Assembly Public Safety Committee

Thank you, Chair. and allows the Attorney General to prosecute price gouging behavior. But there is a problem, and this problem surfaced in a recent oversight hearing that we had in the Senate Energy Committee. The price gouging statute does not explicitly include war or armed conflict as the type of emergency that would activate anti-price gouging protections. protections. Since President Trump started his legal war in Iran, the cost of gas and diesel has cost Americans more than $62 billion. Californians alone has cost them over $3 billion, so over $200 per household in California, obviously some a lot more. On the day the conflict in Iran began, the average price of gas in California was $4.64 per gallon. Since then, the average retail price has increased to $5.99 per gallon, increase of $1.35 per gallon. And this is not simply due to market factors, it appears. California's Division of Petroleum Market Oversight has identified a persistent and ongoing gap between branded and unbranded gasoline prices, which my team noticed at our oversight hearing. This is the price between, say, a branded gasoline like Chevron and unbranded gas, so your mom and pop gas station. The difference between branded and unbranded gas in the rest of the country is about $0.05 per gallon. In California, that difference has been a whopping $0.31 per gallon. And that's not right. So what does the Wartime Price Gouging Act do? It simply adds war to a list of emergencies that can activate California's anti-price gouging laws. It doesn't add new consumer protections. It just extends the strong ones we already have to another type of emergency. We know that Californians are struggling with gas and housing and groceries, and we can't control what happens halfway around the world. But we can make sure Californians are protected here at home. A consumer watchdog at our hearing yesterday presented other evidence that, you know, more evidence that we can get into that points to this price gouging effect. And price gouging is wrong, whether it's caused by wildfire, an earthquake, a pandemic, or war. California should not become collateral damage in an international conflict. This bill gives Californians the tools to protect consumers when they need it most. I appreciate the work of the chair and committee staff. I'm happy to accept the committee amendments that clarify the prohibitions and penalties of the person to this price gouging statute will only take effect for war if the Attorney General pines. There is a nexus between the award issue and price increases, and we may get into that more in the Q&A.

Wonderful. Thank you very much, Senator, for the presentation and thank you for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to be heard in support of this bill, you can come forward at this time. There's a microphone right next to Mr. Weber here at the end of the dais. And again, please limit your comment to your name, the organization that you're with and your position, please.

Good morning, Grishina Mojave, your California environmental voters in support. Thank you. Asha Sharma on behalf of Sierra Club California in support. Thank you. Charles Contrabecki, Interns to Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog in support. Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Now we'll take any opposition witnesses. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay, we have two witnesses. Come on down. You can each grab a seat. Your time doesn't begin until you start speaking. And as a reminder, when you have about 30 seconds left between the two of you, I'll give you that visual sign. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Robert Moutry, California Chamber of Commerce. We are regrettably opposed to SB 493. First, I want to be clear, we do not oppose the bill out of any fondness for present foreign wars, whether undeclared or declared. As noted by the senator, California has some of the strongest anti-price gouging laws in the nation, but that exactly is why our concern about over-triggering them is so significant with this bill. As noted by the senator substantively we believe this bill would permit a state of emergency to be declared whenever the United States is in an active operation against any foreign power or even assisting the United Nations A few quick examples we believe that would include have included rather Bosnia under Clinton many engagements and wars under Bush and Obama and many other military actions under Trump. In other words, we are concerned that this would authorize the state of emergency to be declared even when no actual supply emergency exists in California and would permit this on a near ongoing basis. I appreciate the flag of committee amendments to try to tie those things together. I have not reviewed them, but you know, obviously we'll do so as we go. So keeping it short for time, that is our core concern. We view this as over-triggering potentially in situations where California's economy does not need it, though we are sympathetic to the author's goals. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. We believe the bill affects more than gas prices and will and could, notwithstanding the amendment. Obviously, the purpose of price gouging, as you know, is to protect consumers when disasters distort the market in extreme and potentially dangerous ways. Military conflicts, as you know, are different from traditional disasters such as fire, floods and earthquakes, which can immediately threaten California's ability to obtain basic necessities and survive day to day. In the housing context, long-term emergency prices and caps have serious unintended consequences that can discourage owners from making their units available, limit the ability to account for increased operating costs, and further strain an already tight rental market. The proposed amendment requiring the Attorney General to issue a written opinion does not resolve our concerns. It creates a new procedural step without explaining why it's needed, what problems it solves, and how it would improve enforcement. If there's a real and direct connection between war and prices and their increases for specific goods and services, existing emergency authority should be clear enough to address it without requiring a separate attorney general opinion. Relying on the Attorney General's opinion process will politicize what we believe should be a clear legal standard. The scope of Penal Code 396 should not depend upon a discretionary written opinion issued after a war-related emergency is proclaimed. The law should be clear on its face. And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote today. Thank you. Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd also like to be heard in opposition to this bill, please come forward. Name, organization, and position, please. Good morning, Chair and members. Daniela Garcia-Hernandez with the Western States Petroleum Association in opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Jack Yance with Slocke-Liggins Jensen on behalf of California Fuels Convenience Alliance. Opposed? Good morning, Chair and members. Skylar Wanacott on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, and NAOP California in respectful opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Elizabeth Escovella, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition. Thank you. All right. Thank you all very much. Now we'll turn it back to the dais. Mr. Gonzalez, any questions, comments, concerns, coffee orders? No? Okay. Very good. Okay. Very good. There is a lot today. Senator Becker, I only had one question, but if you'd like to address it in your close, that's perfectly fine. you know we heard from opposition witnesses some ongoing concern even in spite of the committee amendment so if there any response that you like the committee to consider I love to hear that in your closing remarks And with that I now give you a chance to close on the matter Yeah, well, thank you. Thanks for the consideration here today. I guess specifically in the opposition concern. I mean, we do feel it's quite clear with the amendments. The bill says that the attorney general has to find a sufficient nexus between the ward home and increases in the prices of these goods or services. So we think that's pretty clear. You know, obviously there's a bit of disagreement. We're happy to, there is a relatively new bill. We're happy to keep talking about that. Obviously the focus has been oil and gas prices. And on that score, I will note that since we introduced this bill, President Trump himself has accused the oil companies of price gouging. And I'm told actually that Adam Schiff, our senator, just the other day has now called on Donald Trump to stick to his promise to investigate price gouging. So it sounds like Senator Schiff is concerned as well. So I think there's sufficient nexus. A consumer watchdog at our event press conference yesterday also presented other evidence that said in 2025, only two weeks where we $1.50 more than the rest of the country in 2024, four weeks this year, already 13 of 25 weeks were $1.50 more than the rest of the country. And also refining price, refining margins have doubled since the war started profit margins. So with that, we will continue to be in conversations here and are sexually asked for an I vote. Well, thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate the work that's been done on the bill so far, including taking the committee amendment. I understand that doesn't address all of the concerns, but I still appreciate the good faith negotiations that you've at least demonstrated to me at this point. And I will just say to the opposition, I've known Mr. Becker for a few years. I understand him to be a very thoughtful and genuine author. And I'm sure that if there is common ground to be found, I take him at his word that he will continue those conversations to attempt to find it. With that said at the appropriate time, I will be recommending an eye as amended for today, but we don't yet have a quorum. So we will let you know the outcome. or you can stick around and watch it all day. We'll be here all day. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Chair. Okay. And colleagues, just for the record, that was our hearing referred to us pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2. We now go back to the bulk of the agenda that remains. I will just note that next in sign-in order is Senator Jones, but I don't see Senator Jones here. So we'll next go with Senator Grayson, who has two bills up. And assuming that Senator Jones does not show up, I then have Senator Weber Pearson next on deck. Senator Grayson, will you be starting with 1056 or 1208? 1056. Perfect. All right. The floor is yours whenever you're ready. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and esteemed members of the committee. Good morning, by the way. And I would like to first thank the committee for their great work in collaboration with my office. The amendments adopted last week reflected the committee's incredible work to move the bill into a better direction for both my sponsors and the opposition. I would also like to thank the opposition for their willingness to work with my office on this very important bill. So I am pleased to present SB 1056, which requires courts to issue protective orders governing the disclosure of sexually explicit material of an adult victim in specified cases. California law mandates strong court oversight over the handling of highly sensitive child sexual abuse material Courts not individual attorneys control the copying and dissemination of such material and disclosure is tightly regulated. While child sexual abuse material is appropriately subject to explicit statutory safeguards, no parallel provision expressly requires similar court supervision when the material depicts or involves adult victims. As a result, safeguards may depend on prosecutorial discretion rather than judicial oversight. Survivors of sexual violence and privacy-based crimes may face a heightened risk of unnecessary copying, transmission, or dissemination of deeply personal material. This undermines a survivor's privacy and public confidence in the judicial system. SB 1056 would extend the proven statutory framework already applied to child sexual abuse material to similarly sensitive material involving adult survivors while preserving defendants' rights to reasonable access necessary to prepare a defense. Specifically, the bill requires courts in specified criminal cases to issue a protective order governing the disclosure of sexually explicit material depicting an adult victim with conditions sufficient to safeguard the victim's privacy, prevent unnecessary copying, and ensure defendants' right to a fair trial and meaningful opportunity to participate in their own defense. Recent amendments further outline the prohibition of disclosure, prohibiting parties from disclosing to any person copies of sexually explicit material depicting an adult victim unless permitted to do so by the protective order. Importantly, the bill also outlines the process for disclosure of materials as is necessary for the preparation of the case, including the defendant. It also provides notification requirements in the instance of any new material for the inclusion of an existing or new protective order. SB 1056 ensures that survivors are afforded meaningful privacy protections through clear and consistent standards. Seeking justice does not have to re-traumatize or expose survivors even further. Every survivor deserves privacy, dignity, and the right to control their own narrative. After me, you'll hear from my support witness, whose case is the impetus for this bill. As a former assembly member who represented Vallejo and a co-founder of a nonprofit serving survivors of violence, I was incredibly moved by their resilience and continued advocacy. In 2015, they became the focus of a shocking case that captured national attention and was later featured in Netflix's America Nightmare documentary. Today, they advocate for trauma-informed policy and survivor-centered practice, and they train law enforcement agencies nationwide in policing. For supporting testimony, I am pleased to introduce to this committee Denise Huskins-Quinn and Erin Quinn, doctors of physical therapy, survivors, authors, and advocates. Through the chair. Thank you, Senator. And you both have four minutes. Thank you for being here today. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and committee members. My name is Denise Huskins-Quinn. 