moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you very much. And just to summarize the amendments, and really want to thank the author for working with our committee, and the sponsors as well on the bill. It strikes the bill language that was in print and instead creates a misdemeanor for soliciting bail while falsely impersonating a bail agent. And I think this is a very important bill to protect families at a time when their family is impacted by somebody who's been arrested and to create a fair process. So with that, I'll turn it back to the author too close.

motion is do pass as amended to judiciary committee at a gain again I say art oh caballero caballero I cortesi Perez wiener wiener I okay we'll keep that bill on call for absent members as I had announced earlier in the hearing we do not take measures and sign in order we take them in file order and so I some of those diverse a similar ta is before you and file order and so we go to file item 20 AB 1872 by Assemblymember Ta and then we go to Assemblymember Zabr after Thank you

Mr. Chair and members, Matty Hyatt on behalf of California Civil Liberty Advocacy, I was a proud sponsor of AB 1872. SWATing is not merely a false report. It is the weaponization of emergency response against an innocent person. When someone knowingly makes a false report, they are trying to induce the government to send armed officers into someone's home, school, workplace, or house of worship. That can mean forced entry, detention, property damage, search and seizure, trauma, and sometimes death. That is why we view this as a civil liberties bill. The Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the home. A swatter manufactures the appearance of exigent circumstances and tricks the government into crossing that line against an innocent person. And once officers are inside, the plain view doctrine can apply. So the innocent targets' privacy rights, property rights, and security are compromised, even though they did nothing wrong. This bill also makes sense from a state sovereignty perspective. Many serious swatting cases are prosecuted federally, but California should not have to depend on federal priorities, federal resources, or the federal government's charging decisions to protect Californians. If California's leadership is concerned about selective enforcement of federal law or the politicization of federal agencies, then California should give its own prosecutors and courts a careful state law tool to deter repeat adult swatting. We feel AB 1872 is narrow. It does not make a first offense a felony. It does not use juvenile conduct as a felony predicate. It applies only to adult repeat offenders and gives prosecutors and courts a wobbler option when the conduct is serious but no one has yet been killed or seriously injured Current law generally waits until death or great bodily injury occurs before felony liability is available under the core false emergency reporting statute We should not have to wait for another tragedy before repeating adult swatting with the seriousness it deserves. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Nicholas Bishop. I'm here as an individual to support Assembly Bill 1872 based on my professional experience and my training. I hold a master's degree in Emergency Services Administration from California State Long Beach where I authored a thesis on swatting. I've also worked as a law enforcement dispatcher for 12 years. I'm currently serving as a training officer and a tactical dispatcher. When I testified on this issue last year, I spoke about the danger swatting creates for victims, first responders, schools, businesses, and the public. Since then, the threat has continued to evolve. SWATing is no longer just a false report. It is increasingly supported by technology. The National Association of Attorney Generals has warned that emerging technology is making these threats more convincing, more targeted, and easier to carry out. In the last year, California has seen multiple SWATing incidents involving high-profile places such as Sacramento State University, the Auburn Airport, high schools in Alameda, the Central Valley and other places, Disneyland that's supposed to be the happiest place on earth, and the San Francisco Zoo. One argument I've heard against bills like this is that we should focus on preventing the crime rather than increasing punishment. I agree that prevention is a better goal, but based on my academic experience and professional experience, there is no tool, training method, or technology that can prevent swatting. We can and should train first responders to recognize and mitigate swatting incidents, but training alone is not enough. California needs a clear legal deterrent that reflects the seriousness of repeat swatting incidents. AB 1872 does that. It sends a clear message that repeatedly weaponizing the emergency response system against California will be treated as the serious public safety threat it is. With that, I ask for your aye vote on this. Thank you.

Morning chair and members Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the California District Attorney's Office and the Riverside County I'm sorry California District Attorney's Association of the Riverside County District Attorney's Office in support

Thank you

Thank you very much. Okay. I'll invite up to two principal opposition witnesses to testify on AB 1872. And you each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. Yeah, that would be great.

Good morning.

