June 24, 2026 · Public Safety · 2,386 words · 18 speakers · 29 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right. Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. I'll begin with a few housekeeping items. First and foremost, we'll be proceeding as a subcommittee this morning until we establish a quorum. I want to thank our Republican chief consultant. I'm aware that both members of the committee are not yet here. They're in other engagements, so they'll be here as soon as possible and appreciate your agreement to move forward so we can get started this morning. Second, I'd like to remind everyone that there are some general rules of conduct, and I'll go over those before we start our hearing today. Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing, and as we move forward with witness and public comment, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing. Specifically, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. I typically give a warning before we get to that point, and we won't get to that point this morning. But if we do, please be aware that violations of these rules can subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Second, as a reminder, to ensure that all measures on the agenda are heard, we have limited witness testimony for this hearing with four minutes total per side for support and opposition. Next, though we don't have a quorum, I will read the off-calendar items, meaning that these items will not be heard today. We have item number nine, Senate Bill 1105 by Senator Perez that has been pulled by the author. We have item number 13, Senate Bill 1208 by Senator Grayson, pulled by the author. We have item number 18, Senate Bill 1266 by Senator Stern, pulled by the author. And lastly, we have item 22, Senate Bill 1338 by Senator Jones, also polled by the author. Once we have a quorum, we will dispense with our proposed consent calendar. And as a reminder, we're hearing today's measures in sign-in order. Authors will have five minutes to present, and then your witnesses in support will have four minutes, as will the opposition witnesses. And I'll be keeping track of time right over here. So with that, let's go ahead and dive in. First up in sign-in order, I see we have item number five by Senator Becker.
This is Senate Bill 1009, followed by Senator Gomez-Rez. Good morning Chair and members SB 1009 is a common sense reform that updates the outdated model to reflect, a current model to reflect better what we know today about brain science, public safety, and fiscal responsibility. For too long, California's juvenile justice system has relied on putting youth in cells as our first response to youth behavior rather than our last resort. And data shows that young people with existing behavioral mental health problems often deteriorate and detention not improve. Detention disrupts education, severance family ties, counterintuitively increases the risk of future legal trouble. This bill ensures no youth remains detained unnecessarily by mandating that a court shall not order a minor to juvenile hall unless it makes a specific finding that a less restrictive alternative is unsuitable. That, of course, it can easily do by determining, say, the home life is unstable or by determining that a crime is considered too severe. Many ways to do that. By prioritizing community-based alternatives such as counseling supervision, we are investing in solutions that reduce recidivism and save taxpayer dollars, brings transparency to our courtrooms and accountability to our justice system, ensuring every child is given a fair chance to succeed within our community. This bill stops treating our children like criminals in training and starts treating them like the future of our state. Here with me today to testify is Eric Arias with the Yolo County Public Defender's Office.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Eric Arias, and I'm a youth defender at the Yolo County Public Defender's Office and a member of the California Youth Defender Center's Legislative Committee, a co-sponsor of this bill. Youth arrests and detention rates have fallen substantially over time. That progress is encouraging and reflects the hard work of many people across the juvenile legal system. But lower numbers do not end the conversation. They make the remaining cases more important to get right. And the data shows that there's still work to do. In 2024, nearly 11,000 youth were detained in secure facilities. Even under the broadest possible assumption that every youth arrested for a violent felony was detained, those arrests can account for no more than 59% of pre-adjudication detentions. That means that nearly 41% of detained youth were not arrested for a violent felony. And that matters because detention is not a harmless intervention. It carries well-documented harms. It can traumatize youth, disrupt education and employment outcomes, and increase the likelihood of continued involvement in the justice system. SB 1009 does not eliminate detention. It does not remove judicial discretion to order detention. What it does is ensures that detention is used only when necessary, and it makes sure that those decisions are explained and revisited. And it does so by addressing three key points. The first part of the bill addresses when detention is initially ordered. Over 50 years ago, the California Supreme Court made clear that detention is the exception, not the rule. SB 1009 reinforces that principle. It does not create a presumption of release. It does not limit the court's authority to order detention when necessary. What it does is provide a clear standard. It does not change the standard. It requires that detention be based on an immediate and urgent necessity to protect the youth and others, a standard that already exists within the Welfare and Institutions Code. It also requires the court to determine that no less restrictive alternative is suitable before ordering detention in the juvenile hall. Courts already consider alternatives. This bill simply ensures that that analysis is stated on the record. The bill uses the word suitable intentionally because what is suitable in one county may not be suitable in another. It's a contextual standard. The second part of the bill addresses whether detention should continue. Currently, a youth on electronic monitoring who is at home is entitled to periodic reviews, but a youth who is confined to the juvenile hall is not. That distinction is difficult to justify. Juvenile hall is a more restrictive intervention and carries greater harms. If we revisit less restrictive intervention, it follows that we should revisit more restrictive ones as well. SB 1009 addresses this in a practical way. It allows the issue of continued detention to be raised by the parties who are already appearing before the court. The intent is not to create additional hearings, but to revisit detention at an existing court date. Detention decisions are based on the facts that can change, risks can decrease, services can become available, and placements can open. And when they do, the system should be able to respond. The need for continued detention should be justified, not presumed. The final part of the bill addresses dispositional commitments and placements. Under current law, the court must find that no less restrictive alternative disposition is suitable before ordering the most restrictive placement. But that requirement does not apply to commitments at the juvenile hall, ranch, or camp. SB 1009 addresses this. It does not restrict the court's ability to order those placements when they're appropriate. It simply ensures that the court is considering the alternatives and explaining those decisions before it does so. It provides the court with factors to consider, but it's not limit the court when considering whether those dispositions are appropriate. And I'm sorry that that's your time, but thank you.