11 years ago, I was kidnapped, drugged, raped, in fear for my life, and unsure if I'd live to see another day. What followed was not only trauma from the crime itself, but trauma from the system that was supposed to protect me. Like many survivors, I made the incredibly difficult decision to come forward. I cooperated fully and entrusted the justice system. and with deeply personal evidence, recordings, private communications, and intimate details of the most terrifying experience of my life, believing it would be handled with care. An added layer of being kidnapped and raped was the assailant's choice to video the violence. He threatened that he would release it on the Internet if I reported to police. He threatened my life and the lives of my loved ones. His intent was to have complete power and control over me, my body, for the rest of my life. Months later, when law enforcement arrested him for a different crime, they reported that he kicked close a laptop when they entered the home that he imprisoned me in, where they also found lotion, a penis pump, and tissue scattered about. That laptop housed the recordings of him raping me. That footage allowed him to violate me over and over again, reliving the violence with each viewing. which is why it was already sickening to learn that he was able to relive it simply by choosing to represent himself. But I accepted that that was his legal right. He also had the power to cross-examine me at the preliminary hearing after watching me give intimate anatomical details of each of the rapes in a courtroom full of strangers, media, and my family. He had access to sensitive information around the case that I did not have access to. He even threatened to play the footage in court, and thankfully there was a protective order in place to prevent him from doing that. But I never imagined that he and his wife, who was working as his paralegal, would be provided copies of that footage, which she was able to have in her home for an extended period of time, unsecured. Knowing it could be copied, shared, or stored without clear limitations, reopened wounds that I had worked for years to heal. It made me question whether participating in the justice system meant permanently surrendering my privacy and, again, my body. That evidence is not just discovery. It is a record of some of the worst moments of people's lives. I believe deeply in due process. I have seen what happens when it fails. But due process and dignity are not in conflict. This bill ensures that when survivors entrust the system with the most intimate record of what happened to them, courts, not chance, set the rules for how that evidence is handled. California already recognizes that when the material involves children, certain evidence is so sensitive it requires clear judicial guardrails. This bill applies that same principle to equally sensitive material involving adult survivors. Coming forward is already difficult. If doing so means potentially losing control over the most personal evidence of what happened indefinitely, that burden becomes heavier still. Judicial oversight ensures that accountability does not come at the cost of dignity. For these reasons, I request your aye vote on SB 1056. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. About 45 seconds. Good morning. My name is Aaron Quinn. I'm here to present on SB 1056. In 2015, a man stalked me and my now wife Denise for over half a year. He later claimed that he was originally targeting me because he believed that I didn't deserve the life I had and he wanted to take away my things. So he attacked us in the middle of the night, took the love of my life, and held her captive for two days and raped her twice while recording it. After Dean Steinward reunited, she told me through deep, visceral sobs of the horror she experienced, I failed to protect her, and I feared she would never heal from such a devastating wound. At the time, the police didn't believe us, and the assailant went on to attack two more families until he was caught months later. Denise healed and demonstrated incredible courage while participating in the criminal proceedings to ensure that this man can no longer harm another innocent life Yet just last year we learned that he was representing himself during a state case and his now ex-wife was provided copies of the footage of the rapes. We knew that he would have access to view them, and in and of itself was hard to accept, but we understood that was his right. Every single person must have due process. However, we believe that there would be more sensitive and protections handling this. And I'm going to pause you right there, sir, but I'm pretty sure you're going to have a question that will allow you to finish that statement at the appropriate time. But thank you both very much for your testimony. If I could ask, I don't know for sure, but we might have an opposition witness. If someone could take that chair at the appropriate time, that'd be great. With that, before we get to questions and more back and forth, if there are other Me Too's who'd like to register a position of support on the bill, please come forward at this time. You can use this microphone right over here by Mr. Weber. And if you're the opposition witnesses, if we have opposition witnesses, you'll be right up after the Me Too. So please be prepared. Bridget Stumpf, on behalf of Valare, proud to support. Thank you. Brad Morrow, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support. Erin Sibiri, on behalf of the California Family Justice Center Network, proudly in support. And thank you to Senator Grayson. Thank you, Senators. Thank you all. Do we have any other support positions? Okay. Do we have opposition witnesses? All right. I see one. Sir, you can come on down, use either seat, and you have a total time of up to four minutes to address the committee. Your time begins whenever you start to speak. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Private Practice and Working Public Defender Offices. We were strongly opposed to the bill as it was originally drafted. We have some remaining concerns that we'd like to continue to engage with the author's office. I do want to thank the author's office and the proponents for lengthy and numerous conversations on this bill throughout the year. I think it's a much better place. Our concerns currently have to do with the obligations of the criminal offense lawyers. We understand the situation and the underlying facts and the tragic facts of this case. But what we are concerned about is what will happen with those criminal offense lawyers who are not representing themselves. And when two things, two situations. One is the bill says that the defense has to notify the court in order to potentially trigger a protective order. It's unclear to us what that procedure and protocol would be for a criminal offense lawyer to notify the court in that instance. and we're concerned that we could accidentally get tripped up, a good faith attorney who's trying to follow the law, who doesn't fit in the fact pattern of the underlying case, what they're going to do. So we want to make sure that procedure and protocol is very specific so that we don't run afoul of the law. The second piece is what happens when there are images that potentially could fit the definition that are in the public domain. Will this now inadvertently put an obligation on criminal offense lawyers anytime they see something in public domain to report it to the court? And so that's a little bit of gray area for us. So we'd like to continue to talk about that going forward, just to make it clear, make it a little bit more workable for the criminal offense lawyers. But again, I really want to thank the committee and the author and the proponents for engaging and working with me and others on this bill. So we'll continue to engage as the bill moves forward. All right. Thank you very much for your testimony, sir. If you'd like to register a Me Too, an opposition position on the bill, please come forward at this time Okay we turn it back to the dais Colleagues if you indulge me I just wanted to give our other witness a chance to finish his statement So if there anything else that you would like the committee to know that you didn't have a chance to present, I'd love to hear it at this time, sir. Yeah, I can finish it. It's only about 30 more seconds. So I find this was unacceptable in digital age, when I believe more sexual assaults will be recorded. So I watched my wife, the mother of my two daughters, was exploited again. And I know that Denise and I know the importance of supporting and protecting survivors as they navigate the legal process, because if they don't feel safe, they will not come forward. And that's precisely why I'm here. I will not fail Denise again. I believe that SB 1056 closes an important privacy gap for survivors by fully preserving constitutional right to due process and their rights to the accused. As someone who has felt both the weight of the government power and the pain of retraumatization, I believe strongly in balance due process must be preserved. Survivors dignity must not be left to chance SB 1056 achieves both. I want to thank Senator Grayson for championing this important issue. Thank you. Thank you both very much. I'll have some comments at the end, but do either of my colleagues who are present have any questions or comments you'd like to make it this time? No? Okay. I will reserve the balance of my comments for the recommendation, but Senator Grayson, this is your chance to close. If there's anything else you'd like the committee to now. I just want to thank the committee for your tremendous work, opposition, for our conversations and our continued work together, and Chair, for being gracious and allowing our witnesses to be able to fully testify. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Well, thank you very much, Senator. And as I said at the beginning, it's always awkward to have to be the one enforcing the rules, but I try to do it as fairly and subtly as I can. I just want to thank you, sir, for bringing the bill forward. You know, I, as a criminal practitioner myself, I prosecuted cases dealing with digital evidence. I think this does fill a gap in existing law. And to your two witnesses, I just want to say thank you for your courage and your bravery for being here. I often say in this committee that we are not defined by what has happened to us, but how we respond to it. And to see your resilience and your strength as you sit here, you're quite literally changing the law. And I applaud you and I thank you for being here. I know there's more work to do, as there always is. You'll have conversations to continue. But, Senator, at the appropriate time when we have a quorum, you will enjoy an aye recommendation. And to the extent that you'd be interested, I'd be happy to come on as a co-author of this bill. Would be very honored. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you, everybody. Colleagues, for the record, that was item number 10. Again, we're waiting on a quorum to have motions taken. Senator Grayson also has item number 15. This is SB 1208. Senator, are you ready to go? I am, sir. All right, the floor is yours. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am proud to present SB 1208, a bill that will empower our law enforcement agencies to seize and return crypto assets to victims of scams and fraud throughout California. Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, we have entered a new era of Internet-enabled crime that is largely perpetrated by transnational criminal organizations. These crimes often originate in Southeast Asia and weaponize our digital platforms to perpetrate scams. over the past five years Californians have reported a cumulative loss of billion That is with a B billion And unfortunately digital assets and crypto are often used as tools to perpetrate this fraud On the other hand, crypto transactions that occur on the blockchain provide an evidentiary trail that allows law enforcement officials to investigate scams, follow the money, and seize the assets from criminal organizations. This bill allows law enforcement agencies to return those seized assets back to fraud victims, even when the assets have been laundered. I appreciate the extensive discussions that we have had with the chair and committee staff, and I am very happy to accept amendments that clarify my intent and to make this bill even better. The amendments maintain protections provided by existing law to prevent civil asset forfeiture from being used in alleged drug crimes. I am very sensitive to those concerns and appreciate the help from the chair, from committee staff, and from the Attorney General's office to ensure that the language in this bill is well crafted to avoid the risk of misuse. Speaking of the AG's office, Attorney General Rob Bonta is the sponsor of this bill, and I appreciate his partnership on such an important issue. So with me today is Anthony Liu from the AG's office to provide support testimony and Jeremy Seymour, Deputy Attorney General, Cybercrime Section, to answer any technical questions through the chair. Thank you very much, Senator. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. You have four minutes to address the committee. And as a reminder, as you get close to 30 seconds remaining, I'll give that visual cue so you have a chance to reach your final thought. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be much shorter than that, Mr. Chair. Members, Anthony Liu, I'm a deputy AG in the Office of Ledge Affairs for AG Rob Bonta, the sponsor of the bill. We want to thank Senator Grayson for authoring SB 1208 and for his demonstrated longtime commitment to combat cryptocurrency fraud and help victims. We also want to thank the chair and the committee staff for working with us to craft a set of amendments that provide appropriate due process protections, focus the scope of the bill, and help reach one of its main objectives, namely to establish an effective way for law enforcement to return already seized digital assets to victims of crypto fraud and crime. As you heard the author describe, the data shows that cryptocurrency fraud is a serious threat to public safety. It's only growing worse, and victims of crypto scams are far too often unable to recover their losses and be made whole again. SB1208 will provide prosecutors with a much-needed tool to seize and return digital financial assets to victims of crypto fraud. At the same time, this also disrupts the ability of scammers to use cryptocurrency for money laundering or engage in other criminal enterprise. The discussions around SB 1208 have improved the bill and ensure this is a focused tool with checks and balances, one that provides appropriate due process for innocent owners or claimants to file a verified claim with the court for the return of the seized property. Under the bill, after all such claims are resolved by final judgment of the court, SB 1208 provides a mechanism for seized digital assets to be distributed on a prorated basis up to the amount of their actual loss that compensate victims of the fraud. Under the bill, any leftover or undistributed assets are then routed to the state restitution fund expense. exclusively for the purpose of providing victim services, but never to the law enforcement agency that initially seized the property. So this bill furthers the public policy goal of attempting everything we can as a legislature to help victims of crypto fraud recover, to try to be made whole again. We should not just give up or assume there's nothing we can do for victims just because crypto scammers are often located outside the jurisdiction of California prosecutors. SB 1208 is one way we can keep fighting for these victims who are our families and neighbors. For these reasons, the AG respectfully requests your aye vote for SB 1208. Thank you. And you have about 90 seconds remaining. Thank you. Good morning, Jeremy Seymour from the Cybercrime section. I'm happy to answer any questions if the committee has any questions regarding the bill. Okay. Thank you both very much. Don't go anywhere because there might be questions. Next, we'll take the me to's if you'd like to be heard in support of the measure come forward name organization and position, please. Good morning tomorrow. So I'm behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and support. Thank you. Chair members Max Perry and the California Police Chief Association also in support. Morning everyone, Brad Morrow on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support. All right, thank you very much. Just final call anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the measure. Okay, do we have opposition witnesses present today? Okay, come on, come on down. I see looks like the two of you. So between the two of you, you both can grab a seat here if you like, and you'll have a combined time to between the two of you have four minutes to address the committee. Oh, I'm sorry. There's three. Okay, so. Sir, with the laptop, are you hoping to testify or simply offer a me too? Perfect. So if you can just stand by right there, we'll take you in just a moment. First, we'll take the four-minute testimony from our opposition witnesses, then you'll be the first one up for me too. So thank you, sir. Whatever you prefer. You can sit and come. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you both. You have four minutes whenever you're ready. Good morning, Chair and members. George Pramper is speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action. We are opposed to SB 1208 unless it is amended to address certain practical and constitutional concerns. The ACLU takes the simple position that if the government wants to take your property, they better be sure you did something wrong. To ensure this, we believe that the government must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt before taking your property. And for the last decade, the legislature has shared this view, generally requiring the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt before property is forfeited to the state. Unfortunately, SB 1208 goes the opposite direction. In cases where a person cannot submit a claim to recover their own property within 30 days, SB 1208 would allow the state to take that property based only on a preponderance of the evidence. To be clear, under this scheme, the state can take your property without ever even charging you for a crime. As noted in the analysis, this raises a whole host of 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment issues. To highlight just one of these issues, imagine that after 31 days, a prosecutor takes a person's crypto and distributes it to the alleged victims. Then, 60 days later, the prosecutor learns of the alleged fraudster's identity and takes him to court, only for that person's case to be dismissed or for them to be acquitted. What happens then? Does the person get their property back? Who is responsible for chasing down those assets? And what legal process should be followed for clawing back those assets from the new owners? These questions and the pages of concerns raised in the analysis can be avoided by sticking to the existing asset forfeiture scheme I end by noting that the issues we are discussing today are the result of a financial asset class that has been advertised as unregulated since its inception. The answer to those problems is the increased regulation of that market, not an after-the-fact scheme that raises constitutional concerns. For these reasons, we urge a no vote. Thank you. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. We do appreciate the amendments. However, after review, we must continue to oppose SB 1208. unless it's amended to provide guardrails to prevent the abuse of the money laundering statute against unbanked indigent individuals. Although the goal of combating transnational fraud and cryptocurrency-based money laundering is well-intentioned, SB 1208 inadvertently creates a tool that could be misused against drug users and low-level drug dealers and others who are unbanked and use cryptocurrency in place of cash. Yes, this is a common thing, resulting in more pretrial detention, greater disparity in plea bargaining, and longer sentences for unintended people. The problem is that the statutory mechanism chosen to address it reaches the conduct far removed from that target and will disproportionately impact economically disadvantaged individuals who do not have access to the banking system and are increasingly using cryptocurrency instead of cash. For the street-level defendant who uses cryptocurrency as a payment substitute, it creates an additional felony charge that has nothing to do with concealment, layering, or the evasion of financial oversight. As public defenders, we represent individuals who are low-level drug dealers who may have made six cryptocurrency payments to a supplier over five days, totaling $5,400. They're using cryptocurrency in place of cash. The cryptocurrency was transferred directly from them to their dealer. No financial institution was used. No concealment structure was employed. There was no layering, no smurfing, no attempt to disguise the origin of the funds. under existing law. Strike that. A parallel concern arises involving sex work, particularly online platforms where digital payments are used for discretion or accessibility rather than concealment. The knowing prong of Section 186.10 sub A, which reaches conduct where the actor knows the funds represent the proceeds of criminal activity, can plausibly reach you. And I'm sorry, that's your time. Thank you. Sorry. Just as a reminder, if you're testifying, I do try to give that 30-second visual cue, but there might be a question to allow you to continue. With that, we're next going to go to the Me Too. So, sir, we'll start with you. If you'd also like to be heard in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Again, your comment should be limited to your name. If you're with an organization, let us know and your position. Hi, my name is Colin Gallagher. I'm just speaking as myself, And I'd like to just kind of say thank you to this gentleman that prior spoke on the issue of some of the constitutional issues with the bill. Thank you, sir. I'm very sorry, but the committee rules for the Me Too testimony only allow us to take – Yeah. So I understand you oppose the bill and you echo his concerns today. Oh, thank you. Okay. Just call on Gallagher speaking in opposition to this bill And I wanted to just call out this little section Sir I really sorry I don mean to be a bear but the rules don allow it So we only take the two witnesses but we will register your position of oppose And perhaps technically there could be a question of you, but for purposes right now, we can't take additional testimony. Oh, there's no additional. Okay. Unfortunately not. All righty then. Well, by both of you, thank you very much. Thank you very much for being here, sir. We have a support. Okay. Come, come forward. We'll take that too. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Part of my tardiness, Rob Wilson, California credit unions here in support of the bill. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And I'm going to do a final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill? Okay. We'll now turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, are there any questions or comments that you'd like to make at this time? No. Okay, then I have just a pair. Well, I guess I have one question for DOJ. I have a comment to make, but for the purposes of the question, I would ask, this is, the opposition witnesses have raised some good points about the unique features of this asset. I think they also raise a very good point that it is a relatively unregulated asset. Could you speak to why you feel in your experience, especially you, sir, heading the e-crime section at DOJ, why the bill is necessary and how existing law is inadequate. If you could walk us through that. Yes, thank you. First of all, I'm not the head of the section, but I appreciate the promotion. I am in the section. That being said, I think one important thing, I was looking at the statistics related to Internet crime and particularly scams. The FBI publishes data every year. And I was looking at 2015. And in 2015, we had scams. They were a problem. There was a lot of Internet crime. About 1% of it was cryptocurrency cases. Now, over half of it involves cryptocurrency, and that is because it is relatively unregulated. It is instantaneous. It is worldwide. It lends itself to the ability for these transnational criminal organizations to reach out into homes, convince people to send money instantaneously, and then it is gone. And so the nature of the technology lends itself to these crimes, which is why they are expanding at the rate that they are. It is also relatively impossible for a state or local agency to reach into a country where there may be local cooperation, where there may be local corruption, and get out a transnational organization to drag an individual back to California to put them in the defendant's chair. And I think that's one part of the issue with the ACLU's position on this particular bill, is the reality is we cannot prosecute these people, not because we cannot prove crimes, but because we cannot get them into court. So we cannot do anything via 186.11 or 186.3, the existing criminal forfeiture statutes that require a criminal conviction. And I think with respect to that, I also wanted to point out that the ACLU's position, I think, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of California law regarding stolen property because it focuses on asset forfeiture, which in California is limited to drug crimes. And in a drug crime, the drugs are the contraband. There is money involved. There is money that is transacted. But the government seizes that as a matter of policy. And so creating a beyond a reasonable doubt standard only hurts the government When you have a stolen property crime that money belonged to a victim of crime It did not belong to a drug dealer It is not being taken by the government from the criminal because it was the criminal's property. It is being taken to return to victims. It originated somewhere. And so when we have a stolen car and we can't prosecute the car thief beyond a reasonable doubt. We don't say, we can't prosecute the car thief beyond a reasonable doubt, but we believe your car is stolen. In fact, it's registered to the victim, but we're going to give it back to the car thief. That is not how California law works regarding stolen property. This statute is entirely consistent with California law regarding stolen property. Existing law has a preponderance of the evidence standard regarding stolen property. That is the way that the government denies the return of stolen property. And in this case, as a result of the amendments that have been made here, these seizures focus on stolen, fungible property. And so I think it is entirely consistent with California law and due process. Well, thank you for the answer. I have absolutely no authority or power to promote you, but I thought you did very well for what it's worth. Just out of fairness, you did invoke the arguments made by the ACLU representative. So in fairness, if there's anything that you'd like the committee to know in response, I'd love to hear that. One thing I would just highlight is that in a lot of these comments, I think we all understand this, is that we're dealing with crimes or assets that are outside the United States' jurisdiction, or especially outside California's jurisdiction. There's nothing we can do to get around that problem. I think inherent to all this is obviously the car example that is inside California. We cannot say the same for these digital assets. The other thing I would mention is that recently Chief Justice Roberts said something along the lines of, the world might have changed, but the Constitution has not changed. I think that is clear here. Again, our position is that if the government wants to take your property, they should be sure that you did something wrong. And while current law might be that in a criminal case it's a preponderous standard, we still believe that the standard should be beyond a reasonable doubt. Okay. Thank you both very much for the back and forth. Colleagues, does that raise any other questions or concerns? Okay, Senator Grayson, this is your chance to close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And please know, as chair and committee members, I don't take this subject lightly at all. With the massive amount of losses that have been taking place, growing in number every year, I have gone through in the past several years multiple informational hearings that involve numerous hours of testimony from FBI to Secret Service to banks to victims, a victim in my own district that has lost over $700,000 of her life savings and now lives without any recovery whatsoever. I just think if we have a way and an opportunity to legally, ethically and rightfully seize digital assets and get that back to the victim, that is one of the most righteous things we can do. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Well, thank you very much, Senator. I will be recommending an aye. And I have a very brief comment I'd like to add to it. I do really appreciate the comments and the testimony provided by the opposition witnesses. I think what ultimately moved me on the issue is that while we can argue that perhaps the standard should be higher, this bill does conform, at least as I understand it, with existing law. Senator, I want to thank you especially because you engaged with this committee in the spirit good faith and collaboration. And we had a lot of back and forth. And I think it's safe to say my recommendation might be a little outside my comfort zone. I know you're a little bit outside yours, but that is exactly how the process should work. And I appreciate your spirit of dialogue. And truly, in the way that I wanted to understand your concerns, you listened to mine and you heard those concerns. And the last thing I would say before I do just, again, reiterate that it's an recommendation. You know, it is often brought to my attention that as chair of this committee, you know, what is the proper role? I would argue as chair of the committee, the role isn't just to run a meeting. Um, and it isn't just to rubber stamp pieces of legislation as the only person on this day is at least to my knowledge, who has actually prosecuted cases. My job is to be the subject matter expert for the assembly and to scrutinize every piece of legislation to improve it where I can and to suggest other routes to maybe pursue in future years. You answered that call. You worked very well with me, sir. And so I appreciate all of that work behind the scenes. I know there's more conversations that still need to be had, but I think that this does safeguard public safety. I think it's a step in the right direction and I will be recommending an aye at the appropriate time. With that, we still don't have a quorum. So thank you very much. We will dispense with items as soon as we have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. Okay, I'm going to read the sign in order, but I will mention Senator Weber Pearson is up next. But these are the authors that I have had signed in so far this morning and will take them in the order in which they appear. We have Senator Jones presenting SB 356. After Senator Weber Pearson, we have Senator Archuleta with two items, SB 907 and SB 1157. We also have seen Senator Blakespear, Senator Cervantes, Senator Ashby, and Senator Grove. So if you'd like to have your bill heard, you can start making your way down to room 126 because after Senator Weber Pearson, I don't see anyone else. Senator, the floor is yours. Thank you, Chair. Good morning. And thank you for the opportunity to present SB 874. I do accept the committee amendments and thank the committee staff and chair for helping us find a path forward in this bill. SB 874 strengthens oversight and standardization of behavioral health treatment services and Medi-Cal. Behavioral health treatment services include applied behavioral sciences, analysis, commonly referred to as ABA treatment, and other behavioral interventions that prevent or reduce behaviors that interfere with learning and social interaction, most commonly for children diagnosed with autism. Recently, utilization of ABA services has grown significantly in both Medi-Cal and the commercial market here in California and across the nation. Some of the growth is by design. By the legislature, we've passed many bills to reduce barriers that family face in accessing ABA services and to ensure that children could access behavioral health treatment early when it can be most beneficial. However, as a result, a referral for behavioral health treatment services is simpler than a referral for many other Medi-Cal specialty services, and many of these providers do not have the same licensing requirements as for most other Medi-Cal services. Also, because not all these providers are licensed health care providers, we also have providers working extensively with children who have not had any background checked as a part of their licensing or certification requirements. The amendments worked out with this committee was specified that the Department of Health Care Services must ensure that all employees of these providers must be provided must be subject to a state and national background check The amendment would also direct a stakeholder group to evaluate the feasibility of an FBI fingerprint background check in the near future and require a report to the legislature on whether any additional changes are required to implement this type of background check. So as of now, SB 874 requires DHCS to take the following actions to evaluate and improve Medi-Cal's behavioral health treatment services, requiring the background check for all employees of BHT providers providing Medi-Cal services, convening a stakeholder work group to advise on standards for BHT services, issue and maintain clear clinical guidance for BHT services based on stakeholder input and federal guidance, and report to the legislature on BHT utilization and recommendations. I respectfully ask for an aye vote, and with me today is Rachel Blutcher, counsel for the California Association for Behavior Analysis. Thank you. Good morning, Taryn members. Rachel Blucher, counsel for the California Association for Behavior Analysis, or CalABA, here in support of SB874. CalABA is the professional membership association representing over 31,000 practitioners of behavior analysis in California. Our members provide behavior analysis services, or ABA services, across a range of settings, including homes, schools, clinics, and community environments. This bill creates a deliberate multi-stakeholder process to evaluate how behavioral health treatment, like applied behavior analysis, is implemented in the Medi-Cal program, specifically looking at credentialing, documentation, and authorization requirements. It also requires a background check for all providers, making this requirement consistent statewide. We recognize the importance of implementing clear and enforceable safety measures within behavioral health services to protect the individuals we serve, particularly children and individuals with disabilities. We appreciate the thoughtful approach that this bill sets forth to ensure that we are protecting individuals receiving ABA services while ensuring appropriate access to care. While they are critical providers in many settings, behavior analysts are not currently licensed in California, so a statewide background check via a licensing body does not exist. While many provider organizations conduct employer background checks, this legislation will ensure there is consistent statewide standard. This legislation will promote employer accountability, strengthen public trust, and most importantly, enhance consumer protection. Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for the presentation and thank you, ma'am, for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, you can use the microphone here by Mr. Weber at this time. Okay, do we have any opposition witnesses here? Okay, is there anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill whatsoever? Okay, we'll turn it back to the dais. unless Dr. Sharp-Collins has any questions or comments, which it doesn't seem to be the case. Senator, I will give you a chance to close if you'd like. Thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 874. Well, thank you, Senator Weber Pearson. I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. I think it is good public policy, and at the appropriate time, it will enjoy the aye recommendation as soon as we establish a quorum. Thank you. So we'll be sure to let you know the outcome. Thank you. Okay. Public service announcement at this time. We have nine members of this committee. If you are not already here, please make your way at your earliest convenience so that we can establish a quorum and start dispensing with our items of business for today We are prepared to proceed as a subcommittee However we in need of Senate authors So I going to read off the following names If you work for one of these senators, if you could please have them come to room 126 so we can hear their bill, that would be appreciated. I am waiting to hear from Senator Jones, Senator Archuleta, Senator Smallwood Cuevas, Senator Blake Spear, Senator Cervantes, Senator Ashby, and Senator Grove. If you're here and would like to have your bill heard, please come to room 126. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me everyone, if I can have your attention please. Thank you very much. I'll let you get back to speaking in one moment. This is a second call out to the senators and Senate leadership. We have a hallway full of people here to talk about a number of bills. We have witnesses that need to catch flight. So I am asking the following authors to please report to room 126. Please report as soon as possible. Senators Jones, Archuleta, Smallwood Cuevas, Blake Spear, Cervantes, Ashby or Jones. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Stern, are you ready to go? Okay, the savior, the lion of the Senate, and Senator Stern, come on down. Thank you very much for being on time. It is appreciated by the committee. Senator Stern, I believe you'll be presenting SB 1266, is that right? I am indeed. Okay, sir. Whenever you're ready, I see you have your witnesses available. And just as a reminder, they will have a combined total time of four minutes to address the committee. And I like to give this visual cue as you approach the 32nd mark so they can finish their final thought. With that, Senator, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, I just want to thank the committee and accept the amendments. The amendments will clarify that the definition of value does not express, does not include the cost of labor, but does clarify it includes equipment that was damaged and destroyed and the taking or carrying away of copper wire. We know there's still questions for some of our cities about exactly how that'll work on the public infrastructure, but we'll stay on that issue going forward. As many of you may know, in L.A., we have many challenges, but keeping the lights on on our streets and having it be safe to be a dad walking your kids at sundown in the middle of the city is increasingly a harrowing experience when you're in the dark and when you look down and you see all the concrete ripped up and all kinds of equipment that I don't even know what it's called strewn everywhere and the lights are off for blocks on end. And we have an issue not just with infrastructure, but we've found an issue with the way the law is written itself that wasn't properly valuing that infrastructure. If you're just assessing, say, the raw scrap value of that theft, it really doesn't account for the full impact it's having not just on our community, but on taxpayers. In our city alone, in Los Angeles, it's costing us over $100 million to do the retrofit. And that's just on the public street lighting, not to mention telecommunications infrastructure, broadband and the like. And so we think that it's time for taxpayers to stop shouldering this bill and that the crime rings that are exploiting this hole in our law need to have that loophole closed. And we think it's going to make a big difference. We know there are a lot of other things that have to happen, too. And so we're excited about infrastructure upgrades and modernization, things like going on solar, getting maybe out of just a single point of failure on our system. But we also need to deal with public safety aspects. So I would respectfully ask for your aye vote to get this additional tool in our tool belt and broad range of support around. But today we have Yolanda Benson and Jolena Voorhees with League of Cities and respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you. Good morning. chair members Yolanda Benson representing US Telecom the broadband Association representing the largest to the very smallest of telecommunication broadband providers We want to thank the author for SB 1266 Our members provide California communities across the state with the connectivity they need to thrive in today's world. SB 1266 is an important bill, not just for telecommunication providers, but important for every California community struggling with adverse impacts and rising repair costs. One of the biggest hindrances to our company's abilities to provide Californians with connectivity they want and need is the pervasive and increasing crisis of copper theft. The most severely impacted area with these crimes is L.A. County. However, the real impact of these thefts, the actual cost to repair, and the cost of downtime can be far more severe than many of us realize. While a single theft may involve only a few hundred dollars worth of copper, sometimes more than that, sometimes it's thousands, downtime, the consequences are much more than that. Even minor theft causes major service disruptions and create repair costs ranging from tens and thousands of millions of dollars for municipalities and telecommunication providers. These thefts can knock out streetlights, disable transit system, and most importantly, disrupt communication services for 911 important calls. Schools, businesses, and residential communities are also impacted severely. We commend Senator Stern for recognizing the seriousness of this growing problem. These crimes have become a crisis in California, and they continue to increase in both frequency and severity. We work regularly with local law enforcement, coordinating efforts with the Attorney General's office, and deploying our own security technology and patrol teams, but this is not enough. We did a study from June 2024 to June 2025, all the telecommunications companies throughout the nation, and what we found for just telecommunication disruption was almost 16,000 incidences. Out of those 16,000, 6,000 happened here in California. Something is wrong. This graph shows you that it's California and every other state is very, very small. Something must change. We ask for your aye vote on SB 1266. Okay. Mr. Chair and members, Juliana Voris on behalf of the League of California Cities, proud to be in support of 1266. As you've heard, metal theft has become a costly issue for cities across California, severely impacting critical infrastructure, such as streetlights, fire hydrants, and electrical vehicle charging stations. and thieves often target public assets due to the high value of precious metal. There are several examples in multiple jurisdictions of metal theft, including very recently, just in June, Monterey County thieves stole in Monterey County $50,000 worth of metal in agricultural operations in that county. Sacramento has had repeated thefts in their transit operations. and in Contra Costa County there was an outage that shut down 9-1 for about a week in 2024. The city of Richmond is spending $5 million to replace all their streetlights because they're all out and downtown. So this is a significant financial burden that mostly falls on taxpayers, local governments and utility providers And we very much appreciate this bill that clarifies the value of the property and addresses this different problem that is causing harm to our constituents and help local governments to repair this infrastructure to ensure our residents have access to vital services. So we urge your support for this bill. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Senator, and to both of you for your testimony today. Next, we'll take the Me Too's in support. Come on down, name, organization, and position, please. Morning, Chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Support. Thank you, Chair and members. Jonathan Aranbroe on behalf of CTIA, the Trade Association for the Wireless Industry, and also filling in on behalf of Cal Broadband, both in support. Thank you. Good morning. Amir Johnson with AT&T in support. Faith Conley with Weidemann Group on behalf of Electrify America in support. Good morning, Tamar Tokat on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support. Good morning, Kelly Macmillan on behalf of the California Water Association in support. Good morning, Brad Morrow on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support. All right, thank you all very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses present today? Okay, seems like we have two. Great, come on down. Oh, thank you all so much for shuffling the chairs there. All right, you two know the drill. Four minutes whenever you're ready. Tell us one more time what the drill is. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition to SB 1266. SB 1266 introduces a novel way of calculating fair market value, creating significant costs for trial courts, public defenders and prosecutors by turning many misdemeanor petty thefts into felony offenses, necessitating full-blown jury trials. We acknowledge that copper theft has been a problem. The problem, however, is not how it's prosecuted against persons accused of stealing the copper, nor is the problem Proposition 47. Rather, the problem is the anemic prosecution of the resellers, the scrap dealers who receive the copper. If there were no market for stolen copper, the conclusion is obvious. The state should be focusing attention on the scrap dealers who deal in obviously stolen property. SB 1266 takes a very unusual step to determine the value of stolen property. The valuation method in this bill that this bill proposes is actually how restitution is calculated. Restitution is not limited to the value of the stolen copper. It can include the cost of repair whatever is reasonable to make the copper owner whole SB 1266 serves to inflate value well beyond the actual value of the stolen property for purposes of filing an allegation by the prosecution we and the California courts reject that the value is as Specified by Calcrim 1801 how much the stolen copper wire would sell for in an open market market, not how much it would sell for at a scrapyard. The effect of changing the definition of value in SB 1266 proposed amendment of penal code section 487J is to inflate numerous and most acts can be prosecuted as misdemeanors turning them into essentially mandatory felonies Such overcharging will lead to many more jury trials with significant attendant costs to courts prosecutors and indigent defense providers. We also note there's another charging mechanism available a violation in Penal Code section 594 vandalism. The threshold value for felony vandalism filing is only $400 versus $950 for the theft crime this bill is trying to amend. If a prosecutor charges vandalism, then the cost of the damage to the property, which is what this bill adds, is already an element of what the prosecution must prove. For these reasons, we request your no vote. Good morning, Chair and members. George Pramthu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition to SB 1266. I agree with the sponsors that copper theft can have disruptive impacts. I also agree with the sponsors that the current system is not preventing these thefts. But the solution is not to simply double down on an ineffective carceral approach. We already criminalize copper theft by an individual or a group. Founding copper theft is punishable after three years in prison. If multiple petty thefts occur in line with one plan, thefts can be aggregated into a felony charge. Moreover, if any of the thefts occur in concert with others, each person is liable for the full sentence under our aiding and abetting statutes. And yet these thefts still happen because criminalization will not solve this problem. SB 1266's approach will convert nearly every copper theft into a felony. These increased punishments will not make victims whole, and as the Federal Department of Justice has noted, this also will not deter future thefts. Unfortunately, we must also keep in mind the fiscal cost of increased incarceration. If a person is sentenced to three years in L.A. County jail under this bill instead of six months under the current law, that will cost L.A. County an extra $225,000. To put that into perspective, that is enough to purchase 50,000 pounds of high-quality copper wire. Instead of throwing millions of dollars into an effective incarceration approach, we encourage the state to invest in something new, such as a licensing regime for recycling companies. For these reasons, we urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any me-tos? Thank you. If you can just state your name or your organization and your position. Good morning, Christopher Dietz on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Marisol Alvarez on behalf of the LA County Public Defender's Office. I oppose. Good morning, Claudia Ceseña with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition. Good morning. Clave Gonzalez on behalf of your California and strong opposition. Thank you. Anyone else? Do we have any betweeners? Okay, hearing and seeing none, I am the member here. I don't have any comments. The only thing that I can say is that there is an I-RECO as proposed to be amended per the chair. With that, would you like to, by closing? Yes, thank you, Assemblymember. I just want to appreciate the testimony of the opposition and just say that we're hoping that we can have some discussions based on the recent amendments to the bill and how that might change the valuation. And I think we also, I wanted to pledge today that I intend to embrace the Gonzalez vehicle moving on the Senate side. And, um, whenever I get a chance to sign on as coauthor to that, because I do think there are systemic issues as well. When you have a $2,000 jackhammer and you're going out in the middle of the night with a crew of four people to do large-scale theft operations, very different than the kind of petty theft, I think, that we were concerned about over-criminalizing in Prop 47. But I think the intent here is really getting at that same systemic issue. So I'll just commit to having some sit downs before, you know, this thing is off to the races and really thinking that through with you. And I also want to just make a commitment that with our friends in the cities, especially on for the public infrastructure projects where there may be some concerns from labor about being devalued, quote unquote. I think those are also resolvable issues, but I did want to sort of state on the record that we're going to keep talking to them as well. But do accept the amendments. Appreciate your aye, RECO, and ask for your aye vote. Thank you. At this time, we do not have a quorum, but once we have a quorum, then we'll go ahead and take up the vote. Thank you so much. Next, we will have Senator Cervantes. You have two bills. Which bill would you like to present first? 1379 or 1418. If I may, Madam Chair, begin with 1379. Okay. And I have my two witnesses joining us as well. Thank you. All right. If I may begin. You can start whenever you're ready. Thank you for allowing me to present Senate Bill 1379, which separates the Riverside County Sheriff and Coroner into independent offices and establishes an independent medical examiner. I've accepted amendments that address employee transition concerns. these amendments ensure affected employees retain their bargaining rights, union representation, seniority, retirement status, compensation, and other employment protections while preserving the bill's core purpose. SB 1379 is a targeted response to a broken system in my home county of Riverside. Its purpose is simple. When someone dies in custody, families and the public deserve an independent investigation, timely answers, and the truth. The need for reform is well documented. A 2024 CalMatters investigation reported that 45 people died in Riverside County jails between January 2021 and 2024, calling them among the state's deadliest jails. A 2025 New York Times investigation found Riverside County jails was the second deadliest in the nation from 2020 to 2023. The current structure creates an inherent conflict of interest. The same department responsible for operating the jail is also responsible for determining the cause of death when someone dies in its custody. The results are alarming. Between 2011 and 2022, Riverside County recorded 226 in-custody deaths. Although Riverside County has about 6% of California's population, it accounted for roughly 10% of the state's in-custody deaths during that period. We also see troubling disparities From 2005 to 2024 43 of those who died in custody were Latino compared to 32 statewide Young adults are also overrepresented with significantly higher shares of deaths among individuals ages 25 to 44 than the state average These are not just statistics. Behind every number is a family waiting for answers that too often never come. Many are left questioning investigative findings and forced to seek justice through the courts. Over the past decade, Riverside County taxpayers have paid nearly $100 million in settlements related to in-custody deaths, a cost that reflects a deeper systemic failure. This issue has been examined by CalMatters, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, while the county has issued its own report asking the county to evaluate the very system under its scrutiny. Quite simply, that is asking the Fox to guard the hen house. Community organizations, including the Riverside Sheriff's Accountability Coalition, have called for structural reform. SB 1379 answers that call by requiring Riverside County to establish an independent medical examiner that separates the sheriff and the coroner functions and improves reporting transparency surrounding in-custody deaths. This is not a radical proposal. It is a proven model. Counties, including Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Ventura, operate independent medical examiner systems, while Fresno, Sacramento, San Mateo have separate sheriff and coroner offices. An independent medical examiner strengthens public trust, it removes conflict of interest, and helps ensure objective medical-informed investigations that can identify systemic failures and help prevent future deaths. We cannot accept the status quo. This bill ensures that when someone dies in custody, their death is not investigated by the same agency responsible for their care. We owe families the truth. We owe our communities transparency and accountability. and we owe taxpayers a system that they can trust. Joining me today to testify is Lisa Matus, the mother of Richard Matus, who tragically died while in custody at the Riverside County Jail. She's also an advocate with the Riverside Accountability Sheriff's Coalition. We also have Dr. Nicholas Shapiro, Associate Professor at UCLA and co-author of audit comparing county audits of sheriff corner structural and operational shortcomings who can answer any technical questions. Are your witnesses here? All right. If your witnesses can make their way, you'll each have two minutes. So four minutes total, right? So you have four minutes total, however you choose to use them. And you're free to start whenever you're ready. Oh, sorry. Hi, my name is Lisa Matus, mother of Richard Matus Jr. I support SB 1379, and supporting the sheriff and coroner is essential for independent death investigation and restoring public trust. It's deeply personal, and it's difficult for me to speak at this time. I respectfully ask if my attorney can say the rest of what I was saying. Yes, that's fine. Thank you. Good morning everyone My name is Denise Gastelum and since 2022 I have represented 14 families who have lost their child their son or daughters within the Riverside County jails I am Lisa Matus attorney but I stand here as her advocate I was also the attorney who was able to cross-examine Sheriff Bianco in February of 2026, just months ago, where I point-blank asked him whether he had any medical training, any forensic training, and he, in no uncertain terms, said no. That is an important testimony under penalty of perjury because the pathologist who conducted the autopsy of Mr. Solis testified that his death was a suicide. Sheriff Bianco called it an accident. And when asked point blank Dr. Pena during this trial what he thought of that, he said it made no sense whatsoever. And I bring this up because this has been a pattern since Sheriff Bianco has entered office. He had entered office in 2019. In 2020, we have Jamal Brown's death, which you all have been apprised of, also was one of Bianco's cover-ups. And we ask that this is an important step to ensure transparency, to ensure accountability, and to ensure that this conflict no longer exists within Riverside. Thank you. You still have two more minutes. Good morning. My name is Nick Shapiro. I'm an associate professor at UCLA with a doctorate in medical anthropology. And for the past six years, I've been studying the medical legal death investigation system here in California. I appear today in support of SB 1379. The public health benefits of this bill extend far beyond the crisis in Riverside's jails. Drug overdose deaths in coroner counties are four times more likely to go unclassified. Coroners misclassify one in six suicides. Forensic pathologists in coroner's offices attest to being pressured to change the causes of death at nearly five times the rate as medical examiners. The most important issue to forensic pathologists is their medical independence. And the clearest path to expanding that independence is to follow the rest of the country, which mostly replaced this outdated sheriff coroner system by the 1990s. From identification of novel infectious diseases to injury prevention in our children, medical examiners outperform sheriff coroners when it comes to public health. And public health is public safety. Last year, colleagues and I requested death records from those who died in Riverside Sheriff's custody from 2011 to 2024. We requested this data both from the Sheriff's Corner office and from the California DOJ. The Riverside Sheriff's Corner identified less than half as many deaths as the California DOJ. They failed to account for 141 deceased people. 141. Not only are some people wholly disappeared from their records, but others are gravely miscounted. For example, Mario Solis, as was mentioned earlier, died in Riverside County Jail in 2022 after repeatedly announcing that he would kill himself with a pencil. That's time. If you would like to just quickly wrap it up. The county has repeatedly failed to rein in this out-of-control system. The state needs to step in. The evidence supports SB 1379 Thank you Thank you so much Okay you guys already lined up All right If you could please state your name the organization and your position I would appreciate that Leslie Caldwell for the California Public Defenders Association in support James King with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Lizzie Bugin with Smart Justice California in support. Shivani Nishar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in strong support. Katarina Sile, Community Works, support. George Pramthu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Shane Levine on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Sheriff Employee Benefits Association of San Bernardino County. Just want to once again reiterate, we have removed our opposition. We are now neutral. I want to thank the author. Thank you. Candace Chavez, Felony Murder Elimination Project, in support. part. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. Do we have any registered opposition that's going to provide testimony? Okay, we have one. Okay. All right, you will have four minutes. Good morning. Thank you for having me. My name is Julia DeLeon. I'm a lieutenant with the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. Before we discuss the merits of the bill, by the way, we're in opposition, before we discuss the merits of the bill, there's a threshold question that we need to address. Why Riverside County? The bill's constitutional justification rests on Riverside County facing a unique problem, but the data does not support that. The data shows that the same trends exist in our neighboring counties and also statewide. It is not unique to Riverside County, so we believe that the author and the sponsors have not met their threshold. the constitutional threshold, singling out and targeting one particular county over the others for this legislation. San Bernardino County, for example, San Diego County, for example, Los Angeles County, for example, as well as the California state prison systems have all seen increases in in-custody deaths. This is not unique to Riverside County. Furthermore, more legislation was passed last year, AB 1108, that addresses this particular issue. We are now in the process of seeking out medical examiners to examine our in custody deaths. This has already been done. This will frustrate that process and force us to either cancel those contracts, those existing contracts, or modify those existing contracts with those outside medical examiners, because we are trying to comply with AB 1108 already. This also overrides local control. Riverside County Board of Supervisors have already addressed this issue last year through an extensive study, and they have concluded that this is not in the best interest of our county, this is not in the best interest of the Sheriff's Office, And the merits of the allegations against us are unfounded. Also, there's an allegation that there was a $100 million settlement, but in the analysis itself, there's also discrepancy to where it mentions $20 million. So is it 100 million or 20 million? We don't know. The author has not presented those facts accurately. So we, based on those reasons, we are in opposition and we request that the committee vote no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Thank you. Just please provide your name, your organization, and your position. Good morning. Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Any betweeners? Okay. Coming back to me, just wanted to give the author the opportunity to respond to some of the things that were stated by the opposition, one being that based on your information, you haven't been able to respond to not meeting the constitutional threshold, but also them saying that this is overriding local control. If you can just clarify a couple of those points for me, I would really appreciate it. There have been many counties who have already shown that this model is proven. I've highlighted those counties in my opening remarks. The data shows why we cannot accept the status quo and we are asking for accountability and transparency and the taxpayers are also asking for the same given the massive amount of settlements that continue to come from the issues that we continue seeing arising out of this current model I'm sorry look like we have someone Thank you. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association. I wanted to thank the author for meeting with us and discussing the bill, and we've been able to remove our opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much for that. I'm going to give you the opportunity to provide closing, but the one thing that I did also want to say is that the chair itself is recommending IRECO. This is something that's also deeply connected to me, something personal to me, as I have lost one of my cousins. I will say his name, Kevin Mills. He passed away while in custody in a San Diego County jail. I'm still looking for answers. And so this is another way of making sure that families are getting the truth. So I'm grateful that you have been able to bring forth this bill. I would like to come on board to support this bill as well as a co-author. And I'll give you the opportunity to close. But once we officially establish quorum, then we'll be able to take up this bill and call for a vote. I give you an opportunity to close. I want to just thank the organizations on the ground who have elevated this issue, who all the families are willing to step up and share their stories, because I know that is difficult, and being able to create the policy change that we need to see. I'm grateful for Lisa Matus, who is here, who has joined us today, all the way from Riverside County to see the change that we need to see and respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. And to your witness, thank you so much for sharing your story. We really do appreciate that. All right. We will move to your next bill. Thank you. Thank you. This is 1418. Thank you for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1418 today. As we know, our election systems in California have been under attack. This is why earlier this year the legislature approved and Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill 73, which bolstered California defenses against interference in our elections in time for the June 2nd statewide primary Senate Bill 1418 is a follow to Senate Bill 73 which is sponsored by the California Attorney General office Attorney General Rob Bonta March of this year, Riverside County Sheriff seized more than 600,000 voted ballots from last year's special election on Proposition 50 from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in a sham investigation driven by extremist conservative conspiracy groups. At the time, existing state law was clear that after the certification of election results, the chain of custody of voted ballots must remain intact even if there is an ongoing investigation, meaning those ballots must remain in the custody of the relevant county registrar. This is to protect evidentiary value of those ballots for future investigations or audits. If the chain of custody is broken, there is no guarantee that the ballots have not been tampered with or altered. They can no longer be used for future litigation or challenges. In response, SB 73 made it a felony to remove voted ballots from the custody of a county registrar. It also provided the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the relevant county registrars with the civil remedy against the seizure of those ballots from county registrars. registrars. However, in April, a group of press organizations, including CalMatters, successfully petitioned a court to unseal the warrant Sheriff Bianco obtained. They found that in addition to voted ballots, those warrants authorized the seizure of other election records from the Riverside County Register of Voters. Unfortunately, these additional records would not be covered by the protections provided under Senate Bill 73. That is where SB 1418 would extend the protections in SB 73 to other forms of election records beyond voted ballots, including voting systems. The same concerns over chain of custody extend to these records as well. The chain of custody must be maintained to protect their evidentiary value for future investigations and audits. The bill will also make it a felony to remove additional forms of election records, including voting systems, from the custody of a county registrar. It would also provide the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and the relevant county registrar with the same civil remedies that was provided under SB 73. This also has an urgency clause added, so once it is signed into law by the governor, its provisions will be in place for the November gubernatorial election and beyond. Here with me to testify is the sponsor of the bill with Attorney General Rob Bonta's office, a witness who can self-identify. Thank you. You have a total of four minutes combined. Good afternoon. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General, here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bontep. We'd like to thank Senator Cervantes for carrying this important piece of legislation. SB 1418 protects sensitive election documents and equipment for being seized and removed from the physical custody of election officials. California law currently provides protections for voted ballots by narrowly limiting their use and by requiring that elections officials always maintain physical custody over the voted ballots. However, election administration increasingly relies on a broader range of records, equipment, and certified voting technologies that may be necessary to investigate allegations of election misconduct, resolve election contests, or preserve evidence during criminal prosecution of an election crime. SB 1418 would address these concerns by extending an existing prohibition in state law or on removing voted ballots from the custody of local election officials to any record or document that must be preserved by election officials under law certified voting technologies and electronic data and any other election material or equipment necessary to conduct an election SB 1418 is an important tool to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes, and for these reasons we respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you. That was it, anyone else? And this is my colleague here to answer questions. Good morning members. Deputy Attorney General Malcolm Brudigam from the government law section, just available to answer any questions about the bill. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to add on as a supporter of the bill? If so, please make your way to the mic. No? Okay. Do we have any opposition? Any registered opposition? All right. Hearing and seeing none. Do we have any betweeners? Okay. All right. I'm going to bring it back to you, Senator, if you would like to go ahead and prepare to provide a closing. I appreciate the support from the Attorney General and his staff and would ask for an aye vote when appropriate. All right. Thank you once again. Once we establish quorum, we will be able to pick up the bill to officially vote on the bill for this particular bill as well. The chair definitely has an aye record as proposed to be amended for the agreement, and we will take it up once we get quorum. Thank you so much. All right. Next, we will have Senator Blakespear. And all right. As we are continuing to move forward, we're still looking for other authors to make their way to the room. All right. So, but I'll call them out shortly. How are you doing, Senator? All right. You were free to start whenever you're ready. And do you mind if I have a prop that we have had at other committees? Thank you. It is approved. Thank you. This is nitrous oxide that you can buy in the convenience store. Okay, thank you, Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present SB 936, and I thank the committee for your hard work. I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments. SB 936 takes a measured approach to address the rise of nitrous oxide misuse in California. Nitrous oxide, which is in this container here, is a colorless, odorless gas with an addictiveness similar to crack cocaine that poses serious public health, safety, and waste management concerns. It's also become a popular recreational drug. Between 2021 and 2023, about 1 in 20 people across the United States reported using nitrous oxide recreationally. and nitrous oxide-related deaths have increased a shocking 578% since 2010. Improper inhalation is known to cause dizziness, impaired brain function, loss of motor control, asphyxia, or death, and repeated exposure has been linked to long-term neurologic damage. While nitrous oxide has legitimate uses in controlled settings, such as in dental offices, bakeries, and automotive shops, use outside of these environments creates significant risks. Large tanks some larger than fire extinguishers are labeled for quote culinary use and widely available through retail shops and online marketplaces often marketed with flavored varieties and branding that appeals to young consumers This one that we have right here is watermelon flavored This is not something your dentist is going to be buying in the liquor store before you go to the dentist. Driving under the influence of nitrous oxide can impair drivers and cause accidents. One such incident in my district involved a father falling asleep behind the wheel after consuming nitrous and crashing into a fence. The father threw a canister of nitrous oxide under his car, grabbed his two children, ages two and four, and fled from the vehicle. These incidences are particularly concerning because nitrous oxide does not appear on traditional breathalyzers or drug tests. It's difficult for law enforcement to detect impairment or enforce current law. That's why they have to find the canisters to know to test for it. In addition, discarded canisters are hazardous and expensive to recycle. Pressurized canisters can explode during collection, damaging equipment and endangering workers. Disposal is also remarkably expensive. This costs $34 to buy, but it costs between $60 and $100 to recycle. And because it's an addictive substance, users aren't using one canister and tossing it. They're going through 20 or 30 at a time, increasing disposal costs exponentially. For example, our local district attorney recently seized two pallets of these canisters from a single location that cost upwards of $300,000 for the agency to dispose of. For all of these reasons, several California counties and cities have already restricted the retail sale of nitrous oxide tanks, including Orange County, which I represent. SB 936 builds on these local efforts by establishing a clear statewide standard. Specifically, SB 936 would prohibit the retail sale of nitrous oxide containers larger than 8 grams while preserving legitimate uses. Importantly, the bill does not ban nitrous oxide outright. It does not affect standard 8-gram whipped cream chargers that are commonly used in coffee shops. SB 936 also does not create new possession crimes. Instead, it focuses on restricting the sale and distribution of high-risk products using civil penalties and regulatory tools rather than criminalization. We've taken a series of amendments to address some of the opposition concerns, moving the bill into the Health and Safety Code and making clear that local governments can continue to adopt and enforce stronger restrictions. By targeting the specific products most commonly associated with misuse, the bill aims to reduce youth access, prevent impaired driving incidents, and protect workers in California's waste management system. With me today in support, I have Mr. James Fontaine, Chief of the Major Narcotics Division with the San Diego District Attorneys. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is James Fontaine. I am the Chief of the Major Narcotics Division at the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. And our District Attorney, Summer Steffen, is a proud co-sponsor of Senate Bill 936. What I'd like to do with the time that I have with you is share with you what we're seeing in San Diego County in terms of the harm. that's being caused in our county, but it's undoubtedly happening throughout the state of California. Those who misuse nitrous oxide, they suffer from a number of possible injuries, including hypoxic brain injuries, nerve damage, degeneration of the spine, and in rare cases, paralysis, and even death. Information that I obtained from our local partners in public health shows that in San Diego County in just the last two years, emergency department visits increased by 400% those visits that are related to nitrous oxide use, those involving spinal cord injuries tripled. And the harm from nitrous oxide is not limited to just the direct users. I examined every adult case that came through our office that was prosecuted between 2015 and 2025, where nitrous oxide was either charged or was meaningfully involved. We had a total of 118 cases. 