And the research has shown repeatedly by many different institutions, including the National Institute of Justice, that laws and policies designed to decur crime by focusing on increasing penalties are ineffective because most people don't know about the sanctions of specific crimes. The other thing that is pointed out in the analysis is that this is inconsistent with existing California law. Even calling 911 as a hate crime is a misdemeanor And so I do not think that this is necessary I think that it is misguided although well public policy and we respectfully ask for your no vote Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill? Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed. Thank you. Glenn Backus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, opposed. I'll be Rodriguez with the ACLU Cal action and strong opposition. Hi, David Bullock, SFV Alliance. We are actually in support. Thank you. Matt Sassen on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition. Thank you very much. Okay, I'll bring back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero. So I understand the opposition's position. You know, this is one of those things where it seems innocuous. Or let me put it to you this way. When I was a kid, which was a million years ago, this would have just been a prank. Going up and ringing people's doorbells and running, making prank calls on telephone. But this has really crossed the line beyond a prank. And it's crossed the line because, well, first of all, I appreciate that this is adults that we're talking about. And second, that it is an emergency response with armed officers. And whenever armed officers rush to a scene because they've been told something terrible is happening, And I expect this will be, the swatting is much more serious in terms of the allegations than a reporting of a false crime elsewhere. It's dangerous. It's dangerous. It's usually schools. It's churches. It's places where people go and expect to be safe. And so I'll move the bill today. I think this is really important. And the fact that there are options, there are things that can happen in terms of mental health services and those kinds of things, I just feel like we've got to get a handle on the situation because it's become way too common. So move the bill. Senator Caballero, any other questions or comments from members of the committee? If not, I'll turn it back over to the author to make a closing statement. I really thank you for your support and I respectfully ask you I vote thank you very much we have a motion by center cover air of the committee system please call the roll maybe 1872 Tom motion is due pass to appropriations at again I say our toe cover your cover your eye Cortese Perez Wiener Wiener I okay we'll keep that bill on call for absent members thank you very much in discussion with several authors we do need to proceed at this time to file item 29 AB 2217 by some of Zabra I believe there's somebody here who has an accommodation we need to we need to make and so assembly member if there any principal witnesses the welcome to join him here at the table and whatever you're ready to present you may proceed Thank You mr. chair members I'm proud today to present AB 2217 sponsored by by the Drug Policy Alliance and Californians for Safety and Justice, which will allow the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program renamed Alternatives to Arrest to continue connecting California most vulnerable residents to critical services and expand the program throughout the state Too often poverty is criminalized and individuals who are simply seeking to provide for their basic needs are incarcerated However incarceration does not address the root causes of crime. In fact, it often only exacerbates the underlying issues of poverty, instability, lack of access to resources, and lack of housing that contribute to crime. Established in 2017, the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program, otherwise known as LEAD, allows law enforcement officers to refer someone to a case manager for immediate crisis services instead of making an arrest. The program focuses on individuals with low-level, repeat offenses where the underlying issue is often homelessness, mental health needs, or substance use. These referrals are voluntary, are made at the officer's discretion, and connect people to housing, health care, mental health support, and substance use treatment when appropriate. An evaluation of the LEAD program found that it not only reduced recidivism and lowered crime, but also successfully connected participants to housing services and nonjudgmental individualized help. AB 2217 will rename the program as Alternatives to Arrest and will add petty theft, second-degree burglary, and trespass to the list of offenses eligible for the referral through the program. The bill also will allow local jurisdictions the flexibility to add additional offenses if agreed upon by local law enforcement and the public health leadership. We can't arrest our way out of poverty, mental health challenges, or addiction. AB 2217 recognizes that simple truth and instead expands this research-backed, successful program which connects vulnerable individuals to housing, health care, and mental health support and substance use treatment. Members, I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today in support of the bill is Greg Gardner, California State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. Great. Thank you very much. Good morning. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Greg Gardner on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance. We're proud to sponsor, along with Californians for Safety and Justice, AB 2217. And I want to thank the author for his leadership on this bill. This legislation builds on a prior grant program operated by the Board of State and Community corrections referred to as law enforcement assisted diversion or lead which is renamed in the bill as alternatives to arrest. The program gives communities a way to constructively address certain low level offenses that often recur largely because of unmet complex needs including those related to substance use disorder, mental illness and poverty. It does so by allowing law enforcement officers to connect people with such needs who are at risk of arrest with case managers expanding connections to care and stability and reducing costly and harmful arrests. What's particularly unique is that it brings together key stakeholders in the community, including law enforcement, community-based service providers, and public health agencies to collaboratively work on addressing those unmet needs that contribute to public disorder. The LEAD program, which was piloted and funded in the 2016-17 budget, has been especially impactful in Los Angeles where the program has been highly successful and may be nearing capacity this bill and accompanying budget action would expand services and cover jurisdictions in Los Angeles County and allow the development and evaluation of alternatives to arrest programs in other parts of the state as well an evaluation of the pilot in Los Angeles by the CSU Long Beach School of criminology criminology found that 12 months after implementation in LA similarly situated persons who were not referred to the program had felony arrest rates significantly higher two and a half times higher than lead participants and misdemeanor rates that were 150 higher The Commission on Revision of the Penal Code recommended expanding the eligible offenses that would qualify an individual to be referred to the program which is what this bill would do, along with allowing local jurisdictions to identify other low-level offenses, as the author indicated, if there's agreement between prosecutors, law enforcement, and public health leadership. This is a narrow bill, but it's an important reauthorization and amendment to the successful pilot, which is reducing arrests, providing people with the help they need, and it is truly health-centered. We thank you and respectfully urge your support. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2217? If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Bree Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsor and support. Thank you very much. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tramiel. I'm with Disability Rights California in support of the bill. Thank you very much. Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Chet Hewitt with the California Community Foundation in support. Margo George, California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you. Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendez from L.A. County Public Defender's Office on behalf of Local 148 in support. Thank you. Shavani Nishar, Drug Policy Alliance, registering support on behalf of National Alliance to End Homelessness, Courage California, and Care First Coalition, comprising 34 organizations across California. Katarina Sayali, Community Works West, in support. Blum Gutierrez on behalf of Vera California in support. Glenn Bacchus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Matt Sassen on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support. Elizabeth Cam on behalf of Initiate Justice in support. Bernice Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support. Marco Duncan on behalf of all of us and nine we support Emily Harris on behalf of sister warriors and support hi leticia Garcia with the California Retailers Association also in support thank you Ellie with SC justice group in support okay thank you very much is there any opposition witnesses president the room would like to give testimony seeing no one come forward I bring it back to the committee for any questions comments or emotion senator Caballero appreciate you bringing this bill forward I think it's It's a really important alternative, and I move the bill. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Thank you very much, Assemblymember, for bringing this bill forward. I strongly support it, and I'll turn it back over to Close. I would say, you know, this is one of the things that we always say we want to do when we're dealing with folks that are homeless, are experiencing mental illness or substance use. It's really about not criminalizing them but connecting them to service, and this is a A program that has, as we said, has been already implemented. It's been implemented successfully. It's had amazing success in terms of the data and the statistics. This would allow it to be expanded in terms of the kinds of offenses that are subject and would expand it throughout the state and, of course, subject to the budget request, which we'll be dealing with as part of the baby budget bill. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. We have a motion. The committee assistant can please call the roll. AB 2217s of our motion is due pass to appropriations. Aragon? Aye. Aragon, aye. Sayarto? Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Perez? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call for absent members. I have to go vote in the local government committee across the street. And so, Senator Caballero, would you be able to chair my absence, and I'll come back immediately after. And I think Assemblymember Bryan is next with his three bills. Assemblymember Bryan. Okay, let's... 1537. I became the chair, so let me get myself organized now. I never have a problem with you as chair. Where am I? Okay. Yes, why don't we start with AB 1537. Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I'm pleased to present AB 1537. It's our No Second Jobs with ICE Act. This bill closes a loophole in state law that allows for officers to moonlight for immigration enforcement. Before I begin, I first want to thank the committee consultants for the amendments. I will be accepting the amendments, and although he just walked out of the room, I want to thank the chair for being on the phone with me until 8.30 last night to make sure that we landed this correctly. Immigration officers operate with too much unchecked power and no real transparency or accountability, especially right now. Civil rights have been repeatedly violated by ICE. We've seen too many Americans killed. We saw Alex Freddie murdered. We saw the murder of Renee Good, and we saw the murder of Keith Porter Jr. by an off-duty ICE agent. And many more have died in ICE custody due to this lack of accountability. Many victims' families are still waiting for the justice they deserve. Today, there's an inconsistency in state law. While officers can't collaborate in many ways with ICE while working their shift, there's no policy stopping them from taking a second job or moonlighting with immigration enforcement. If you sign up to protect the people during the day, then I don't think you should be able to kidnap and terrorize people from those same communities at night. Our review of more than 55 police department policies and procedure manuals has not identified a single public policy that explicitly prohibits secondary employment with employers engaging in federal immigration enforcement. This silence creates the loophole for moonlighting as ICE agents, even as the state tells residents that our state and local police are not in the business of deportation. AB 1537 is straightforward. It will ensure officers stick to their obligation of serving the community and prevent any loophole that allows officers to moonlight a second job with immigration enforcement. With me to testify is Kimberly Wu, community organizer with Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network, and Bruno Huizar, supervising policy manager with the California Immigrant Policy Center. Welcome. Hi everyone I Kimberly Woon I a community organizer from Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network also known as SIREN Thank you for having me today Our organization serves our immigrant and refugee communities around the Bay Area and Central Valley. We're a proud co-sponsor of AB 1537 and a proud member of the ICE out of California coalition. California already places many restrictions on secondary employment by law enforcement officers, But there is no state law preventing officers from taking a side job working as an ICE agent or contractor. This must change, and it must change now. ICE and the Trump administration's attacks on our communities are relentless. We're seeing more ICE abductions in our communities. And the threat of mass immigration enforcement hits closer to my home in the Bay Area, with ICE seeking a potential processing center in Gilroy and a detention center in Dublin. More detention space in the Bay Area will mean more violent family separations and kidnappings of our immigrant loved ones in our communities. It would be a severe breach of public trust for a local officer to get paid from our tax dollars during the day and then clock in to a second shift as a deportation agent to arrest and separate the same communities, especially when these same families are struggling to make ends meet after losing their breadwinner to this deportation machine, and especially when these families are already being terrorized by their already massive immigration detention fleet. It would be another severe breach of public trust for a local officer to draw a salary from our local tax dollars during the day and then turn around and walk a second shift from an immigration detention center where people are subject to severe medical neglect, filthy water, rotten food, and abuse. With these imminent threats of detention expansion in the Bay Area, the harmful mass raids in Central Valley and L.A., and the deadly conditions in the eight detention centers in California, our local police officers who have sworn to protect our communities should not become the same agents who are terrorizing the same communities. I'm sorry I need you. Without AB 1537 we have no way to prevent this kind of moonlight and no way to even know how much this is happening. We need transparency and accountability right now and respectfully urge an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello Madam Chair and members and staff my name is Bruno. We side with the California Immigrant Policy Center a proud co-sponsor of AB 1537 alongside the ICE out of California coalition. Last September, CBS Sacramento reported on a large-scale ICE advertising blitz, seeking to recruit local law enforcement officers to be deportation agents. The ads, which aired right here in Sacramento, denigrated California's pro-immigrant policies and offered incentives such as $50,000 signing bonus. At the same time, ICE had a budget of about $85 billion, a meteoric spike, as NPR put it, from previous years. Just last month, ICE got another $70 billion with the B dollars. The Trump administration has already enlisted hundreds of local and state agencies nationwide in its mass deportation campaign by deputizing local and state law enforcement officers to be ICE agents. With these tens of billions at its disposal ICE will continue to try and aggressively recruit local and state law enforcement officers in California to carry out raids and abductions of our families and our neighbors Right now the public has no transparency about what is happening and despite the historic protections we passed here in California there a troubling loophole in state law. While the practice of secondary employment by law enforcement officers is highly regulated in our state, there is nothing in state law that prevents state and local law enforcement officers to take secondary employment or moonlight as ICE or deportation agents. This bill is a common sense solution, which creates a simple, clear standard for specified state and local officers, such as police and sheriffs, secondary employment that involves engaging in, arresting, detaining, transporting, or deporting individuals will not be allowed. In the face of ISIS mass raids and deportation campaign, we urgently need to pass AB 1537 for the sake of transparency and accountability. Recent amendments have been taken to streamline this bill, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Testimony in support. Go ahead. Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in support. Thank you. Shet Hewitt, California Community Foundation in support. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support. Thank you. Shivani Nishaw on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support. Thank you. Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in support. Thank you. Sarah Brennan with Weidemann Group on behalf of NextGen California in support. Good morning. JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you. Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Thank you. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in support. Matt Sosna on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, a co-sponsor of AB 1537, in support along with the following organizations. California Immigrant Policy Center, Harbor Institute for Immigrant and Economic Justice, Alliance San Diego, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Empowering Marginalized Asian Communities, Khmer Girls in Action, California Community Foundation, and Berkeley Councilmember Cecilia Lunapara. Thank you. Very much. Good morning. Tenisei Haring on behalf of the NAACP California State Conference in strong support. Thank you. Todd Williams here on behalf of the Tempe in support. Thank you. Tramiel Watson in support. Thank you. Thank you. Bernice Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support. Tweedo with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center in support, as well as reading some some MeToo's for our partners from Youth Leadership Institute, Showing Up for Racial Justice San Diego, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Harbor Institute for Immigrant and Economic Justice, Orange County Justice Fund, Freedom for Immigrants, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Rubicon programs, and Viet Voices. Thank you. Thank you. Krista Ramos on behalf of 67 Sueños, Californians for Justice, La Defensa Chispa Viet RISE Orelay Puente de la Costa Sur and Orange County Rapid Response Network Thank you Thank you Nedrick Miller all of us and none strong support Thank you Katerina Saielli, Community Works in support. Emily Harris, Sister Warriors in support. Good morning, Abraham Bedoy with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, proud co-sponsor of AB 1537. also in this space representing GLAAD Foundation, South Bay People Power, Orange County Equality Coalition, Youth Justice Coalition, Courage California, Health and Partnership, and Immigrant Defense Project. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association and support. Thank you. Thank you. Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for Historic Youth Justice. Strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Jose Madera, Director of the Pasadena Community Job Center and also part of the DINA Rise Up Coalition and strong support. Thank you. Hello, Salvador Salimento with the National Day Labor Organizing Network, Ndilon, proud supporter and co-sponsor of the legislation. Please support. Thank you. Colin Ford on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth and strong support. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors. want to say thank you to the witnesses author for the bill thank you Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and strong support thank you thank you very much is there anyone else in support we're going to move on to the opposition lead lead opposition witnesses have to see each thank you morning chair members Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association still opposed to some of the bill 1537 as amended I will note that prior to the House origin deadline, we did meet with the author. We had a conversation about trying to address some of our concerns. I drafted a set of amendments approved by the California police chiefs that we sent to his office. I have not heard back on those amendments after even following up and requesting a meeting. It does appear that some of those amendments have made their way into the language that was negotiated late last night, although not all of it, and there's still some ambiguities and questions that we have and concerns. still broadly prohibits secondary employment with entities that engage in certain activities. I think that's broad and ill-defined or non-defined. Still potentially encapsulates some of the task force operations that our officers are a part of. Do appreciate the carve-outs for military armed services because we do have plenty of officers that work for the Coast Guard and as reservists for our armed forces branches. There is a carve-out of certain California peace officers from this. I'm just curious as to why that was done. It appears to be Department of Justice officers. And then I'd just like to say that this bill touches on some of the really, really critical policy statutes that we've worked on over the years, decertification and the release of police officers' personnel files, which are incredibly important. So having some of the ambiguities still in the bill that are concerning to us, and we don't understand when the consequences are you are potentially decertified and your entire personnel files released to the public is really, really severe and something significant. We have to know what the parameters are that we're talking about here. The bill doesn't lay that out clearly at this point. We are still opposed as it's proposed to be amended. Mr. Chair, members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC. I just want to let the committee know that we're opposed to the bill. AB 1421, the CPRA deal that was negotiated, as well as SB 2, which is a police licensing bill that we negotiated. We're involved in those carefully drafted amendments and changes to the law with leaders of both houses and the governor's office. And the serious misconduct definitions in both of those bills were a long debated and negotiated definitions. We are opposed to going in, dropping in bills where folks are now coming in and saying that ARBITRARILY THIS IS NOW SERIOUS MISCONDUCT. NOW THIS IS SERIOUS MISCONDUCT UNDER THE DEFINITION. KEEP IN MIND SERIOUS MISCONDUCT UNDER SB2 MEANS AN OFFICER WILL LOSE THEIR CAREER. AND THIS IS SOMETHING WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IF THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL WANTED TO RUN THE BILL TO SAY THAT STRAIGHT UP THAT AN OFFICER CANNOT WORK FOR ICE AS A SECONDARY JOB, WE WOULD NOT BE OPPOSING THAT BILL. WE DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH ANY LIMITATIONS ON WHO CAN BECOME A CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICER ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE SO UNDERSTAFFED RIGHT NOW GETTING DANGEROUSLY LOW AND MANY OF YOU HAVE HEARD FROM YOUR CITIES AND COUNTIES ABOUT THAT. SO BUT HOWEVER, IF THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL DID AND THIS BILL JUST SAID YOU CANNOT DO IT AND THEN LET THE DISCUSSION, IF THAT OFFICER DECIDED TO DO IT ANYWAY KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT, THEN THEY CAN BE PUNISHED. There's an entire process for punishing a peace officer, even firing them. But to add this to serious misconduct, where does it stop? That's our concern. The next issue is another thing. We think this is serious. We think that is serious. If you look at the definition of serious misconduct, you're talking about sexual issues. I've got it right here, but my phone just closed on me. examples of serious misconduct definition. I'll just close with that. You've got serious excessive force, unjustified shootings, sexual assault. Those are the things that we talked about and negotiated that were serious misconduct. Somebody working an off-duty job that they shouldn't be and the legislature felt they shouldn't do, shouldn't be a serious misconduct. Could be punished, but not serious misconduct. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1537? Mr. Chair and Senators Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition Shane Levine California statewide law enforcement association in the fraternal order of police aligning our comments with poor I thank you Mr. Chair members Matthew cyberling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles deputy sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association both opposed thank you It's chair Ryan Sherman with California narcotic officers Riverside Sheriff's Association and the other police officer associations all in opposition. Thank you Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrol in opposition. Hi, David Bollag as of the Alliance and Los Angeles City employee opposed to any legislation that does not allow my fellow civil servants to perform legal lawful work. Organization and position on the bill. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1537? Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions and comments. Let me just summarize the amendments that we worked with the author the last several days and finalized just last night to the bill. And so the bill would prohibit a California peace officer from engaging in any form of secondary employment, including on a contract basis if it involves engaging in the arrest detention transport or deportation of individuals under federal immigration laws We specifically excluding any service within a branch of the U Armed Forces In addition under subsection F2 clarifying that engaging in secondary employment for the purpose of immigration enforcement is an act of serious misconduct and may constitute grounds for decertification. May is the operative word there. Moreover, under section F3, peace officers have to report any secondary employment and then more over under subsection F the records relating to secondary employment and disclosure of secondary employment only the records relating to secondary employment or disclosure secondary employment are are disclosable not other personnel records so those are the amendments and alternate backwards committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Sierta. Thank you very much. So this bill, like a few others, the intent is to lash out at ICE agents. And when we wade into the waters of restricting people from either their employment or their secondary employment, there's a reason they're getting a secondary employment. Nobody likes to work a full shift and then have to go work again, unless they're trying to support a family, unless they're trying to keep their wife or husband from having to work. And for child care purposes, there are a lot of things out there that we support. We absolutely support families, enabling families to function. And, you know, this particular bill is casting judgment on somebody for an agency that they work for. And telling, and then limiting our police officers to what they can do based on the castigation of these other folks. And, you know, putting everybody in that basket is wrong. Limiting people's opportunities for a second job that may fit into, you know, very narrow windows and when they can do a second job is wrong. And so, you know, it's hard for me to support a bill that kind of wades into those waters, and this is no different. There are some other bills that we are going to hear today that I'll have more comments on about this issue, because I think it's a wrongheaded approach. You know, if a police officer needs to work as a security person at a strip club, are we going to start limiting that? Are we going to tell them where they can't? We've had police officers offering security off-duty for, you know, high-profile persons. Are we going to tell them that they can't do that? We can have one agency saying, well, if you work for this agency because they just had an incident over there, that all of those people are bad and they can't work for, you can't get secondary employment. It just opens up this can of worms of interpretations that are sometimes not based on reality. it based on anger at an issue that we haven you know a lot of people disagree on So I not going to be supporting this bill and I won support the other ones that are doing the same thing that have that same approach of punishing all because they've been hired to do a job. There are definitely jobs where you have a conflict of interest, and usually those conflicts of interest are financial conflicts. They're not, we hate this, and so that's a conflict for us. There's a lot of people that don't hate this or don't hate that organization or whatever it is. We shouldn't conflate the two. So, yeah, I have difficulties with these type of bills and using the legislature to lash out like this, I think is kind of wrongheaded. Okay, any other comments or a motion? Senator Caballero. Mr. Chair, I need to run to present bills and other committees in the Assembly, but I just want to say that I appreciate the amendments that were worked on last night. I think it needs to go further. I heard some comments today that I think are important. Let me just say that I dearly respect my fellow senator. we have different views on this and we have different views on this based on where we sit and and here's the fundamental issue is if if we have a law enforcement agency in the state of California that has and it's not from the state of California, it is a federal law enforcement agency that is making decisions about their right to stop and to interrogate and to detain and to put in a civil detention facility that is exactly like a prison without knowing any detail about whether they're here document it or not, it's a violation of the law. It's clear and simple. It's a violation of the law. And I've spent years in local government as a mayor having everybody understand in the community that our police officers are their friends and that they can be good resources when things are happening in the neighborhood that are scary and dangerous and that they want help on. And that if you're going to violate the law, they're going to arrest you. But when you have agents coming in and doing things that are out of control, that have no markings on their clothes, it's hard to tell who has that authority and who doesn't. And I want to be able to continue to support my local officers. I want to continue to do the right thing by them. But if we are mixing the two, it is a disaster. I think you said it very, very well. If during the day they are there to protect and serve, but at night they're cracking heads and detaining people and transporting them, it's very confusing. It is not something that we want to have happen. So I'm going to support the bill today. I think there's some fixes in regards to what the opposition says. we should talk about it because I want to see it get through the Senate and so I moved the bill today and I apologize I going to run but I going to come back and vote on it when I get out of the Assembly committees Thank you Thank you very much Okay, I'll turn it back over to the author for your closing statement. I just want to thank you all for the conversation. And to the opposition, I can tell you, and I think they can tell you, in six sessions of doing bills, I don't know that we've ever sat down on a bill before now. And in that meeting, the meeting that I joined, specifically to the police chiefs, I committed to clarifying conditional offers and making sure that was clear in the bill. And we did that immediately. We got multiple sets of different amendments. We took things that we felt were still in line with the broader framework. We even limited the PRAs to not all forms of secondary employment, but just secondary employment related to immigration. I still think somebody should do a bill that expands PRAs to all forms of secondary employment. But we've tried to work in good faith all the way through this process because we recognize that our local law enforcement officers and what's happening with immigration enforcement are actually not the same thing, not the same level of training, not the same level of constitutionality, shouldn't be equated. And I couldn't imagine local law enforcement officers who want to be conflated with what's happening with immigration enforcement in this current moment. And to the vice chair, when you sign up for public service, sometimes your other opportunities are limited. I was teaching at the best university in the state of California before I came to the legislature. As a legislator, I'm prohibited from teaching back at that same university. And that university came with a pension. That is just part of occasionally what happens. I don't think, I mean UCLA, yes, sir. I don't think we want to prohibit all forms of secondary employment. But to continue to play on the analogy that was made, if you're working security at the strip club, and then the strip club allows you to murder the strippers with absolute immunity, then yes, we might need to ban that form of secondary employment as well. I appreciate the work of the committee on this bill and the thousands of community members who have written letters of support and our witnesses, and I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Once again, thank you for your work with our committee on this bill. I strongly support this bill. We have a motion by Senator Caballero. If the committee assisting, please call the roll. AB 1537, Bryan, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Aragin? Aye. Aragin, aye. Sayarto? No. Sayarto, no. Caballero? Cortese? Perez? Wiener? Wiener, yes. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call for absent members, and thank you for joining us today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could we do 1647 next? Yes, absolutely. So we'll now proceed to file item number five, AB 1647. Thank you. These hearings are not about guilt. They're about whether a young person could be rehabilitated in the juvenile justice system. In these hearings, youth are often asked to speak about their background, their experiences, and their circumstances. Without clear protections, young people and their attorneys may feel they cannot speak openly or fairly or that their words will be later used against them. And because of that, they don't speak. They often don't speak. AB 1647 addresses this by placing existing court protections into statute, ensuring clarity and consistency across California California. This bill codifies long-standing California Supreme Court precedent, including Bryan v. Superior Court and Ramona v. Superior Court. This bill does not create new rights or change law. It simply codifies long-standing California Supreme Court precedent and case law. It has had unanimous bipartisan support up until this point, including 70 votes on the Assembly floor. Today to provide testimony with me is Lawrence Bowie, a formerly incarcerated youth leader in Los Angeles and Laura Rodolfi with the Hayward Burns Institute. Give your testimony. Just want to confirm you accept the committee amendments. We accept the committee amendments. Okay, thank you. And you may proceed. Thank you. Hello, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Lawrence Bowie, and I'm a formerly incarcerated youth who spent nine years inside. In 2017, when I was 16 years old, I was one of three teenagers charged with being involved in a gang shooting where someone was murdered. We were arrested and sent to juvenile detention. At age 19, I went through a transfer hearing and lost, meaning the judge decided to send me to the adult system. From 2020 to 2023, I was in a county jail still fighting my case. Then, a new law passed that gave me a chance to return back to juvenile hall and go through a second transfer hearing. Me getting this opportunity was a blessing because I felt like during my first hearing, the system decided I could not be rehabilitated without knowing why I made the mistakes I did, how remorseful I was, or who I wanted to become one day. Returning back to juvenile hall, I built a support team of people who really cared about me and saw me for who I was. They motivated me to continue progressing to pursue my dreams. When my second transfer hearing finally happened, I remember sitting in court and wanted so badly to voice how I feel about everything that transpired and let everyone know who the person sitting in front of them was today. My hearing lasted for over six months, the longest in LA County history. At the end of the hearing, the judge asked me if I wanted to say anything. I turned my chair around towards the victim family and finally let them know that since 2017, I've been one to tell them how sorry I was for being involved in a case that caused them to lose some of their love. This was the first time in eight years that I spoke in the courtroom. After hearing my words, the victim father found it in his heart to forgive me and even ask if he could be a mentor or a resource for me. Now that I have been released back into the community, I am an intern with the anti-resistant colonization and just graduated LA Mission College two weeks ago with my social degree in social behavior sciences. Being able to share my voice in court was one of my proudest moments of my life because after being silent for so long everyone could truly understand who I am and how sorry I am for everything that's happened. The court was able to hear from me directly during the most consequential moment of my life, the moment where I ultimately was given a second chance. Every youth including my peers and still incarcerated in Los Angeles deserve to have the right to speak after transferring protected. I urge you to vote on AB 1647, the voice of that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi. Good morning. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Laura Rodolfi, and I'm with the Haywood Burns Institute, where I've worked for over 20 years to advance equity and public serving systems. I'm here in support of AB 1647. When a young person faces a transfer hearing, they are facing a decision that will define the rest of their life, whether they will be treated as a child or a child. in need of rehabilitation or whether they will be prosecuted as an adult and sent to adult prison. Given the gravity of this decision, for 50 years California courts have recognized that a young person facing a transfer hearing should be able to speak candidly about their background, their circumstances, and their capacity for rehabilitation without fear that those words will later be used against them That protection exists today only in case law Writing it into statute will make it permanent This bill does not create new rights It codifies what Bryan v Superior Court established in 1972 and Ramona R v Superior Court confirmed in 1985 That testimony a young person gives at a transfer hearing or statements made to a probation officer preparing a report for a transfer hearing cannot be used against them in later proceedings. That protection is especially important in a system where transfer decisions continue to fall disproportionately on black, brown, and indigenous young people, reflecting racial and ethnic disparities that are pervasive throughout the legal system. CDAA raised a concern about impeachment. This bill does not touch impeachment. In People v. Macias, the California Supreme Court held that a young person's voluntary statements can still be used for impeachment if they testify inconsistently at a later trial. Nothing in AB 1647 changes this principle. It does not expand, limit, or otherwise alter the admissibility of statements in any context beyond what existing law already permits. Those questions are still governed by existing case law and rules of evidence. This bill takes a core protection California courts have recognized for over half a century and makes it permanent by placing it in statute. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. will invite anyone else who wishes to express support for a B 1647 to please come forward and state your name organization and position on the bill Natasha Minsker smart justice California in support Jim Lindbergh friends committee on legislation California in support deputy public defender Esther Mendes on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union local 148 in support Capri Walker with Californians for safety and justice and support. Jonathan Lava, California Youth Defender Center in support. Olivia Shields with Urban Peace Institute, proud co-sponsor and strong support, also expressing strong support from the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office, and Loyola Law School Youth Justice Education Clinic. Bernice Easing with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Proud Co-Sponsor. Emily Harris on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in support. Matt Sosla on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support. Katerina Siley, Community Works in support. Christopher Lopez on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and strong support. Alana Parock on behalf of Hoops for Justice and Hangout Do Good, proud co-sponsors. Marco Duncan on behalf of All of Us Are None, strong support. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of initiate justice and strong support Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU CalAction and proud support Colin Ford with Fresh Lifelines for Youth and strong support Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for restorative justice co-sponsor and strong support Thank you. Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and strong support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for the bill, we'll now take up to two principal opposition witnesses to the bill Good morning chair and committee members Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and the Riverside County District Attorney's Office We must respectfully oppose this bill unless amended to make an exception for impeachment. I know that the author's witness spoke about the Macias case and we would hope that the that the courts of appeal would still see that exception to Ramona are but it would be much better if it was written into the bill and except for impeachment was actually explicitly written in there and there was a reference to Macias so CDAA and my office currently still opposed unless amended so that that can simply be delineated into the bill I'm I'm heartened to hear that the author and witness believes that the courts would still find that but it would be much better if it was explicit in the statute thank you any other opposition witnesses chair members Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California also look forward to having discussions around the amendment and share some of the concerns and implications around scope but for those reasons are currently opposed as written okay thank you very much anyone else wishing to express opposition to a B 1647 seeing no one else come forward just to summarize the amendment that we requested the author accepted the amendment specifies the bill is limited to statements the minor makes to their probation officer for the purposes of the officer conducting an interview and report to the court for a transfer hearing and so that is the community amendment that the author has accepted and I'll turn it back to the dais for any questions or comments okay but that I'll turn it back over the author to close thank you mr. chair and thank you to the committee I think there's a lot of case law that many folks would like to codify in statute in fact there's case law that says if you are under 14 years old you don't have the capacity to know the full ramifications of committing a crime it was that case law that ultimately built out the minimum age of juvenile jurisdiction even though that case law is not codified in state statute if the district attorneys would like to codify macias they should run legislation to codify macias we'd like to codify these two cases there's no greater standing of law statute versus case law We just know that the courts can't overturn case law that has then been codified in statute and provides greater protection. Also, this bill was written by youth who are incarcerated, who are afraid that their voices can't be heard and that won't be heard. And so I want to thank my witness, Lawrence, for coming up here. This is his first time testifying before the California State Senate, and I think he did a fantastic job. This bill has had bipartisan, unanimous support from the Assembly, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. All right, with that, we'll entertain a motion. We have a motion by Chair Adeguino. Go ahead and call the roll. AB 1647, Brian, motion is due to pass as amended to the floor. Adeguino? Aye. Adeguino, aye. Sayarto? Aye. Sayarto, aye. Caballero? Cortese? Perez? Wiener? Okay. We'll keep that Bellencoff wraps up, members. Thank you very much, and thank you for joining us today. You did a wonderful job. and really it means a lot that you here to talk about your lived experience and why this bill is important So thank you for being here Thank you I just appreciate being here Thank you Okay we now move to the last bill by Assemblymember Brian which is filing in for AB 1646 And as the witnesses are approaching, colleagues, we do take measures in file order. And so after this, we're going to go to Assemblymember Ramos, AB 1889, and then Assemblymember Gonzalez, and then Assemblymember Bonta. And so whenever you're ready, you may present the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. I'm proud to present AB 1646, the Hug Act. AB 1646 ensures that all youth incarcerated in California's juvenile facilities have the right to hug, embrace, hold hands, and engage in appropriate physical contact with their loved ones during in-person visitations. California has made significant reforms to shift the juvenile justice system towards rehabilitation and trauma informed family centered care. Strong family engagement is central to that framework, and it's widely recognized as critical for young people and their well-being and their success and reintegration thereafter. Research from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Council of State Government's Justice Center shows that family engagement during confinement is associated with improved institutional behavior and better reentry outcomes. The Vera Institute of Justice has likewise found that youth who maintain supportive family connections while confined demonstrate improved behavior and educational performance. While current law guarantees that a young person has the right to in-person visitation under the Youth Bill of Rights, it does not explicitly address physical contact during that visitation. As a result, policies vary across counties across California without consistency. In one of those counties, my home county, Los Angeles, official visitation violation notices list engaging in physical contact during the visitation process as grounds for suspension of a visitation. Despite California's commitment to rehabilitation, youth in some facilities and many facilities across our state may be prohibited from hugging their parent, their caregiver, their mother during a supervised visit. AB 1646 provides clarity. It establishes a uniform statewide standard built on best practices and a recommendation from a state agency so visitation is meaningful and consistent while preserving facility authority to maintain safety and supervision. This bill was also written by incarcerated youth in the R2 unit of Los Padrino's juvenile hall who haven't been able to hug their loved ones for years. To provide testimony, I'm joined by Amy Bullard, the mother of Anthony, an incarcerated youth, the powerhouse mother of Anthony, and Valerie Thompson, the assistant chief probation officer currently in Santa Cruz County. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. Free to present the bill and thank you for joining us today. Okay, thank you. A pleasure to be here. Hi, my name is Amy Bullard. I'm from Long Beach, California, speaking on behalf of my son, Anthony, who has been incarcerated for three and a half years. I'm here to testify in strong support of the AB 1646, the HUG Act, which will give incarcerated youth across California the right to have physical contact with their loved ones during visitation. I have been visiting my son weekly for three and a half years, and throughout that time, I have never broken any of probation rules. When parents first arrive to visit, we are searched by security and a dog. You are escorted to where you are seated, facing each other about two feet away with probation officers monitoring. On my son's birthday, I informed the closest officer and asked if it would be okay to hug him at the end of the visit. The officer looked at me and said, if you give him a hug, you will be reported and you will lose your visits for the next two weeks. My son said mom it's okay. I love you anyway I looked at the officer and said I have never been in trouble with the law I abide by all the rules But today you are forcing me to break a rule I told my son to stand up even though I could see the fear in his eyes I gave him a long hug and said happy birthday son I asked the officer not to hold this against him Probation then walked me to the front and told me not to come back into further notice. My visits were suspended for almost a month. I looked at the officer and I stated, it was all worth it. So in three and a half years, that was the only time I was able to hug my son. The lack of physical contact has caused frustration, loneliness, anxiety, and feeling of emptiness. Anthony has shown significant progress throughout his incarceration. He graduated high school, works in the unit, successfully completed numerous groups, and has matured in so many ways. And still, I cannot hug my son. A hug served as a nonverbal message that our children are treasured, loved, and accepted. My son and every other incarcerated child deserves a hug. I respectfully ask you to vote on the Hug Act. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Chair and Committee members. My name is Valerie Thompson. I'm the Assistant Chief Probation Officer in Santa Cruz County. I oversee our juvenile hall and juvenile services. After 37 years of service, I will retire in a few weeks. This bill matters enough for me to spend one of my last days in this work testifying in support of this bill. Before we get started I'd like to ask your attention and like to ask you all to do something for me. Embrace yourselves in a hug really quickly. Wrap your arms around each other it won't hurt. Imagine somebody that you care about being on the other side of that hug, somebody that you love. Now Now imagine being a child and being told you can't do that. How would that make you feel? Incarceration is harmful to youth development. It is our job to mitigate that harm. Physical contact helps youth get through their time in our facility, but it does something else too. It helps preserve the connection to the family they will return to. That actually promotes public safety. In Santa Cruz, families pass through standard security screenings before they visit. Then they hug on their way in, they hug on their way out. We also run something called family nights twice a month, where families watch movies together, play games together, or share meals together. It's their choice. Our youth are calmer, behavioral incidents are lower, and family bonds are stronger. We know that family connection matters. I was surprised and dismayed to see opposition to this bill. regarding safety AB 1646 preserves probation's discretion to limit contact when a significant safety or security concern is present a hub should not depend on the zip code of where a child is detained Regarding costs contact visits require training and culture building It does not require additional staff or dollars. A policy that prohibits contact is not a safety policy. It is a policy that is convenient for adults. Many California counties already allow contact visit safely. If a policy prevents a mother from hugging her son, the question is not safety, it's a leadership accountability question. We hold children accountable for the failures of the adults in their lives. Please don't be the adults that prevent them from having the right to hug their loved ones. I urge you to vote yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll invite anyone else who wishes to express support for AB 1646 to come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Cassandra Whetstone, volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention in support. Thank you. Mary Duplaw, volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention and Gun Violence Survivor. Tressa Cooper, NorCal Gun Violence Prevention in support. Grayson Cooper with Norcal gun violence prevention and support Mary Creasy on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and support Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice and support Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU CalAction and proud support John Scoglin with the County of Los Angeles and support Melanie Kim San Francisco Public Defender's Office in strong support. Ellie with SE Justice Group in strong support. Emily Harris with Sister Warriors in support. Katerina Saiali Community Works in support. Todd Williams with Tim Peay in support. Bernice Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support. Christopher Lopez on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and initiate justice and strong support Alana Parach on behalf of hoops for justice and hang out do good proud co-sponsors Nedrick Miller all of us and not strong support Liz Lunga tears on behalf of the grip training Institute and the LA County Public Defenders Union local 148 and strong support Monica Samuel, SC Justice Group, Initiate Justice, in strong support. Jonathan Laba, California Youth Defender Center, in support. Shet Hewitt, California Community Foundation, in support. Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support. Jay Vasquez on behalf communities United for historic justice co-sponsor proud support thank you Laura Rodolfi from the Haywood Burns Institute proud co-sponsor in support Olivia Shields Urban Peace Institute proud co-sponsor and strong support also registering strong support from anti recidivism coalition arts feeling and justice network California Alliance for youth and community justice California attorneys for criminal justice Californians United for a responsible budget cancel the contract Children Advocacy Institute University of San Diego School of Law Children Defense Fund California Courage California Inside Out Writers Justice to Jobs Coalition Law Defensa and Liberty Hill Foundation Daphna Ghazani on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law, proud co-sponsor, also expressing support on behalf of Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn, Leola Law School's Youth Justice Education Clinic, MUFA Collective, National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Peace and Justice Law Center, Public Works Alliance, Santa Cruz Baris Unidos, Saving Lives in Custody, Silicon Valley Debug, the Change Parallel Project, the Children's Partnership, the Collective for Liberty, Lawyering, Ujima Adult and Family Services, Underground Grit, Youth Alliance, Youth Forward, Youth Law Center, and Youth Leadership Institute. Colin Ford on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth and strong support. Marco Duncan on behalf of All of Us and None, Oakland, strong support. Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice, California, support. Marco George, California Public Defenders Association and strong support. Thank you. Ivy Lee on behalf of the San Francisco Mayor's Office for Victims' Rights and Support. Okay, seeing no one else wishing to express support for the bill, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 1646. Good morning, Chair and members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, and we are opposed unless amended to AB 1646, And I do want to underscore the nature of our position to ensure that it's reflective of where we are on this issue and not misconstrued. We are not dissimilar from the representatives here today on the general premise around hugging. In fact, probation as a profession and the dedicated individuals in this profession that I have the pleasure to represent recognize and foster pro-social familial contact, both during time in detention and reentry, and they recognize how important and critical that is and do that work every day. But I do want to be very clear. CPOC is not in opposition to hugging. We are in opposition to creating a landscape of unnecessary litigation that the approach in this bill gives rise to. We are opposed to the specific way the bill would effectuate the goals of this bill by creating a legal right that gives rise to unnecessary litigation rather than the bill requiring counties to develop policies. If this bill is about ensuring physical contact during visits, the amendments and approach we suggested would absolutely achieve this while also mitigating this new landscape of litigation concerns. We would urge the committee to take note of the fact that a similar bill on this topic pertaining to state prison facilities, which passed unanimously out of this committee last week, does not establish this as a right. It does so via development of policies. What we have been seeking in our Opposed Unless Amended position is similar treatment for counties that aligns with the policy approach taken by the state for state facilities. The state has imparted obligations to counties via DJJ realignment and others, along with the responsibilities and liability exposure, but without those same tools that were previously and current afforded to the state. So again, I just want to be clear, We are not in opposition to hugging we understand and appreciate the premise of where this bill is coming from But we are very concerned about the specific approach taken in this bill that diverges from that that is taken for state prison facilities and the consequential actions of doing so when it becomes what happens in instances where you have to have a security, even with safety and security written into the bill, there are aspects that because it's a right, that has different interactions with safety and security policies versus just having it as a policy. So for those reasons we ask for your no vote today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1646? David Bullock of the SFE Alliance in opposition. And the committee members are really author amendments that that we are taking here in committee to add uncodified legislative findings and declarations amend welfare and institutions code section 224.71 to create a right to engage in consensual physical contact with visitors during in-person visits and cross-reference the existing provisions of this bill and provide that the documentation required when there are limits to physical contact be made available to the ombudsperson of OYCR upon request and so colleagues are there any questions or comments on the bill Vice Chair Sierta? Vice Chair Sierta. Yeah, my concerns kind of align a little bit with the probation officer's point here. Nobody's against the hugging of, you know, and the close contact. The issue becomes the liability part, and not just for the way it's stated in this bill. If it was stated the way the state does it, it would probably be a little bit better. But there's also liability for those few occasions when people do sneak through, smuggle in drugs, smuggle in whatever it is, and there's an adverse incident that follows that. Because inevitably it's the taxpayers who wind up paying for that because there's a lawsuit when somebody doesn't wake up in the morning, they go to bed after taking drugs that nobody knew they had, but there are ways of getting them that, and this is one of those ways. And so, you know, there has to be some release of liability if we're going to enable means to be able to pass along drugs sneakily, whatever it is, and that would help alleviate a lot of the concerns. We have several lawsuits that go on and they're brought up all the time with the various county agencies or county departments about, you know, drug deaths in jails. And one of the reasons that they have those drug deaths is because people sneak the drugs into them, into them, they go to bed at night, and there is no one-on-one supervision to make sure somebody's breathing the entire night. And so when they don't wake up in the morning, then somehow that's, you know, that's the fault of the incarcerating agency. And so, you know, this opens up some some doorways for that. And, you know, I'd rather see some policy that addresses that, too, that says, hey, you know what, you know, there's some liabilities we have to limit in order to exercise something that is, I think, is a really important part of human contact and being able to, you know, have some kind of normalcy in a family. So it's hard to, yeah, with those, it's difficult for me to support a bill that doesn't address that liability aspect of it and, in fact, opens the door for it. Okay, are there any other questions or comments or motion on the bill? Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cortese. Okay, I'll turn it back over to the author to make a closing statement. Thank you so much. As our chief from Santa Cruz, who facilitates physical contact and hugs during visitation, stated, this is about training and accountability for the adults in the room for probation. This also comes from guidelines from the Office of Youth and Community Restoration that recommends this. I am shocked to hear liability brought up in the context of probation. I was pretty sure we weren't going to do that after the assembly side because if we really wanted to address liability, we would abolish probation and shift all of those resources to youth development because the largest settlement in the history of the country was $4 billion paid out by L.A. County because they couldn't stop hugging the kids. And so I think that is a rich argument. We can do better. We should do better. This also isn't about local policy decisions being made. That is the status quo. There is no uniform policy right now, which is why in Santa Cruz they can facilitate healthy family contact. In L.A., you lose your visitations if you hug your child on their birthday. It's shameful. This should be codified in the Youth Bill of Rights. It shouldn't be conditional. It shouldn't be used as disciplinary. It shouldn't be considered a privilege. The author of the other bill that was mentioned is a joint author on this bill as well. We treat young people differently because we believe in them. I told Peter and Keon and Ruben that I would fight for their right for hugs, not the privilege of hugs. And two Republicans in the Assembly joined this bill on the floor to make it bipartisan. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today as we continue moving through the process. Thank you very much. I have a recommendation this bill we have a motion by Senate Cortese if the committee system please call the roll maybe 1646 Brian motion is do pass as amended to appropriations I again I again I say our toe say our tone of Caballero Cortese Cortese I Perez weiner okay we'll keep that bill on call for absent members thank you all for joining us thank you mr. chair okay as we transition just a few announcements we had 38 bills on today's agenda and we have made significant progress in getting through our agenda but we will have to recess the committee meeting at 12 noon for a caucus meeting and we will reconvene at 1 30 and so if we do not get to your bill beforehand please take some time to grab some lunch or coffee come back and join us in the afternoon I anticipate that we will go into the afternoon to finish the rest of our agenda and we are just we're gonna take up the bill from Assemblyman Stephanie and the bills from Assemblyman were El Hawari and we take them in file order and so let's go now to file in 21 a B 1877 by Assemblyman Stephanie then we'll take assembly where El Hawarri bills So we Okay I can inform that we have an accommodation relating to one of the bills is it for both bills or one bill okay so if that's acceptable to assemble Stephanie because we do take bills in file order we'll proceed now to file item 33 AB 2318 and if you have any principal witnesses they can please join us ready may present the bill good morning mr. chair and members I'd like to begin by thanking the committee staff and the chair for their hard work with this bill and mention that I will be accepting the committee's amendments. I'm proud to present AB 2318, a bill that would make it unlawful for law enforcement to deny, delay, obstruct, or fail to facilitate access to medical evaluation or treatment for an individual under law enforcement control if it is safe and reasonable to provide such access. This bill would also impose documentation requirements on law enforcement in instances in which medical access is denied or delayed. This bill was prompted by the tragic shooting of Renee Nicole Good, where eyewitness video shows ICE agents denying timely medical aid. In instances like hers, emergency medical services and lifesaving interventions can be the difference between life and death. It can take minutes for paramedics to arrive at the scene of an incident, affecting survival outcomes and the severity of injuries. For these reasons, AB 2318 would reinforce officers' duty to ensure proper medical care when safe and reasonable. This bill would also require law enforcement if disclosure would not compromise an ongoing investigation or officer safety to provide documentation identifying the basis for denying or delaying access to medical treatment to specified entities within 72 hours of the incident. This bill is a critical step in increasing transparency regarding access to medical treatment at the scene of incidents while making it easier for medical professionals professionals to provide life-saving interventions. In doing so, it will protect the vulnerable communities that have been targeted by predatory immigration tactics, as well as all those who encounter law enforcement. Joining me today is Kevin Benedicto, Vice President of the San Francisco Police Commission, who is testifying in his personal capacity as a member of the commission. Great. Good morning. You have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Assemblymember El Hawari. My name is Kevin Benedicto, and I'm a member of the San Francisco Police Commission, a former civil rights attorney, and a founding partner of the law firm of Benedicto and Semenovich. In my role as a member of the commission and as a criminal justice reform advocate, I have written policies for SFPD and advised law enforcement agencies across the country on best practices. I'm here today in my individual capacity in support of Assembly Bill 2318 as amended. Access to medical professionals, including following critical incidents, is key. I have seen dangerous situations prevented from turning deadly thanks to the timely medical aid and coordination between law enforcement and EMS. Since a 2016 revision to SFPD's use of force policy, which included medical access provisions, San Francisco has seen deaths from officer-involved shootings and in-custody deaths drop significantly. But while some departments have clear policies on this topic, standards can vary at the over 500 law enforcement agencies across the state, and some are long overdue for an update. This bill would standardize what is already a best practice statewide, increase transparency and accountability, and could save lives. I think this bill could also encourage more proactive cooperation between law enforcement and medical professionals In San Francisco SFPD has partnered with the Department of Public Health to operate an innovative co crisis response model These specialized teams for mental health crises are composed of licensed clinicians and police officers trained in de-escalation. These teams have seen great success cooperating, de-escalating, and responding to critical incidents. I hope more departments use this bill as an opportunity to explore crisis intervention teams and co-responder models with medical professionals. As Assemblymember Elhawari said, we're here for Renee Nicole Good. We're here to honor her memory and to prevent more tragic deaths like hers. Thank you very much. We invite anyone else who wishes to express support for AB 2318 to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Good morning, Chair and Committee members. my name is Tramiel Watson with Disability Rights California in support. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you. Katerina Siali on behalf of Community Works in support, also Also registering support on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth. Shivani Nishara on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance and the Women's Foundation California Solis Policy Institute in strong co-sponsor support. Also registering support on behalf of Transitions Clinic Network, Courage California, and Care First California Coalition comprising 34 organizations across California. Emily Harris on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition and Felony Murder Elimination Project in strong support. Good morning. Tatiana Lewis with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support, also registering support for Sustainable Economies Law Center. Thank you. Thank you. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice support J.P. Hannah with the California Nurses Association in support thank you Matt Sauced on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defenders office in support Aubrey Rodriguez with ACOE CalAction in proud support Marco Duncan on behalf of all of us are none all chapters we support magic Miller on behalf of legal services of prisoners with children strong support Natasha Minsker smart justice California and strong support check you at California Community Foundation and support Jay Vasquez on behalf of communities united for restorative justice and strong support thank you Jim Lindberg friends committee on legislation of California in support Monica Samuel with SC justice group and strong support Cassie Vancey me with the California School Employees Association and support. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 2318? Hi, I'm Bernice with All of Us Are None, and I'm support. Okay unless there anyone else wishing to express support for the bill we now take up the two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 2318 Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Corey Sazillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. In opposition to the bill, California peace officers are trained in assessing emergency situations and initiating appropriate emergency medical care. Police agencies have policies that guide how officers are expected to respond in situations where a person may require medical assistance on scene. In this regard, the bill is, at best, unnecessary. The reality of this bill is that a peace officer could violate the law by denying access to a person who is claiming to be a medical professional who just happens to be present at the scene. As the analysis points out, this is not necessarily about actual healthcare professionals who have been called by law enforcement or who have been dispatched or who are responding in some official capacity as a paramedic, an EMT, a firefighter, law enforcement, whatever the case may be. And candidly, this is in response to a situation in another state involving a person claiming to be a medical professional who is at the scene in no official capacity. And so this bill would put the onus on law enforcement on the scene to not only effectuate their law enforcement duties of securing the scene and whatever else may be going on from a purely law enforcement perspective, which will include, notably, especially if there's a use of force, what happens in terms of rendering medical aid, but then also to try to determine the identity and qualifications of someone who is at the scene claiming to be a medical professional. And so we let someone in, and they say, well, I'm a doctor, or I'm a dentist, or I'm a chiropractor. How are we supposed to know that those people are qualified to render medical care, much less emergency medical care? It just creates an untenable situation, again, based on a bad case, and this is not a good justification for changing the law in this regard. So for those reasons, we're opposed to the bill. We'd ask for your no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC. we are still opposed to the bill but we've been working with the author's office on various amendments they've been very good to work with on this bill there are still two remaining amendments that we'd like to see the second one first it provides it violations may result in administrative discipline including suspension termination all that California law already has that in place we there good senator here carried a bill a few years ago relating the mandatory statewide policies procedures one of the policies procedures for officers was a mandatory immediate response medically if somebody they are arrested or had to wrestle the ground or somebody is injured that they have to when safe to do so provide immediate medical care or call and or CALL IN MEDICAL CARE AS WELL. AND THERE ARE PENALTIES FOR THOSE VIOLATIONS. SO WE THINK THOSE ARE DUPLICATIVE IN THIS BILL. THE FIRST ISSUE GOING SECOND IS THAT THEY CALL FOR REPORTS TO BE GIVEN TO A CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BODY. of inspector general or the attorney general. We believe that, again, the system's already in place for this type of reporting, and that I know that they want the feds to have to report. They don't have someone to report to in California. So we're okay with the feds reporting to attorney general, office of inspector, the whole bit. But this is now another additional system of reporting where we already have reporting. So we're hoping that they could maybe separate those two and make it very clear that the current system of reporting that we do now is sufficient. And then the second piece is I think it's redundant. We don't need it. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 2318? Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, also in respectful opposition. Thank you. Daniel Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in respectful opposition. David Pollock, SFV Alliance, in opposition. Good morning. Nadia Moshirian-Benderup on behalf of Sheriff Kelly Martinez from San Diego County, bridging the points raised by our subject matter experts and respectful opposition. Thank you very much. Okay, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments on the bill or a motion. Okay, Senator Cortese and then Senator Caballero. I'm supportive of the bill. I'm prepared to make a motion. I didn't pick up whether or not mental health professionals are included in the bill scope. Just asking the author. Our intention is really focused on injury, physical injury, or use of force incidents. So we weren't necessarily thinking mental health, at least when we were creating it, open to potentially including it if you see that as something that we're missing? I think it should be included from the standpoint of both excessive force and treatment. We have a significant number of law enforcement interactions with people suffering from mental health not just extreme mental health conditions but these days well extreme enough severe anxiety where people freeze up they're not they don't necessarily respond to basic instructions like what we might today in the committee room show your driver's license and if they identify themselves that way as I'm suffering from anxiety and you know I'm manic. Some people, a lot of people who have been in treatment have insight into their own condition and I'm just wondering what happens when they identify that condition during a stop or you know an appropriate you know intake into custody. I'm not suggesting that this would be someone who didn't, you know, sort of earn the right to have law enforcement there, you know, making a stop or taking them into custody. But back to what I see as the point of your bill is when there's, you know, essentially what I would call constructive notice or actual notice to law enforcement, that there's a health, a significant health issue at play that should be considered, you know, in terms of allowing folks who might be right there at the scene, including, you know, including crisis intervention response teams that may show up after the initial stop There some protocols in place for that I also been on site seeing situations where law enforcement keeps those folks away from the person who they dealing with And I'm not sure, I've never been sure whether or not there was an adequate attempt to, you know, allow at least some initial intervention or treatment to occur. I'm sure it depends from officer to officer based on training and certification and those kinds of behaviors. But I think that's a big piece of what we should be trying to get involved with in the bill. Now, I'm not trying to rewrite your bill. Maybe that's a different bill or an add-on bill someday. But I appreciate you answering the question candidly. I'll support the bill either way. And we'll absolutely take into consideration whether for now or a future bill. I also think that it's the case, particularly with crisis intervention as an example, many social workers or mental health experts that are trained in crisis intervention have to undergo first aid training. And since the bill, as amended, broadly defines medical training, a mental health professional that has first aid training in an incident where someone were suffering something very acute, like a panic attack, which is often indistinguishable from a heart attack, a social worker or a mental health professional that has that medical training under this bill could present themselves and be recognized. Thank you. And once again, unless an author has a question for a witness, if you can please refrain from interjecting in the discussion. Senator Caballero. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Along that line, I appreciate you taking the amendments. I think they're moving in the right direction. I had some questions and concerns about the responsibility of a – and understand that different police departments have different policies, and they work with different organizations. So we want that flexibility so that we can build the capacity of the police officers to know what services are available and who to call and who to turn to. I'm assuming we're talking about the officer who is with an individual, either that they intend to arrest or have arrested, or they're checking in with them one way or another, and it appears that they need some medical assistance. And part of the challenge is we need to be flexible enough, which is why I hope you'll continue to work with the opposition, to allow an officer who has no medical training, or may have no medical training, and who has to make snap decisions about whether this is a serious issue or not, right? Because people can look like they're not very serious, but be very serious and vice versa. And we want them to call 911 as a backup. But then if you've got people who are around, say, I'm a medical professional and you have no idea what their experience and expertise may be, to make a wrong choice and not have it be something that's going to destroy their career because we want them to act with a degree of sensitivity, right? But we also want them to... This may be a situation that not all that safe for the individual and for the officer as well So I just want to put that out there I don have I think there some language issues I have worked with the law enforcement and very carefully crafted language so that we give them the ability to do their job, but also the ability to make some choices that work for them. So I'm going to support the bill today, but I hope you'll continue to work with them and I'm really glad to hear that you have been you know you've worked with them it's good to hear. Thank you. So I can talk with some deference to the other side of this and that's the EMS side and you know it's a lot of these bills seem to assume that There's this, like, super aesthetic scene going on where everything we get to evaluate after the fact, looking at the news and all that, could have been taken into consideration. One of the hardest things for EMS to do was to stay a block out while the police tried to clear a scene to make sure that we don't roll in and become victims number two and three or whatever it is. And then all the resources wind up going to guess who, victim two and three. And so one person's denied delay is another person's right away. So those vague terms make it difficult for somebody to be judged on what they're doing in an emergency situation like that. I had never been in a situation, and I was in a very, very, very active community where the police weren't glad and anxious and sometimes called us in too soon on incidents, especially where there was a use of force, because sometimes their use of force was in reaction to something else, and that reaction is blowing up on them. And they call us in trying to, you know, help and mitigate, and we all become, it becomes a mess. and so when we start trying to address one incident that happened with the law that says a lot of this stuff is already done naturally. There's no police officer I know that wants to play doctor or paramedic and especially if they're involved in how that patient got in that way. They want us to come in and save them. They really do and they do everything But this seems to leave it up to somebody's after action interpretation of what a denial or a delay is. And that concerns me a lot on these bills. So from my perspective, it's hard for me to understand that we need a bill like this for something that's already done. And there's numerous, numerous policies in place out there for our police officers when it comes to the interaction and when it's time to call us. Because another incident I can think of is when somebody's got low blood sugar. A lot of times there's a phase where they're very combatant, and you don't know whether they're drunk, they're just mad, they're having a mental crisis or whatever. And then we roll in and we do some things and we like oh you know what their blood sugar is 40 We need to give them some stuff And then they perfectly normal afterwards The police don know that They don know what they dealing with That why they so anxious to get it to EMS And so, anyway, with that said, those are my concerns about the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a motion on the bill? Moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you. I'll turn it back over to the author to make a closing statement. Yes, I just really appreciate the opportunity to hear from my colleagues in the Senate. I want to start by saying, you know, we were actually approached by EMS after we introduced this bill to say, you know, there are so many times when we are not allowed to support in a moment where we aren't, you know, able to support even when it does feel safe and reasonable because the law enforcement is so worried about this person being guilty. And they said, we're not worried about whether or not someone's guilty. We just want to save their lives. And I think that's what the goal of this bill is. It's life-saving intervention in a moment where sometimes, even before EMS can even show up on the scene, that someone is there to be able to support, that we don't want to deny them. I really appreciate the deny and delay versus, you know, right away. The intention really is to build off of Senator Caballero's previous legislation to say this doesn't just amount to opportunities or instances where there's use of force. It's any injury. I have a really good friend whose nephew was shot, and when EMS showed up, they still weren't allowed, even though no one was around except his grandmother and him while he was bleeding out and died. The intention is to say, if you do deny and delay, why? Why? If there was only a grandmother there, right? How do we ensure that we really do have accountability measures, given the instances that we have seen? Definitely appreciate the opportunity to work with the opposition, and we'll continue to do so. And really appreciate what you all have raised today and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you We have a motion if the committee says can please call the roll a B 2318 Elowari motion is do pass as amended to appropriations Arraguin I say our toe no say our ton. No Caballero. I Cortese Cortese I Perez Weiner Weiner I okay, we'll keep that bill on call for app. Some members, but it has sufficient votes to move out of committee today and we'll proceed to the next bill by a seminar El Hawari a B 2593 there any principal witnesses you're welcome to join us here at the table and then we'll take a similar Stephanie after that and then we're gonna recess I think we're still mourning good morning mr. chair and members I'm proud to present a B 2593 and I would like to accept the committee's amendments this bill ensures that when we take someone into custody, we take on the responsibility of caring for them. Right now, that responsibility is not being met. People who are incarcerated are still having their care, delayed, denied, and overridden by non-medical staff. And the consequences are preventable, worsening conditions, unnecessary suffering, and in some cases, even death. This is exactly why California's prison health care system remains under federal receivership. While the law says care cannot be denied, the reality is that accountability is unclear and the system continues to fail these patients. That creates a system where harm can happen without consequences and where patients have nowhere to turn. And as we know, systems like this don't impact everyone equally. These failures fall hardest on vulnerable communities, including communities of color and people living with chronic conditions who rely on consistent, timely care. AB 2593 addresses this by clearly prohibiting any staff, administrator, or supervisor from interfering with care prescribed by a licensed health care provider. professional. This is about making sure incarcerated patients actually receive the care their doctors prescribe and that providers can do their jobs without interference. It will help prevent avoidable harm, reduce long-term costs, and improve overall public health outcomes. At its core, this bill is about accountability and basic human rights because incarcerated individuals have a right to care and no one should be standing in the way of that. AB 2593 is about making sure we meet this fundamental responsibility. Joining me today is Rodney Buckley, who has firsthand experience with this issue and can speak to the importance of ensuring timely access to medical care for incarcerated individuals, as well as Gary Cooper for technical assistance. Thank you. Afternoon now. You have two minutes to present the bill. Well, I was just going to say in the interest of time, Member El Hawari did a wonderful job of explaining the bill. Our biggest concern is the fact that she said that because the medical, the receiver is in place and the incarcerated people are not getting the proper care that they need. That is why we believe that this is a necessary step to take to make it ensure that. Most recently, we had a situation about three or four years ago where there was, because people have substance abuse disorders, they put together a medication assistant treatment program. And basically they were supposed to supply Suboxone to folks who had substance abuse problems. But bottom line is those folks that were supposed to provide that are psychiatrists and people who have the training in that. Unfortunately, there weren't enough of those, and the CDCR required the primary physicians to offer that. And they were not comfortable with that. there was a suit and fortunately the physicians won but unfortunately they have incarcerated people now who are not getting the Suboxone that they needed so this bill will go a long way in making sure that the practitioners practice to the fullest extent of their scope of practice and not beyond and not beneath so with that I would like to turn it over to mr. Buckley you have two minutes to present the bill yes sir thank you my name is Rodney Buckley hello my story begins in 2012 where a doctor referred me to an ENT specialist for my nose problem who determined that I had a deviated septum and recommended that I have immediate surgery this recommendation was submitted to the chief medical examiner also known as a CME who refused treatment due to I quote I could breathe out the other nostril in 2016 I had developed a cough which I thought was whooping cough But after I seen a nurse he informed me that it was due to my post nasal drip syndrome as a result of my deviated septum where mucus seeped down my esophagus and bruises it in 2020 I began to have frequent headaches and constantly would wake up throughout the night I sleep a sleep study was done to determine if I had sleep apnea and the results were negative but later then I was transferred to another institution where I would see a specialist who determined it was a result of my deviated septum and once again recommended surgery for my deviated septum and once again the surgery was denied by the CME for the same reasons in 2021 I was transferred to another institution and And after two years of frequently having migraines two to three times out a month and waking up in the middle of the night gasping for air I seen a specialist Although at this time I seen the specialist, he not only recommended surgery, but said that I should have an MRI to determine if I had any tumors. And that my deviated septum was the worst he's ever seen in his career. Although they modified the surgery for a reason I do not know, I will suffer from previous refusals to follow the doctor's recommendations because of this, and suffering from this causes me anxiety as if I will wake up or as if I were to go to sleep while I actually wake up. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you very much for being here today and telling your story. And with that, we'll invite anyone else who would like to express support for AB 2593 to please come forward. Good morning, community members and chair members. Tramell Watson in support. Disability Rights California. Thank you. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in support. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members, Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We are proud co-sponsors. Thank you. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU CalAction in proud support. Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association in support. Thank you. J.P. Hinnah with the California Nurses Association in support. Glenn Backus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Marco Duncan, all of us or none, we support. Katarina Sayali, Community Works, in support. Emily Harris, on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition and Felony Murder Elimination Project, in support. Mark of George, California Public Defenders Association, in support. Thank you. Nedrick Miller, Legal Services of Prisoners with Children, strong support. okay we'll not take up to two principal opposition witnesses to AB 2593 if there are any I was going to let the professional lobbyists go first but my name is David Bola with the SFB Alliance where we have no issue with the serious bodily injury aspect of this bill. Our issue is with the substantial emotional distress, which my mind thought this could go a lot of different ways. But the analysis talked about psychiatric drugs being denied. And I do work with another organization called California Psychiatric Survivors. And we've seen the harms of psychiatric drugs and the unpredictability of them. They are by all means experimental with each person because it will change what the amount of dosage a person has. They will either get more extreme in the response or less extreme. And prison authorities could actually see what is actually happening with the person. And it might be in the best interest of the inmate to actually have that drugs denied in that situation. We do not know. I do think that that should be left to the staff that sees the incarcerated person. most of the time and understand what going on so with that we oppose thank you any other opposition witnesses to the bill Seeing no one come forward I bring it back to the committee for any questions comments or a motion I want to clarify the author Did it accept the committee amendments? Yes, sir. Thank you. A motion by Senator Caballero. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from committee members? If not, I'll turn it back over to the author too close. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. We have a motion. If the committee assistant can please call the roll 80 25 93 illawari motion is do pass as amended to appropriations a regine I mean I say our toe cabello cabello I cortese Perez Wiener okay we're I will keep that bill and call for absent members thank you very much and well as I announced we're going to take up one more bill before you recess the committee by Assemblymember Stephanie file item 21, AB 1877. And if there are any principal witnesses on AB 1877, you're welcome to join us at the table here. Okay, Assemblymember, whenever you're ready to present, you may begin. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues. Today I'm presenting AB 1877, which will help prevent harm to survivors by strengthening enforcement of criminal, protective, and stay-away orders. These are orders that are issued by a judge and tied to a pending criminal case, and we're talking about felony cases here. A protective order is one of the few but critically important tools available to survivors of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, and other crimes to protect themselves from further harm. Studies indicate that while many protected persons who are going through the criminal justice system in these cases do feel an increase of protection, roughly half of all orders, though, are still violated, causing great harm to those who should be protecting the victims. A violation of a protective or stay away order under existing law is chargeable only as a misdemeanor, regardless of whether there are those felony charges pending or if there are repeated violations of that order, no matter how egregious the violation of that criminal protective order is. This means that abusers who are continuing to violate a criminal protective order during an underlying felony case often just get a slap on the wrist, and there's not enough resources for law enforcement to file misdemeanors because nobody's going to do anything about it. We don't do anything to address egregious violations of criminal protective orders. So upon committing a violation of the criminal protective order, the restrained person, the defendant, can be released at the discretion of the court still, even if it is a repeat violation, physical injury is involved, or if the underlying charge, like I said, is a felony. This leaves victims in our system vulnerable, setting up scenarios where there are only consequences after further harm is done, after the criminal protective order is violated in such a way that more harm has come to the victim. AB 1877 would allow prosecutors to have the discretion to charge a violation as a felony if three things are met. The underlying conduct for the initial order was charged as a felony, two, if there are repeat violations of the order, and if there is a repeat conviction for a violation that occurs within one year. Prosecutors will retain the discretion to charge a violation as a misdemeanor if they choose. Based on recent events I truly believe that it more critical than ever that we believe in support survivors equipping them with every tool in the toolbox to ensure their protection against their perpetrators who are going through the criminal justice system with pending felony cases. With me today in support is Ivy Lee, Director of the San Francisco Mayor's Office of Victim Rights, and Dr. Pamela Tate, Executive Director of Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence. Great. Good afternoon. You each have two minutes to present on the bill. Good afternoon and thank you so much Chair and Vice Chair and committee members. My name is Ivy Lee. I'm the Director of the Mayor's Office for Victims' Rights and we serve as a safe haven created by Assemblymember Stephanie for victims of violence, regardless of whether or not they choose to engage with law enforcement or not. We provide direct services and we work with direct service providers like Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence. So that is the origin of this legislation. We did not come up with this policy in a vacuum. This actually came to us directly from survivors themselves as well as direct service providers. One client that I will mention that I worked with had a criminal protective order. The abuser had stalked my client and violated the protective order three times. Twice by going to my client's workplace. And then the third time went to my client's child's school where he chased her around the school. He physically assaulted her. Everything was caught on camera. And ultimately, he was arrested and charged with an additional assault charge. The criminal protective order violations were never charged. And that was because when we asked, they said, it's a misdemeanor. It's not going to do anything. So one of the things that are for our objectives was to make sure that this was very narrowly tailored. We wanted this to be commensurate with the serious violence and the charges underlying the issuance of the protective order. We are not looking to cast a broad net. We want this to really apply only in the most egregious cases, which is why we did not seek to make it mandatory. We wanted to make sure it was discretionary so that prosecutors have their discretion, and they should, to actually take a look at the facts of each individual case and not throw a a broad blanket and use this in an overly broad manner. Thank you so much for your support, committee members. These protective orders are homicide and violence prevention tools, but only if we treat them that way. Thank you. Thank you, and good morning, afternoon, excuse me. My name is Dr. Pamela Tate. I am the Executive Director of Black Women Revolt and Domestic Violence in San Francisco. I'm going to share a survivor story so I'm gonna give everybody a trigger warning this is regarding a case that would have benefited if this was in law placed as a law we had a survivor that was a client she had been with a partner suffering from abuse the partner then punished her and basically kind of came after her at gunpoint and was arrested for domestic violence after he had beaten her but he He was released on pretrial diversion. So after one week of serving, he was let go. He came back after her, found her with a gun, still again threatening her with that gun, and almost strangled her to death. These types of things and situations are what we're talking about, where our clients are asking for that additional protection. Restraining orders should not just be viewed as a piece of paper. They need to be enforceable. And only in these types of egregious cases do we want someone to make sure that someone is actually locking people up to keep our clients safe. Again, this is not meant to be a fishnet of everyone who is being charged. with domestic abuse, but in these egregious cases, we do need to have a little bit more firm stand behind it because it's not fair for victims to have to sit around and wait for someone to enforce a piece of paper because their lives depend on it. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1877? Mr. Chairman, members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC in support of the bill. Thank you. chair and members Jonathan Feldman California Police Chiefs Association and support thanks mr. chair members Julian Evores on behalf of League of California cities and support Brian Sherman with the California School Police Office or School Police Chiefs Association and Riverside Sheriff Association others in support thank you hi there Eileen Mariano on behalf of bill sponsor Mayor Daniel Lurie in support. Good afternoon Mr. Chair. Bobbi Lopez on behalf of the San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium, Safe and Sound, San Francisco Family Alliance, and Open Door Legal. Thank you. Ching Ching He in support on behalf of San Francisco Safehouse. Lyndon Jones on behalf of community forward sorry own community forward in support Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco and just wanted to say thank you for being a champion in this space in support thank you Kevin Benedicto member of the San Francisco Police Commission my personal capacity and support thank you okay we'll now take up the two principal opposition witnesses to the bill. All right, chair members, I'll try to be quick, I know we're supposed to be at lunch. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACOE CalAction. I want to start by acknowledging that this bill comes with great intentions and thank the author for their advocacy in this space. While we appreciate the intent behind this bill, we do have strong concerns with any proposal that continues to enhance criminal penalties for an existing crime. This approach undermines a great amount of study and evidence surrounding the efficacy behind longer criminal sentencing and its impact on crime deterrence. So we just really encourage legislators in this room, as well as authors, to reimagine our approach to our criminal legal system by moving away from the tired and old carceral solutions that have plagued much of our state, and not try to enhance existing penalties for crime, or sorry, enhance existing, yeah, penalties for existing crimes. So we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1877. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 1877? See no one come forward. I'll bring you back to the deus for any comments or motion. Moved by Senator Wiener. Thank you. And I'll turn it back over to the author to close. Thank you, Chair. And I want to thank my incredible witnesses today for sharing stories of survivors and why this bill is so necessary. And I just want to reiterate that this bill is victim-focused. It's victim-centered. It's survivor-centered. It's about making sure that we are doing everything in our power to protect those who are going through the criminal justice system because they have been harmed. It is about making certain that they have pathways to safety, and sometimes that means someone may need to have additional time so that the victims can be free from the violence perpetrated against them. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. We have a motion by Senator Weiner. If the committee assistant can please call the roll Item 21 1877 Stephanie Motion is due pass to appropriations Aragon Aye Aragon aye Sayarto Caballero Cortese? Perez? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. Okay, we'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you, everyone. As I announced earlier, we will recess the committee and reconvene at 1.30 p.m. to take up the balance of the agenda. Thank you. Okay, so we're going to go ahead and call the meeting back to order. The Senate Public Safety Committee meeting, it consists of one person right now. But in the interest of respecting the time of all of our Assembly folks, I want to make sure that we keep things rolling. Mr. Hart, did you make a deal? I think I did. Did you make a deal? Okay. We're going to take Mr. Hart at this time because his witness needs to leave. And then Mr. Lackey, then it's Mr. Ramos, Lackey, and then, because we'll go back into file order. So, Mr. Hart, come on up. Be succinct if you can. All right, this will be AB 2257 by Assemblymember Hart. Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 2257 on county jail accountability. California's county jails are in crisis. Deaths are occurring at record levels. People with mental illnesses are languishing, and costs are skyrocketing without improved outcomes. Since 1993, California sheriffs have held sole and exclusive authority over jail operations and administration. Boards of supervisors are required to fund the day-to-day operations of county jails, and counties pay massive legal settlements when things go wrong. But boards of supervisors have no direct authority to improve jail practices. They are prevented from exercising their statutory budgetary and oversight responsibilities over jails. Boards of supervisors are effectively put in the position of writing blank checks to sheriffs for the operation of county jails. Prior to serving in the Assembly, I served as a county supervisor in Santa Barbara County. I experienced this lack of jail governance accountability firsthand. AB 2257 seeks to bring the balance to the shared governance responsibilities that boards of supervisors and sheriffs have in administering county jails. For the benefit of the public, people in custody, and the correctional workforce. This modest bill will give boards of supervisors the authority to confirm a sheriff-nominated jail administrator to a three-year term while leaving the day-to-day management of the jail within the sheriff's office. This bill has been amended from our original proposal rather than authorizing a county to once again operate jails independently of a sheriff. This bill focuses exclusively on giving boards of supervisors a meaningful role in the appointment of a jail administrator working under the sheriff. This is a permissive bill. It does not require counties to exercise confirmation authority. It simply allows counties seeking greater accountability to use this authority. Sheriffs already have jail administrators, often known as chief custody deputies or assistant sheriffs for corrections. In a county that implements this bill, the sheriff would place their nominee in front of the board of supervisors for confirmation. boards could consider relevant factors when confirming a nominee including experience with correctional management health care mental health care in a correctional setting public budgeting and a commitment to protecting the civil rights of people in custody If a board does not have confidence in the nominee's qualifications or abilities, the board could require the sheriff to present a new nominee. At the expiration of a third-year term or any time a vacancy occurs, the sheriff must submit a nominee to the Board of Supervisors for confirmation. because the sheriff is never more than three years away from needing to seek board confirmation for the appointment of their jail administrator. The sheriff and jail administrator are incentivized to take seriously the concerns and priorities of the board. This bill addresses a gap in current law. While the legislature has provided boards of supervisors with oversight mechanisms in recent years, including sheriff oversight commissions and inspector general offices, boards of supervisors still have no meaningful tool to act on the findings and recommendations presented to them. Boards of supervisors cannot pass operational policies that apply to the jail. They cannot condition jail funding on improvements. They even struggle to hold sheriffs to the limitations set by the county budget. Confirmation of a sheriff's jail administrator gives boards of supervisors one concrete tool to promote improved jail accountability. I respectfully ask for an aye vote to bring balance to California's jail governance system and improve outcomes for the public people in custody in the correctional workforce with me to testify and support our Max Huntsman and Paul Parker Mr. Huntsman is the recently retired inspector general of the county of Los Angeles as inspector general Munster Huntsman led the largest sheriff oversight entity in the nation prior to serving in this capacity Mr. Huntsman Huntsman served as a prosecutor with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office for more than two decades. Mr. Parker has decades of public safety experience serving as a police officer, death investigator, and chief deputy coroner. In recent years, Mr. Parker served as the executive officer of the San Diego County Civilian Law Enforcement Review Board, which has oversight authority over the sheriff's office and the county jail. Mr. Huntsman? Gentlemen, you each have two minutes, and I'm going to keep you solid to two minutes. Thank you. When I was a young prosecutor, we passed tough on crime laws without building new prisons, overcrowding prisons and denying medical care. When the U.S. Supreme Court ordered us to stop, we played a shell game by moving prisoners we weren't willing to release to jails. We told the public we had reformed our criminal justice system and hid what we were doing. I was hired as L.A.'s first inspector general when a sheriff tried to prevent the FBI from investigating jail conditions. When I reported on mentally ill prisoners being chained to benches for extended periods, something that would be called positional torture if it happened on the battlefield, the response was a collective shrug. Again, it took a court order to end the practice. Unconstitutional jail conditions continue, resulting in a California Attorney General investigation and after the county refused to change a lawsuit. Collectively, we have a gap between our ability to see that we're hurting people and our ability to stop. So far, only the People's Bill of Rights has protected them, and that only after years of mistreatment. This bill would offer a modest and desperately needed additional tool for local governments to curb abuse and provide an increased chance for public input when government is unethical. Next speaker, go ahead. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I am Paul Parker, a former police officer, longtime California death investigator, and the retired executive officer of that Law Enforcement Review Board in San Diego. I here today in strong support of AB 2257 over the years I sat with families who asked again and again how and why their loved one died in custody or was not provided appropriate care I then watched those families wait sometimes for years for investigations to conclude and for answers that were delayed incomplete or never provided During my tenure at CLERB at the Review Board, I worked to expand oversight authority to include health care providers, pressed for the transparency families deserve and helped advance approximately 40 recommendations aimed at reducing in custody deaths. However, CLERB, like many civilian oversight bodies, is advisory only. Counties lack both the tools and statutory options needed to compel meaningful change. Those boards and inspector generals may issue recommendations to the board of supervisors and sheriffs regarding jail issues and practices, But unfortunately, they have no authority or leverage to compel that change, and sheriffs are not required to consider, implement, or even respond to the recommendations. Even the state's very own jail oversight entity or agency, the BSEC, lacks the authority to mandate compliance or enforce proposed reforms. Just as the legislature recently gave counties the option to establish sheriff oversight offices and inspector general offices, AB 2257 provides counties with an option to have a say in the administration of the county jails. The bill mandates nothing while providing help to those counties that want it when boards of supervisors have the option to exercise confirmation authority over jail administrators Sheriffs had a have a greater incentive to work with boards of supervisors and the community before more families are left waiting before more people die and Before years-long audit findings continue to document preventable failures. I respectfully urge your support for AB 2257 and thank you Okay, thank you at this time we'll take anybody me twos who are in support of the bill coming up to the mic you can say your name the organization you represent your support for the bill Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in support Margo George with the California Public Defenders Association and support thank you Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in support. Chow-Jun Liu on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Connor Gassman on behalf of Prosecutors' Alliance Action in support. Okay. At this time, we'll take lead opposition witnesses. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Count on up. Have a seat. You guys are fine there. You guys are fine. I'm going to sit down. All right, you have two minutes each. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. Here in opposition to AB 2257, many, if not most, sheriffs already employ a chief deputy or assistant sheriff over corrections. the passage of this bill and the choice by a county board to exert the authority it creates would likely put the sheriff in a position of having to take into account whether the board would confirm their choice to serve as jail administrator. This vital role should be filled by the person best suited to do the work, not with the person that the sheriff will think will win a popularity contest with the board of supervisors and get confirmed. The bill's supporting materials indicate this new version of 2257 is intended to give leverage over the operation of the county jails to the board. In reality, it imposes a labyrinth of rules about how a sheriff's choice for jail administrator is selected, confirmed, overseen, and replaced. And candidly, and I'm not advocating for the alternative, but given that only the sheriff can remove the jail administrator under this bill, any leverage that the board thinks they would obtain by this, by exercising this option in this bill, disappears as soon as they confirm the appointee. Sheriffs are elected county officials. They don't work for the Board of Supervisors, but they are subject to specific and broad oversight from entities including the state and federal courts, attorney general, civil grand jury, Board of State Communication, not to mention the voters who elect them every four years. The legislature should not politicize an important position within the sheriff's office, especially when there's no indication that this complicated governance change will lead to better outcomes in the jail. In the end, this will do nothing to change the so-called crisis that allegedly exists in our jails. It will do nothing to address the immutable fact that people die every day. They die in the library. They die in the grocery store. And they die on the street. Unfortunately, they die in jails because they are sick. They have conditions. And that, candidly, is just a fact of life, as has been said. So for those reasons, we oppose the bill. Thank you. Good afternoon. David Bullock, the SFV Alliance. We're from Los Angeles County, and we have recognized that our board of supervisors are constantly at arms with our sheriff deputy, with our sheriff, our elected sheriff officials. They're always trying to get power. They're always trying to take over what they're doing. And when we go to the polls to vote in Los Angeles, I can't speak on the other 57 counties because I do not live there. But in Los Angeles County specifically, we vote for somebody for a board of supervisors completely different than we do for the person who is going to run the jails, our sheriff. We take into consideration what their background is, who they are, their experience. Usually these sheriffs are past deputies. People running for sheriffs are past deputies, and they have experience working in the jails. They are the best people suited to oversee the operations or what's going on there. Unfortunately, the supervisors are politicians. I have nothing against politicians. You're all very wonderful. But they do not see and understand the issues that are needed in regards to running our jail facilities in L.A. County. With that, we ask for a no vote. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you for adhering to the two minutes. At this time, we'll take anybody who is opposed to this measure. You can come up and add your voice to the opposition. If not, then we'll bring it back to the dais for any comments, questions, a motion. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. I was going to call you Mr. Vice, but I figured it was a little bit too short. Let me just say that I really appreciate the approach on this. So I can't accept that people just die and they die. There are different ways to ensure that people are safe if they're held in custody. And there are some facilities that have a very good record and others that don't have a very good record. And why that occurs, I have no idea whether it's because of the disagreement or conflict between elected officials and law enforcement that is an elected official, which has to do many of the same things that we all do, which is to get votes. But I certainly don't expect that when somebody in the family gets arrested and put in jail that they're not going to come out alive or that they are going to be ignored when there's a serious health issue. And I respect your innovative approach. It's different, and it's a pilot project, and so I interested to see it permissive right And if it improves the health and well of individuals that the courts have determined need to be detained and held in custody, then I think it's a good thing. And for that reason, I'm going to make the motion, and I'm very interested to see how it works out, because I think it's important that in a society that has decided that there's penalties and then there's rehabilitation, that we're not overstepping and hurting people during their time in custody. So I appreciate the testimony here today, and I appreciate this bill. Thank you. Right. My comments on this bill are pretty simple. politicizing this position further than we are already politicized. A great example is what we do here in the legislature. The governor appoints his folks to the various boards and commissions, and they make decisions based on what he wants. And a lot of those are very political. And this is more of a mechanical thing. And I understand when you're saying, you know, people die. When you have 17,000 people, there is a certain percentage, even in the general population, and it's much lower in jails than it is in the general population of people who are going to die. And so it is important, and I'd like somebody to do the studies someday that help us differentiate which is a natural, normal death versus something that is completely preventable. and so with that I'm gonna leave it to the author to close thank you very much I just want to say that in my experience in local government that the best outcomes for good governance is through collaboration and putting everybody's heads together to do the best job they can to make the right outcomes occur and in this instance we're trying to do is be a little bit creative as the senator mentioned and try and encourage more collaboration between the sheriff and the boards of supervisors to get Accountability to have a transparency about the financing of jails and to really get a better outcome for everybody involved in the system And I think this is a modest attempt to begin to change the conversation and really bring people together And I would respectfully urge an aye vote All right with that we have a motion by Senator Cavallo go ahead and call roll I'll item 30 AB 2257 heart motion is do pass to local government at a game say our toe no say our tone now Caballero I Cortese Perez Wiener all right that bill will remain on call at this time looks like senator lack our senator Sorry, Assemblymember Lackey is up next in file order. No, unless they made a deal. I'm sorry, to the next author, I misspoke. I was on the wrong page. We have pages and pages of bills here. And so when I went back up to the right page, it was Assemblymember Lackey who was next. So, Mr. Lackey, you have AB 1685.