And stick around because there might be questions or chances to add that last thought back in.
Senator, before we go on, just want to confirm we'll be accepting the committee amendments today. Yes, thank you.
Thank you, sir. I will be accepting amendments. Thank you very much, sir. Do you have any other? I'm sorry, you used your four minutes. That's correct. Okay. So next we'll take the me twos. If you'd like to register a position of support on this bill, please come forward at this time. Name, organization, and your position, please.
Gwen Gunheim, Holt Consulting, on behalf of Smart Justice California, in support.
Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in support.
Elizabeth Lashley-Haines from Public Defender Union 148 in Los Angeles in support.
George Pramthi on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.
Thank you.
Similia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.
Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for Historical Justice, proud co-sponsor, strong support.
Thank you.
Colin Ford on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth, co-sponsor, and strong support. Also on behalf of over 80 listed supporters.
Thank you.
Good morning. Keely O'Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.
Good morning.
Kieran Wen with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in support.
Jonathan Lava, California Youth Defender Center, a proud co-sponsor, in support.
Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Okay, we have one. Come on forward. You can use either microphone, and once you begin to speak, you'll have four minutes to address the committee.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Libby Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in opposition to this measure. I want to point to the testimony by the support witness as illustration of the dramatic difference in interpretation that support and opposition has in the underlying policy outlined in the measure and what the impact would be at the local level. And the reason why I want to start with that is because if you have two people sitting here before you saying that the bill does wildly different things, imagine what is going to happen in courts across the state when courts are being mandated to have their discretion significantly limited within what is written in this bill. And the significant limitation under this bill is to obligate a court to not detain a juvenile accused of the most serious and violent 707B offenses before it, including rape, murder, kidnapping, etc., unless they find the other alternative for community placement to be unsuitable. There is no clarity about what unsuitability means or any limitations imposed on suitability. Would a court find that placement of a juvenile accused in the home where his sibling victim resides unsuitable? Different courts may differ. Would a court, because under juvenile law as opposed to adult criminal law, the courts have significantly limited options before them for placement, they can only place them in the home or they can have the juvenile deemed to be in the child welfare services system. As we all know, the child welfare services system is enormously overburdened and is facing additional burdens based on H.R. 1. So the question before you is not just one of whether or not this is good public policy, which, again, we would point to the fact that the data bears out that detention is not the first line of defense for juveniles. We have seen a 70% decrease in the number of detentions, and those that are detained now post 823 and post a series of both prior and subsequent changes before the legislature and in practice of the courts and probation show that those that are detained now are those that are accused of serious and violent offenses. The time frame to make a determination about unsuitability is so limited, so prescriptive. Thank you. Oh, sorry. So limited, so prescriptive that we are deeply and gravely concerned that the courts will, in fact, have their discretion taken from them and that there will be very unsafe choices made. not just for those that are in the community into which these juvenile accused, again, of the most serious and violent offenses will be a return, but also for the juveniles themselves. If probation and the court do not have the adequate amount of time to make a determination about where a suitable placement is, it is very likely that those juveniles will be placed in unsafe conditions, which is the exact opposite of what the author and sponsors want to see happen. For those reasons, we are opposed to this measure. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And next, we'll take the Me Too's in opposition. Come on down.
Mr. Chair and members, Cliff Costate on behalf of the California Judges Association and the Juvenile Court Judges of California. Thank you.
Chair and members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, also in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Apologies, Mr. Chair. Ed Little on behalf of Californians for safety and justice and strong support.
Okay, we'll take that as well. Thank you all. A final call if anyone wants to register a position on the bill. Otherwise, we'll turn it back to me. Just me. If you're a member of the committee and you want to come down and join me at room 126, we are eagerly waiting for you. We have coffee and water and tea if you need it. Senator Becker, just to facilitate some conversation, just so you all know, we won't be able to take a motion yet. We'll have to wait for the quorum. But Senator Becker, several points raised by the opposition and their testimony. Is there any response you'd like the committee to consider?
Yeah, I appreciate the comments. I think it just unfortunately kind of overly dramatizes the situation. I mean, I think the fact here is that there's no equivalent to a bail hearing for youth, right? So adults come, there's a bail hearing, and there's a standard, right?