All right, thank you. Both witnesses, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Next speaker.

time we take anybody and a proponent of the bill may come up in state as much name organization and your support for the bill Mr Chairman and members Dan Filizotto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney Office in support Bernie Ojeda, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, on behalf of Sheriff Robert Luna in support. Mr. Chair, Corey Salza, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.

Mary Creasy on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County in support. Jillian Voris on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thank you. Oh, one more, one more. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association and a number of other law enforcement associations in support of the bill. Thank you. At this time we will take opposition witnesses. Chief opposition witnesses, come on up. Have a seat in the first row here. Each of you have two minutes and I would ask you politely to please adhere to that so I don't have to rudely interrupt you at two minutes. Good morning chair, members of the committee. My name is Nedrick Miller.

Next speaker.

no vote on this bill. Thanks. All right, thank you very much. At this time we'll take any other people who wish to express opposition to the bill. May come up to the mic, state your name, the organization you represent, and that you oppose the

he and when with the legal services for prisoners with children in opposition and if there's no other persons coming up then they'll bring it back to the dais anybody of my colleagues would like to speak on the bill so I'll add my two cents you know me I do not feel sorry as as sorry for people who put themselves in the unfortunate position of having a DUI and killing somebody by then they've probably done it a hundred times before I believe in all of the the things that we're trying to do in advance to keep people from getting in that position in the first place but at the end of the day it's their choice to get behind the wheel when they're drunk and if you've ever seen drunk people in a roundabout about I invite you down to wine country. It is scary and almost comical at the same time. So with that, I will give it back to the author for closing comments.

All right. Thank you very much. Obviously, we do not have enough people. I can't make the motion right now. So we're going to just hold this open, and then we'll make those motions later. Mr. Lackey, you have another bill.

May you begin when you are ready? All right.

Ms. Campbell, you may go.

Thank you, ma'am. I know that testimony is difficult for you, so thank you for being here today, and condolences to your family forever.

Other witness?

respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much for your testimony. Okay at this time people who would like to come up to the mic and express their support for this bill may do so. Same rules. Mr. Chairman members Dan

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.

My name is Kathleen Harris. I'm with MAD, and I'm Irene's mother. And I do support this bill.

Thank you. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition, I want to say first that my heart goes out to Irene's sister and mother. I know that must be really hard to be here today. So I appreciate that. And I think everyone involved is well-intentioned. We appreciate the amends. We all share the goal of making our streets and our communities safer. The issue is whether or not this policy will make our streets safer, and we would contend that it will not. There are already revocations that are available to DMV for various DUI offenses ranging from three to five years. They have not been effective, and this is not a policy that's going to result in the results that we want. People will continue to drive in California because there's no other way for them to get to their employment, and they have to drive to work. They will not be able to get insurance because their licenses are revoked. Although we appreciate the spirit of the amendment that allows you to attempt to get your license back in four years, it is in fact more of a mirage than a reality for people who are indigent because they won't be able to afford two years of the IID. So we ask you to consider alternatives similar to the ones that my colleague from the ACLU addressed in discussing the earlier bill. But one thing that would really help is a restricted driver's license so that people can get to and from their jobs. That will help them make their financial obligations.

Glenn Backus for the Yellow Baker Center for Human Rights. I want to give respect and condolences to Ms. Campbell and her family and to others who've lost a loved one because someone was too impaired to drive. The Yellow Baker Center believes everyone deserves safe roads. We also believe that we must connect individuals to treatment, counseling, and support before and after such incidents occur. Many people who engage in impaired driving are experiencing a substance use disorder. Addressing impaired driving primarily as a criminal legal matter or administrative matter ignores the complex health issues. License suspensions as proposed in this bill impose severe economic consequences, particularly for low-income people, which are disproportionately people of color and for many people who depend on driving to maintain their employment. For many workers, especially those in rural areas, the loss of license effectively means loss of job. Rather than promoting stability or accountability, license suspensions frequently trigger a cycle of poverty by cutting off access to work while fines, fees, and program costs continue to accumulate. License suspension also creates a debt trap. Individuals must pay thousands of dollars in fees, reinstatement fees, instrument fees, mandatory programs, before they can legally drive again. Without the ability to drive to work, many cannot earn the income necessary to repay these obligations. A more balanced alternative would be to allow restricted licenses for employment only and to eliminate debt-based license suspensions. This would promote accountability and safety while allowing individuals to remain employed and support their families. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACO Cal Action in strong opposition.

Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendez on behalf of LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 in opposition.

everybody that this bill is for a third offense clearly there's a problem that that needs help and I believe that this is a very reasonable approach to very toxic condition and I really am in hopes that it will prevent tragedy and I think it's also easy to forget that sometimes the person's life that we're saving is the very person being punished, quote unquote punished. I think that that is often forgot when we make these considerations but I will tell you that the amount of DUI DUI tragedies that I have arrived on the scene were solo crashes And those are the kinds of circumstances that we trying to prevent And so I would ask for support when the time comes.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to my colleague, Assemblymember Gabriel, Chairman Gabriel, for allowing us to move forward. I want to thank you and the members, and I'd like to start off by accepting the committee amendments. AB 1889 would authorize a protective order issued by the court to be valid after the defendant's release if the order has expired for an additional year. A judge can issue a protective order, and at times they may issue the max allowed by law, as they may not know for certain when a defendant will be released. These protective orders serve as a safeguard for victims who may face threats, intimidation, and violence. instances where they expire prior to the release of the defendant has shown that victims are placed in a vulnerable and potential dangerous situation. As such, we had a hearing on the missing and murdered indigenous women crisis, where this came up as an area that is leaving people vulnerable. According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, most female victims of intimate partners' violence were previously victimized by the same offender at high rates. This bill would serve as a proactive approach by ensuring the order is in place from day one of their release. This would allow time for the victims to seek permanent solutions to better protect themselves and feel safe. With me today to testify in support of AB 1889 is Patty Cardenas, Assistant Director of Victim Services for the Riverside County District Attorney's Office, and William Robinson, Chief Deputy District Attorney for Riverside County.

Good afternoon, Mr. Vice Chair and members. My name is William Robinson and I'm a Chief Deputy District Attorney at the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. I'm here today in support of AB 1889. AB 1889 addresses a simple but important public safety problem. Under current law, courts may issue criminal protective orders in domestic violence, sex offense, human trafficking, gang, and witness intimidation cases. Those orders are designed to protect victims from future harm. The problem is that in some cases, those protective orders expire before an offender is released from custody. As a result, a victim may spend years believing they are protected, only to discover that the order has expired at the very moment the offender returns to the community. AB 1889 provides a common-sense solution. The bill allows courts to issue protective orders that remain in effect for up to 10 years or for two years after an offender is release from custody whichever is later Just as importantly it does not require courts to issue those orders It simply gives judges the discretion to do so when the facts and circumstances warrant continued protection. This bill recognizes a near reality that victims know all too well. The risk of intimidation, harassment, unwanted contact, and renewed violence does not necessarily end when a prison sentence ends. For victims of domestic violence and sexual violence, the period following an offender's release can be one of the most frightening times they face. AB 1889 ensures that courts have the tools they need to provide meaningful protection during that period.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just a couple of pieces that were mentioned. I do want to thank the opposition for sharing her story as well. I do understand the sentiment Senator Sarato has mentioned. Yes, this is much more different than somebody who's stealing groceries or somebody who's just trying to survive. This is about copper wire theft and leaving our neighbors in the dark, especially those in my area of Boyle Heights, who are paying through the roof in bills and so forth and are not even get the proper infrastructure response that they need. Solar street rights are expensive. I'm very open to it, but if we must be realistic about the state's budget situation, and unfortunately, there's not enough money to replace every copper wire with solar. In my district, just over the weekend, the fire is still going on where solar panels cause a massive disruption in my area. So that might not be the best option. It's an option, but then the ramifications of that option when it does malfunction are key and are causing massive disruption and air quality issues in my district. district right now as we speak that I'm monitoring. But I believe that all above the approach I know Los Angeles council members, Eunice Hernandez and Isabel Gerardo are allocating monies that they have to get solar streetlights and I fully support that. But they have discretionary funds that are able to do that. We at the state unfortunately do not have those discretionary funds to do that as a solution But when we talk about these these black and brown communities that are losing streetlights the same communities that are losing access to 911 the same communities that are losing access to power to air conditioning and they are simply just tired of copper wire theft and walking out of the street small businesses having to close early just because they can't even turn on the lights. And so I want to thank also Senator Kabayerov for mentioning the conversation about infrastructure, sharing your personal story about copper miners and the effect that it has and how we are at this point to even have any lights on at all in our neighborhood. And of course, I do echo those sentiments about second chances. But again, we have to be realistic about these approaches to the other senator's point about the individuals who are taking this versus the individuals who are stealing to survive. Very different pieces to that. And I'll close by saying this bill does send a clear message. If you rip apart our neighborhoods for scrap, if you trade our safety for a quick dollar, if you leave our communities in the dark, there will be consequences because this isn't just copper it's street light that never turns on it's a 911 call that never goes through it's a grandmother sitting in the dark waiting for the power to come back and we cannot accept this as a as normal AB 1941 is how we draw the line how we protect what keeps our communities running safe and seen so let's turn the lights back on let's stand up for our neighborhoods thank you and I respectfully ask for a vote thank you very much and I want to thank you

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members and staff. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this important bill, and I will be accepting the committee's amendments. Again, I just want to give kudos to the chair for working with us directly on this bill. I'm pleased to present AB 1896, the GTFO Act, which says Get the Feds Out. This bill says that individuals who participated in immigration enforcement activities between January 20, 2025 and January 20, 2029, will be disqualified from holding state county or local public employment in California except for conduct already permitted under California State Senate Bill 54 the law that protects trust between our communities and our local government This bill is authored by myself and our speaker whose partnership in this effort sends a message that California will not bend when it comes to defending our communities, our civil rights, and the values that define our golden state. Since January of 2025, fear has been knocking our doors before the sun rises. Families waking up wondering if today's the day someone knocks on their door to kidnap them. Communities are wondering if the people who swore to protect them are actually working against them. This is not an abstract thought. This is our reality. And one year later, this is lived reality of immigrant communities across this country and across my district and many of your districts since June the 6th. And we have seen with our own eyes a terror that follows with cruelty is given authority without accountability. These acts are not isolated. They are not faceless. A pattern has been shown, a pattern of poor training, poor decision-making, and poor values. Terrible events like immigration enforcement officials publicly executing Renee Good, shooting Alex Preddy in the street, kidnapping 5-year-old Liam Cornejo Jr. to use as bait, and shooting killing Keith Porter Jr. during a holiday. Whistleblower complaints and congressional documents show alarming changes to ICE training standards. Current ICE recruits now receive 250 fewer hours of training and complete only a 14-week program. Entire practical examinations have been eliminated. The number of tests recruits must pass drop by 25 to 9, and entire courses have disappeared, including instruction on use of force, the structure of the United States government, and even the difference between criminal proceedings and civil removal proceedings. In comparison, peace officers in California must go through a minimum of 40 weeks of training just to graduate from the academy. California expects its public employees to be moral to defend its people against all enemies and support and defend both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California. And anyone who is participating in these raids has shown that they do not live up to the bar that Californians deserve from public servants. So today, California answers with clarity. If you participated in cruel basis immigration enforcement, if you violated civil rights, ignored due process, or followed unlawful orders, you will not be welcome into California's public workforce. GTFO. This afternoon, in primary witnesses and support, Edgar Guerra, advocate with SEIU California, and Monica Madrid with state policy advocate with CHERLA. Take it away.

Monica Madrid, I'm the state policy advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIRLA. I'm here to speak in support of AB 1896. For many Californians, immigration enforcement is not just a policy. It's something families are living through in real time. At CHILLA, we operate the Los Angeles Rapid Response Network. We first activated this network in 2017 in response to a threat of mass deportations. And in November of 2024, we had to reactivate it again. In just a few months, we have trained over 2,000 community members to document immigration enforcement and support impacted families. What they are witnessing is deeply alarming. Parents take in during routine stops outside of their homes, children coming home from school not knowing if their mom and dad will be there. Families left scrambling overnight to figure out how to survive, and increasingly we're seeing something even more troubling. Our reports document patterns of cruelty, racial profiling, and intimidation by ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. We are also seeing federal agents target rapid responders, community members who are peacefully documenting and ensuring due process. We have had to change our trainings to include safety protocols because even those standing up for their communities are now at risk. And the impact goes far beyond those directly targeted. We are seeing entire communities living in fear, parents afraid to take their children to school, people skipping medical care, survivors of crime hesitating to seek help. That is not safety. That is fear. Public safety demands on trust, trust that can seek help that those on authority will protect them. AB 1896 draws a clear line. It ensures that individuals who participated in harmful federal immigration enforcement are not placed onto positions in public trust in California. Because those who we entrust with power matters. We owe it to the families living in fear and to our children who deserve stability. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Margo George, California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Chair. Association, regrettably in opposition to AB 1896. This is not a comment about ICE or what ICE is or isn't doing, but the bottom line is the bill will restrict California law enforcement agencies from hiring otherwise qualified individuals as peace officers simply because they happen to work for a federal agency that engaged in federal immigration enforcement. And despite what's been said and what's in the analysis and the protestations of the proponents, this bill is not limited to persons who actually worked for ICE or who actually had a primary responsibility connected to direct and personal immigration enforcement. Under the bill, a mail clerk or a janitor for DHS during the dates for the bill, they would be ineligible to become a California peace officer. It's just the bottom line. The bill neglects the fact that any person who's ultimately employed as a California peace officer is subject to extensive background checks and high statutory and departmental qualifications. Recruiting and retaining qualified peace officer candidates is already hard enough in this state, and AB 1896 unnecessarily makes that process more difficult. So for those reasons, we're respectfully opposed to AB 1896. Thank you.

Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. We are opposed unless amended to the bill. I want to thank the author and his staff for all the conversations we've had up to this point. I want to share first from the outset, reminiscing with a friend on the phone last night about this issue and talking through the numerous reforms that we've worked on together in this body around hiring, background checks, training, certification, use of force standards, officer accountability standards. I truly believe that we have created national leading statutes, regulations, and policies for officers across this country, and we're very, very proud of that. Our goal in doing that has always been to establish policy that develops those top-tier officers and lead those individuals in those pathways to becoming professional law enforcement that they are, which includes actually sponsoring bills years ago to allow DACA recipients to become California peace officers. And we've been working through that issue now. And all the while, our focus from the police chief standpoint has been to identify those qualified candidates who are eligible and make sure that they have an opportunity, which leads me to our concerns with the bill in print now, which is that we are in a broad stroke making an eligible whole category of individuals that may have done things that make them unworthy, but some of them surely might be. And we want to make sure that we open those pathways for them. And to that effort, we're going to continue to work with the author and discuss this bill and hopefully come to some type of outcome at the end where we identify and leverage those California standards that I mentioned around background checks, training, those clear from serious misconduct who otherwise are meritorious and worthy of becoming California Peace Officers, that those individuals have a pathway and at the same time we use the systems that we've created to identify those that are not worthy and make sure that they don't meet our standards and become California Peace Officers. So for those reasons we have an Opposed and unless amended. Again, continue to work on the bill with the author. Happy to answer

Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC in opposition.

and basically the result is them not getting a job in local county or municipal to those who are enforcing this or kidnapping individuals it's not going after the person who worked previous to this administration it's not going after the law enforcement who is properly trained I want to be very clear about something we have been working with law enforcement on this in fact I'm on the record giving kudos to local law enforcement who've been working diligently with our county law enforcement as well because they are not the ones who are kidnapping our community members it is law enforcement who are working through ice who took the bonuses who are enforcing these actions against our community that should be penalized not law enforcement abiding individuals who've gone through the proper training okay so you're just

Yeah, if you can save your response for the close,

Look, I'll be quick. Just respectfully, Senator, these tactics by masked individuals who are not revealing themselves, we're not going after the 21,000 officers who swore an oath to California and to its citizens. We're going after the individuals who are taking the bonuses, narrowing the scope of those between this administration who are terrorizing our communities with assault rifles, shooting innocent protesters at point-blank range. Those are the ones that we're going after. and those individuals who are kidnapping those individuals who are U.S. citizens at their jobs. That's who we're going after. So we're not going after those who are following the law, who are taking an oath to California. That's very different. So this afternoon, we have a choice to stand together, choose dignity over cruelty, law over lawlessness, and people over power. The message is simple. With this bill, if you choose to terrorize communities instead of serving them, California will not reward you with a public paycheck. GTFO, thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you assemblymember Gonzales for your presentation we have assemblymember Baines here to present a B 2273 and a B 2274 assemblymember you can begin whenever you ready Thank You chairman members maybe 2273 is named for the ongoing criminal case against former Kern County's act Scrivener which has devastated my community eroded the trust of my constituents have in our government or courts if the Department of Justice found that a member of the legislature got into bed with the minor and fondled the minor's breasts and genitals for 10 minutes while the minor was frozen in fear. I hope that member would be charged with a felony for sexual molestation. That is what the Department of Justice found Zach Scrivener had done to his 10-year-old daughter, but sexual molestation charges never came. Scrivener was never arrested. He never took a mug shot. He was never fingerprinted. The Scrivener Act ensures prosecutors cannot make backroom deals to water down charges against these politically connected elites elites while offering no explanation for their actions, and it requires that charges against an elected official for child molestation are brought within 30 days. For more than a year, we've been asking the DOJ to explain why they did not file a child molestation charge against the ex-grivener. Had they done so, he would not have been eligible for mental health diversion, and his criminal case would have proceeded. As I stand here today, we still don't have an answer in our community. I want to acknowledge the numerous organizations that originally shared their concerns in opposition to this bill working together we crafted language in the assembly that ensures accountability for predators while protecting the role of rehabilitation in our criminal justice system and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank

in the audience? If you could use the mic. Madam Chair, members, Dan Philzal on

opposition? Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a ledged advocate with ACLU CalAction. We have issues with the direction of this bill and wanting to require the prosecution's state on record why certain charges are not being sought on uncharged allegations drawn from preliminary hearing transcripts or the accusatory pleading. This shift raises serious concerns. By forcing prosecutors to publicly justify why they do not pursue more severe charges that disqualify a defendant from diversion, this would create intense political and administrative pressure to simply file harsher charges. This provision seems intended to pressure prosecutors away from using their discretion to keep people on a path towards rehabilitation by depriving people of diversion. Finally, the new 30-day requirement for the DOJ appears to be tailored to a specific factual scenario and does not reflect a neutral statewide standard. Because the bill provides that failure to comply with this deadline, does not preclude prosecution, the provision risk being largely symbolic while introducing additional complexity and potential inconsistency to prosecutorial decision making. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2273.

AB 2274. Thank you, Chairman and members. This bill closes the Epstein loophole by banning prosecutors from keeping the identities of human traffickers and child molesters secret. In 2008, when Jeffrey Epstein was charged for trafficking children, the Bush administration granted a non-prosecution agreement that provided blanket immunity to Epstein and an undefined network of potential co-conspirators. In 2020, the US DOJ, a professional responsibility, launched an investigation into whether Epstein's non-prosecution agreement was legal. It found that the argument did not violate, quote, any clear unambiguous statute, professional responsibility, regulation, or policy. No, the only issue they found was that the Bush administration had exercised, quote, poor judgment, but the agreement was otherwise within the scope of the prosecutors brought discretion no one should have that type of discretion that

Good evening, Chair. and committee members, I want to start by thanking the chair and committee for working with my office on this bill. Per the analysis, we will be adding amendments to clarify that this bill does not affect existing regulations prohibiting visitation relating to criminal records. AB 2434, the Visitor Protections and Safety Act, is a women's caucus priority bill with no opposition. This bill will protect visitors from arbitrary visit denials in California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation prison visiting rooms. This bill would establish clear enforceable standards for when a visit can be denied, require written documentation when a visitor is turned away, and establish guardrails for searches. AB 2434 codifies and strengthens CDCR's own proposed search regulations for prison visitation. Such regulations include searches that are non-contact, same-gender, private and witnessed by a second same gender staff person. AB 2434 is necessary because most of the California visitation rules are not set in statute and vary widely by facility. As a result, visitors routinely experience disappointing and inconsistent treatment by staff. For example in 2024 CDCR entered a million settlement with Christina Cardenas a woman who tried to visit her husband but was illegally forced to strip take a drug test a pregnancy test and subjected to forceful penetration of her genitalia by a male physician Her clear protest did not stop this, and she did so without consent, and it was ignored. No contraband was found during this illegal invasive search. Christina endured all of this and still was not permitted to visit her husband that day. AB 2434 helps end these violations of women. Women are the primary visitors of incarcerated people. National research shows that one in four women and nearly one in two black women have a family member in prison. 55% of women see their loved ones only once a month or a few times a year, and over a quarter never see their incarcerated loved ones. Yet, according to 50 years of empirical study gathered by the Prison Policy Initiative, maintaining family connection during incarceration is one of the most important policies to support successful reentry. In 2008, the study also shows that each additional visit to an incarcerated person lowered the chances of a two-year recidivism by 3.8%. Research suggests that families, including children who visited during a loved one's incarceration, showed improved mental health measures and a higher probability of remaining together after release. This bill improves adherence to prison rules. Here to testify and support are two experts in visiting, Ms. Anita Wills, who is an SE Justice Group sister from Hayward, and Ellie Virueta. Virgueta. I had to look at the actual, like, I'm like, I know what's it. Ellie Virgueta, who is a member and staff of SE Justice Group. And I want to thank them all for their long day in making sure to be able to testify today for this bill. And thank you also very much for coming up here to Sacramento. It's good to see some fellow East Bay residents here. And thank you so much for being here to testify on this important bill. And I'll turn over you to present. Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee. My name is Ellie Virreta. I am both a member and staff at SC Justice Group, a loving and powerful community of women with incarcerated loved ones fighting to end mass incarceration. And today I will be reading the testimony of our member, Catalina Palacios, who unfortunately couldn't be here today in person. but is in strong support of AB 2434. Gatti shares, I've had multiple visits canceled at different facilities throughout California over the past 24 years that my husband has been incarcerated. The majority of my visits have been denied due to attire, a minor correctable issue. In 2002, I woke up at 4 a.m. to begin my four-hour drive from Oakland to Fresno for a 30-minute non-contact visit at 10 a.m. with my husband at Corcoran, alongside my two-year-old daughter and his family. At this visit, I wore a skirt and a shirt. The correctional officer said that the shirt was too form-fitting, so I went to the car to change. My brother lent me his jersey, but even after changing, I was still denied the visit that day. And on an earlier occasion at the same facility, our visit was canceled because my one-year-old daughter was wearing a hand-crocheted baby blue dress made by her grandmother. It was apparently the wrong color. And the stress and heartache of these visits have deeply affected my daughter. As a preteen, she developed severe anxiety leading up to each visit, not knowing if we'll experience harassment or even be allowed in. And in order to escape the CO's harassment, she made the heartbreaking decision to stop visiting her dad altogether. We are always at the mercy of correctional officers' personal judgment, not consistent rules and regulations. It makes you afraid to advocate for yourself or for your loved one, for a fear of retaliation because if you say the wrong thing or wear the wrong thing, they can and will terminate your visit. That's why we need AB 2434. It would require clear standards and prevent women like me from being turned away from minor fixable issues. It would require accountability when visits are denied and protect the dignity of the women, children, and families who are doing everything they can to keep our families strong and connected. On behalf of SE Justice Group, I urge and I vote on this measure. Thank you.

Ruth Delitti with SE Justice Group in strong support.

Thank you. Michelle Giles, member of SE Justice Group and mother of an incarcerated loved one, strongly support Monica Samuel SE Justice Group in strong support Felicia Thomas with SC Justice

Rodriguez with ACU CalAction and proud support. Glenn Backus, Ella Baker Center

you thank you very much so anyone wishing to express opposition to a b two four three four seeing no opposition witnesses I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions comments or emotion center cover your let me just say that I really appreciate this bill I I think it's long overdue. I don't know why I didn't think about it years ago. And thank you for being here today and for your testimony. I'm really sorry that an institution that's under the control of the state of California would treat women and children so poorly, or any individual that goes in to see a family member that has nothing to do with them being there. We want family contacts. Ultimately, they're getting out. We want them to be good, upstanding citizens. The best way to do that is to have contact with family and friends that are really important to them so that they can see that there's a reason to program and a reason to take care of their relationships and to be loving and all that kind of good stuff. So thank you for being here today because your testimony was very moving. I appreciate it. And so I will move the bill. Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Well, I want to join Senator Caballero in her comments about how unacceptable it is that you are denied the ability to see your family, and that so many absurd reasons are being made for why you can't see your family. I think this bill will not just help you, but many other families in California. and will provide a greater degree of justice. So thank you for being here today and telling your story. I thank you for being an advocate for so many other families. And with that, I want to turn over to the Assemblymember too close.

if we can please call the roll item 37 motion AB 2434 by Bonta motion is do pass to appropriations Aragin aye say Arto say Arto I Caballero Caballero, aye. Cortese? Cortese, aye. Perez? Perez, aye. Wiener? Okay, that bill is out on a vote of 5-0. Thank you very much. Okay, and I think a number of the committee members have already recorded votes, but we're going to lift the call so that Senator Caballero can record her votes on bills. You ready? Yes. Okay. Okay. SB 292 Patterson, current vote is 1-3. Caballero? Caballero not voting. Okay. Okay, file item 2, AB 292 fails. No reconsideration was requested. And moreover, this is the end of a two-year session, so the bill fails. Item 3, AB 1537, Brian, motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 1. Caballero? Caballero, aye. Okay, file item 3, AB 1537, Brian is out on a vote of 5 to 1. File item 4 AB 1646 Brian motion is do pass as amended to appropriations current vote is 4 to 1 Caballero Caballero aye okay AB 1646 is out in a vote of 5 File item 5 AB 1647 Brian motion is due passed as amended to the floor Current vote is 5-0. Caballero, aye. AB 1647 is out in a vote of 6-0. File item 6, AB 1546 by Schultz, motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is 5-0. Caballero, aye. AB 1546 is out in a vote of 6-0. File item 7, AB 1595, Schultz. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is 4-1. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. That bill is out in a vote of 5-1. Item 9, AB 16... Nope, never mind. Item 10, AB 1685, Lackey. Motion is due passed to transportation. Current vote is 5-0. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Okay, AB 1685 is out on a vote of 6-0. Item 11, AB 1687 Lackey, motion is due passed to transportation, current vote is 5-0. Caballero? Caballero aye AB 1687 is out on a vote of 6 File item 15 AB 2378 Gabriel Motion is due passed to appropriations Current vote is 4 Caballero Aye Caballero, aye. AB 2378 is out on a vote of 5-1. File item 16, AB 18... I'm sorry, that's been dispensed with... File item 21, AB 1877, Stephanie. Motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is 5-0. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. AB 1877 is out on a vote of 6-0. File item 23, AB 1896, Mark Gonzalez. Motion is due passed to Labor. Current vote is 4-1. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. AB 1896 is out on a vote of 5-1. File item 26, AB 2104, Carrillo. Motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is 5-0. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. AB 2104 is out in a vote of 6-0. File item 31, 2273, Baines. Motion is do pass to appropriations. Current vote is 5-0. Caballero? Caballero aye Okay AB 2273 is out in a vote of 6 AB file item 32 AB 2274 Baines Motion is due passed to appropriations Current vote is 5 Caballero? Caballero, aye. AB 2274 is out in a vote of 6-0. File item 35, AB 2344, Haney. Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote is 5-0. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. File item 35, AB 2344 is out in a vote of 6-0. File Item 36, AB 2428, Celeste Rodriguez. Motion must do pass to appropriations. Current vote is 4-0. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Okay, AB 2428 is out in a vote of 5-0. And AB Item 38, AB 2631, Bauer-Cahan. Motion is due pass to appropriations. Current vote is 4-1. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. AB 2631 is out in a vote of 5-1. That completes our agenda for today's committee hearing. Thank you. All votes have been recorded, correct? Thank you colleagues, thank you staff. With that, the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety is now adjourned.