74 of those cases happened just in 2025. That's 63% of our nitrous oxide cases over a 10-year span happening just last year. And you've heard the case of the father losing consciousness, crashing into the fence and grabbing his two children, ages two and four. The cases go on and on. They include a young man losing control of his car, speeding down a local highway, crashing and ending and taking the life of his 17-year-old passenger to crash on a local freeway that would take the life of both the 19-year-old driver and the 25-year-old police officer who responded to the scene. And the common denominator in so many of the cases I reviewed were these large tanks of flavored nitrous oxide. These are real events with real people suffering significant, sometimes fatal, consequences. SB 936 seeks to intervene before tragedy strikes, and it does that in a measured way. It preserves legitimate medical, dental, industrial, automotive uses for nitrous oxide while focusing on what's causing all the harm, And that's these large volume flavored cylinders being sold out of our smoke shops, convenience stores and online. So we want to thank Senator Blakespear, commend her for her leadership on this issue. We also want to urge respectfully an eye vote from this committee. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. So we have anyone else who would like to add on who was in support. Please state your name, affiliation and your position. Thank you. Thank you. And good morning. Brad Morrow on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you. Good morning. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in strong support. Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Boards of Supervisors of Santa Clara and Santa Barbara counties, as well as the Urban Counties Caucus here in support. Good morning. Lindsay Goulhorn on behalf of the Resource Recovery Coalition of California in support. John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California and also on behalf of the National Stewardship Action Council, proud co-sponsors. Thank you. Hello, Jennifer Levy, California resident, victim, advocate, mother, in strong support. Nice. Susanna Gill, California resident, in support. Good morning, Amy Jenkins on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, proud co-sponsor, and also California Cannabis Operators Association in support. Tulina Boris on behalf of League of California Cities in support, and I was also asked to weigh the support of Californians Against Waste, who are also in support of this bill. Thank you. Good morning, Nadia Mushirian-Bendrup on behalf of San Diego County Sheriff Kelly Martinez in support. Good morning. Zach Flowers with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thank you. Morning, Madam Chair. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association in support, along with the Police Officer Association. It's all listed in the analysis. Sharon Hughes, California Citizen in support. Good morning Tamar Tokat on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney Office in support Jack Worson from Nossman on behalf of the City of Ventura in support Good morning. Dane Hutchings, on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, in support. Good morning. Cassandra Moore, on behalf of the Town of Apple Valley, in support. Noah Melroy, on behalf of Rethink Waste, in support. Thanks. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to register their support? Okay. Do we have any registered opposition? All right. You will have four minutes, and please start whenever you're ready. Morning, Chair and members. George Pramthu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action. Before I get started, can I get a summary of what the amendments were? My main question is if the four infractions are still in the bill. We are opposed to SB 936 unless it is amended to take a regulatory approach. The intent behind SB 936 is to prohibit retailers from selling certain nitrous oxide products. Unfortunately, this bill's approach is to create four new crimes that apply directly to individuals, not retailers. In other words, SB 936 creates new criminal liability for individual consumers for the wrongs committed by businesses. For example, if a retailer sells a consumer a nine-gram container of nitrous oxide, and the individual then gives that container to a friend outside the store, both the business and the consumer may be guilty of a crime under this bill. But in that case, the individual likely would have no way of knowing that their action was illegal. Moreover, they likely would presume that it was legal for them to hand over to a friend something they had just purchased at the store without problems. This concern is true of each of the four new crimes created by SB 936. Somewhat symbolic of this mismatch between the bill's intent and the bill's approach is the fact that the word retailer and distributor appear in the definition section of the bill but are not used anywhere else in the bill. To correct this mismatch, we strongly urge the legislature to amend SB 936 so that it directly regulates businesses. For example, California's approach to regulating flavored tobacco products imposes civil fines and retail license consequences for businesses that fail to comply with the regulatory framework. Whereas most of the sponsor's comments were about retailers, the proper avenue for the intent of SB 936 is direct regulation of those retailers, not criminalization of individuals. For these reasons, we urge a no vote on SB 936 as currently written. Thank you. Thank you. If there's anyone else who would like to also register their opposition, if so, please come to the mic. Okay. Any betweeners? All right. So I will prepare to turn this back over to Senator Blakespear. Would you be able to respond to the opposition's comments in regards to the amendments that they are proposing? Do you mind if my witness takes it? Sure. As I understand, the main point of the opposition is the focus on retailer and the claim that the bill is seeking penalties against persons. And it's my understanding that the persons as drafted includes the retailer, and the licensing provisions obviously include the retailers. It's important that the legislation and the bill actually continue to directly apply to persons, including individuals who would sell or distribute. and the analogy that being given that this should fall in line with how we handle tobacco sales I frankly don feel it respectfully an appropriate analogy The more proper analogy in my opinion is one that we do with alcohol for example If you sell alcohol, for example, in the state of California to a person that you know is already intoxicated, that's a misdemeanor offense, and that goes directly to the person selling and the business can be held responsible for it. Why is that a difference? I think the main difference is because of the immediate risk of harm that nitrous oxide presents. We regulate tobacco sales because of the long-term effects that it may have on our youth. Nitrous oxide is not like that. We have individuals inhaling the first time, getting behind the wheel of a car, crashing and taking a life. We have immediate effects on brain function, nerve function that accumulates over time. This is not in the avenue in the arena of tobacco. We're looking at infractions here, and so it's important. The focus is on retailers, but we shouldn't insulate knowing bad actors who are knowingly selling nitrous oxide to individuals. Thank you. All right. Since there's no other committee members here at this time, that was the question that I wanted to have you clarify based on opposition. Please note that our chair, definitely he has an IRECO as proposed from the amendment. and at this time I will turn it back over to you to provide closing statements. But once we do have a quorum, we will be able to take up the official vote. Okay, thank you. I very much appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill. This is a real problem and threat to individuals, to families, to public safety, and we need to do better, and this is a very reasoned approach. So having the threat of a store losing their license, You know, that's a real threat for them. And so we need to to all parts of this bill to continue. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much. All right. All right. Next, we will have Senator Ashby presenting Senate Bill 1111. Good luck. Thank you. Hi. Oh. You're welcome. Hi. Okay, Senator Ashby, you are able to start whenever you are ready. Thank you so much. You're welcome. I'll give you a moment. I'm old and I can't see, so I have to find my glasses before I can start. Okay. Thank you so much, colleagues. Thanks for having us. We'll try to move through this and keep you going. I know you have a lengthy agenda today. I am here to present SB 1111. This is an Artificial Intelligence Abuse Protection Act. Since 2019, the creation of artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes has risen by over 500%. About 98% of these deepfakes consist of AI-generated pornography, and over 9,500 websites have been found with such content. Of the deepfake videos found on these sites over 95 feature women who did not consent to their creation The lack of a comprehensive legal framework to address the non creation of deep fake content is dangerous and it leaves victims with no remedy SB 1111 establishes violations in the right of publicity law and false impersonation law to create clear legal standing for victims and hold AI users accountable. The bill expands liability for a very specific set of instances when someone uses another person's voice or likeness to create a digital replica without their consent. SB 1111 is sponsored by Paris Hilton's 1111 Media Company and supported by SAG-AFTRA, the California Federation of Labor Unions and Common Sense Media, among others. They have with me today some incredible testimony. Amanda Simmons, special education and school injury lawyer, and Lusan Bouchard, a student and advocate, will share her story with you today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. So you guys will have a total of four minutes combined. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Amanda Simmons. I'm a special education and school injury lawyer in Orange County, California. A growing part of my practice is something I never trained for and never wanted, representing students and children whose faces have been stolen, digitally undressed, and turned into sexual images that follow them through school and online. I stand in strong support of SB 1111. I want you to know what it is like to sit across from a student and her parents and tell them that the law is not yet built for what happened to her. I see this happen far too often, and the harm is devastating. Research reported by California's own Department of Justice found that 93% of victims suffered significant emotional distress, and more than half had suicidal thoughts after these images were shared. When that student comes to me, I am left stitching together a remedy from statutes written for a world that no longer exists. The cause of action don't quite fit together, the guidance is unclear, and every hour I spend arguing about whether the law even applies is an hour that child waits for justice that may never come. SB 111 fills that gap. It makes clear that a person's voice or likeness includes a digital replica under California's right of publicity law and that using a digital replica to impersonate someone is false impersonation under our criminal code. It gives these students clear legal standing, real remedies, and offenders' clear accountability. Our children cannot wait for the technology to slow down. The law has to catch up now. I respectfully urge your aye vote on this issue. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Luis on Bishada and I'm a freshman at Miracosa High School in Manhattan Beach. It happened in November during my last year of middle school. I was in my bed around 10 p.m. when one of my friends texted me, sending a video recording of a fake TikTok account that was named Manhattan Beach Middle School Sexy Girls. The video generated by an AI was showing me with a male sex in my mouth. As I kept watching the rest of the video, my feelings were pure anger. I saw that 50 people had already viewed the video and I knew that the number would increase overnight. Afterwards, I sent a direct message. to the account begging them to remove the video. The owner refused, saying that everyone at the school would find it funny. I didn't know what to do. I felt alone. I could have talked to my parents, but I was so humiliated that I didn't want them to see me with the male sex in my mouth, even if it was fake. I texted my two older brothers for advice. I was terrified to go to school and have to face laughter. I barely slept that night, and when I woke up, my parents were already gone for work. I felt alone once again. I checked one more time to see how many people had viewed the video, and it had tripled. I started to cry. When I arrived at school, my friends asked me if I was okay. I didn't know what to say, and I didn't want to cry in front of everyone. I spent the day with my hood over my head to feel safe, and I felt embarrassed, feeling eyes all over me. My heart dropped when I walked into the locker room for PE. Everyone was talking about it. The owners of the account were taking pride of what they did motioning oral sex to me in front of everyone I didn't go see the counselor because I didn't want any adult to be involved and look like a snitch When I got home, I was exhausted, but I took the courage to talk to my dad after feeling ashamed I suddenly felt relieved all this happened more than a year ago But to me it still feels like it's going on maybe because no one has been punished I don't know how many people have seen that video and how many people still have the video but I'm scared that one day the video will come back to me. The only thing I know is that I want to help and use my terrible experience to make sure no other kids will have to go through the same pain and same emotional distress as I went through. Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing your story. I'm very sorry that that happened to you. Do we have anyone else who would like to add on in support? If so, please make your way to the mic. Thank you. Please be sure to state your name, your affiliation, and your position. Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of the Chamber of Progress and Support. Good morning, Elmer Lizardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions and Support. Thank you. Do we have any registered opposition? Okay, any betweeners? All right, thank you. The chair has an eye record for this bill to be moving forward. Once we establish full quorum, we will take up the bill at that particular time. But I would like to give you the opportunity to close. And once again, just thank your witnesses for being here and sharing your overall story. And I'll turn it back over to you to be able to provide closing remarks. Thank you. Thank you for chairing as well. Thank you, everyone, for hearing us out. Obviously, extraordinary, compelling testimony here from a young woman who should have no reason to be in this Capitol with us over the summer break. She should have no reason to share this story. She did nothing to deserve to have to stand in this spotlight. And yet here she is bravely using what happened to her to try to protect another generation of young girls, our daughters. And I appreciate her. And I hope she understands the power and strength of her voice in this moment. And I thank Paris Hilton for engaging this group of young women and bringing them along to stand up for each other. At the right time, I hope that I will receive the aye vote of members of this committee. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. All right We will now be moving to Senator Umberg to hear Senate Bill 884 Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks also to Chair Schultz and Ms. Mary Kennedy. Just when you thought you could leave, they pulled you back in. What this bill does is this bill is designed to protect the integrity of our elections. Specifically, it's designed to address the issue of law enforcement in polling places. It's amazing that this experience has come full circle for me. The catalyst for me to first run for office way back in 1990 was an event that happened in 1988 in polling places in the district I now represent where people were dressed as police officers that were placed there for the purpose of intimidating, in particular, Latinos exercising their right to vote with big signs saying non-citizens may not vote and asking for proof of citizenship. that so incensed me that I decided to run against the person who was the beneficiary of that effort and ultimately won that election by a narrow margin. And here we are today where the President of the United States is threatening to interfere with our election. So this simply says that, for example, that within 100 feet of polling place, that law enforcement can only be there for very certain specified purposes. and it also allows the county supervisors to expand that space to 200 yards if necessary, or 200 feet, rather, if necessary, and it expands voting hours. The president has threatened mail delivery. It also allows for, as the Supreme Court now has indicated, for counting of votes after the election day, but it may also expand those number of days if the president continues to decide to interfere with our election. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. I am my witness, and that's it. All right. Is there anyone else who would like to register their support? If so, please come to the microphone. State your name, affiliation, and your position. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support. Kelly Brooks on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in support. Omar Lizardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. Do we have any registered opposition? Yes, we're on opposition. Did you want registered opposition? Yes. Okay. All right. You will have four minutes. Start whenever you're ready. Thank you. Chair and member. Yeah, one and one. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association and very respectful opposition. understanding the goal of the bill. I think we still have some concerns about limitations on legitimate police enforcement in and around the polling sites. I think there's also concerns about how this proposes to create an interaction between state and local law enforcement and federal officers in these situations We expressed those concerns to the author office We continue to work with him and his staff over the coming months to make sure that the goals set by this bill are achieved but in a way that doesn't jeopardize some of the law enforcement operations we're concerned about. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to register their position? If so, name affiliation and position. Good morning. Usha Machler on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association. Respectful opposition. Thank you. Support. I'm sorry. Can you come back and say that one more time, please? Calico with the California Community Foundation in support. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to register their opposition? Any betweeners? Okay. I'm just going to bring it back over to Senator Umberg. But one quick question is just, would you be able to continue to respond to the concerns from opposition regarding the limitation concerns, but also how you are working with them to find some type of common ground? So and I have deep respect for the chiefs as well as the sheriffs. And I understand their concern. This puts law enforcement in a delicate place because here we are where we've got someone who's threatened our elections. We even have a sheriff in California who's seized ballots, what I believe is the flimsiest of evidence, who's demonstrated that they will and can interfere with elections. And so this law is designed to preclude that. I have confidence in our state and local law enforcement officials in terms of being able to execute the law that they will continue to keep. So, for example, if there's a violent crime committed within 100 feet of a polling place, they certainly can go in and arrest the perpetrator. But we also want reports, and we want to know if there's federal officials that are intimidating voters. By the way, just their very presence might do so. So we want to know about that. I will continue to work with the chiefs to see if we can't fashion some way to thread this needle where I believe that they also don't want any interference in the polling place. and try to arrive at some solution, but for now, I would urge an aye vote. Thank you. Once we establish quorum, we will be able to take up the official vote for this particular bill. Please note that the chair is an aye record, but once we get quorum, then we'll be able to take up the official vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for presenting. Thank you all. Thanks. Thanks so much. Sorry we came up. All right. We are still calling out authors. Can I see this? If you are anyone that's from Senator Smallwood Cuevas office, Archuleta's office, and Grove's office, and Jones, please make your way to Assembly Public Safety. And Araguin. If you're there, and Perez, if you are there, please make your way to Assembly Public Safety. All right thank you very much Assembly Member for chairing the committee while I had to present not one but two committees at a busy time of year My understanding is Senator Archuleta is in the hallway. If Senator Archuleta could please make his way in, we have business to tend to. Additionally, the following senators have not checked in. We've had no contact with them today. please send a representative now or we will gavel down. I need Senators Araguin, Senator Perez and Senator Allen. Please make your way to room 126. Additionally, aside from Senator Archuleta, who I just happened to see, we need Senators Jones, Smallwood Cuevas, Grove, and that's it. Please make your way to room 126. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Archuleta. I'll give you a minute to get seated, but thank you very much for coming. As a reminder, if you are a senator with a matter in public safety and you're not here, I am prepared to gavel down if your item is not presented. Please come to room 126. With that said, Senator Archuleta, thank you for being here. I know you have two items up. Would you like to begin with 907 or 1157? I'm going to go ahead and start with the 1157. Okay. 1157 first. Come on down. Sir, I know you know the drill, but just as a reminder, because I've been away. After you present, witnesses and support will have four minutes to address the committee. This is the visual cue that I give when you have about 30 seconds remaining. There will be four minutes for opposition witnesses as well. And one more time, for the Me Too's, your comments should be limited to your name, organization that you're with, and position. Senator, the floor is yours on Senate Bill 1157. This is item 13, Mr. Lackey. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate all the Assembly members that are here and committee members and staff. Thank you so very much for giving me the opportunity to present my Bill 1157, which requires a court, when determining whether to place a ward, that's a young individual, award in a less restrictive program. The less restrictive program that includes congregate residential care to consider specified information provided by probation. Senate Bill 1157 also requires program providers to provide information to the probation department for proposed propositions and issues pertaining and providing. information to the court so the court can make a decision. The court will then state on record why a ward was or was not placed in a less restrictive program, which sometimes provides a new way of life for these young people. And sometimes it's a door opener for transition into society. California made a significant policy shift in closing the Department of juvenile justice, when the state closed the Division of Juvenile Justice in 2020, the responsibility for the most serious and violent youthful offenders shifted to the counties. As part of the transition, the state created what is known as the Less Restrictive Programs or Community-Based Replacements. These programs were intended to serve as a step-down options within a youth court-ordered baseline detention term, representing the final portion of their custody time that would otherwise be served in a secure setting. Despite the establishment of less restrictive placements as an option for courts to consider upon progress of the youth, statute does not establish rules or framework when the program is for residential settings. The current system has resulted in significant program offerings, administrative violations, and variations across counties, creating fiscal and service delivery inconsistencies, and giving rise to the program integrity and public safety concerns. Because of these programs as part of the term of the secure detention and not as part of a post jurisdiction or release, it is crucial in courts to consider information provided by probation when determining placements. Senate Bill 1157 is sponsored by the Chief Probation Officers of California. With today, I have with me the California Police Officers President, Chief Elsa Cruz and Jeff Neal on behalf of the Costa County County. And with that, I respectfully ask for your approval. Thank you, Senator. Whoever would like to begin, between the two of you, you have four minutes. Perfect. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Chief Issa Eamon Kraus, President of the Chief Probation Officers of California and Chief Probation Officer in Contra Costa County. CPOC is proud to sponsor SB 1157. When the state closed the Division of Juvenile Justice, responsibility for our most serious and violent justice-involved youth and young adults shifted fully to counties. Essentially, less restrictive programs, or LRPs, were intended to build in an optional piece of the continuum of custody for certain youth committed to county-run, secure youth treatment facilities who have been determined by the court to have shown substantial progress toward their rehabilitative goals. It's important to note that these youth are still in their custodial term when being transitioned to an LRP. They are not released from their custody time. It is imperative that LRPs are safe for the youth, the staff, and the communities in which they are located. It's also important to note what this bill does not do. It does not limit judicial discretion for placement in congregate residential facilities, and it does not limit options for LRP placements before the court. This bill does however ensure that judges have important safety and accountability information regarding LRPs when making these determinations As someone who has worked with this population for more than 25 years I know these types of additional programming can be tremendously useful and beneficial for our youth in the justice system, but only when they meet the needs of those youth and when they are ready to begin this type of program. However, the law currently has no framework to protect the youth where new residential options are emerging. No licensing, no inspections, no background check requirements, no consistent standards, and no oversight. This bill seeks to build workable guardrails where we've already built the off-ramps. SB 1157 provides the infrastructure California is missing so that judges, who ultimately will be making decisions regarding the use of LRPs for youth and young adults still under the court's discretion, can make these determinations informed by necessary safety and accountability information. We respectfully ask for your aye vote today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. I'm Jeff Neal, representing the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, pleased to support SB 1157, a bill that would direct courts to consider basic minimum factors when placing youths in less restrictive programs. It would be unthinkable for county public safety staff who are working with and serving vulnerable youth not to undergo background checks. We think it's important for the courts to consider before they place youth in less restrictive placements that they consider, have the staff there had background checks? Is there a plan for keeping the youth moving toward their goals, adhering to the case plans? Um, as, as the chief said, youth who are in the LRPs are still in the custody, um, of the, uh, court ordered detention. And so it's important that there's a framework in place to set the programming expectations, to set safety considerations, to address liability concerns, both for the youth and for the county and for the communities that the youth are in. Um, you know, LRPs are new, uh, but they're an important piece of the juvenile justice system. We need to make sure that they are serving the youth, that the youth are safe when they're placed there. That's why the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is very happy to support SB 1157. We thank Senator Archuleta for bringing the bill forward. All right. Thank you for the presentation, Senator. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to register a support position, please come forward at this time. Serena Scott on behalf of the League of California cities in support. Thank you. Thank you. Just doing a final call. Anyone else here in support? Okay. Are there opposition witnesses to this bill? Okay. I see two and we have two chairs right here. So come on down. Once you begin to speak, you'll have four minutes to address the committee. You can go in whichever order that you'd like. Good morning, Chair Schultz and members. Heather Rogers, Chief Public Defender of Santa Cruz County, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the California Youth Defender Center. We respectfully oppose SB 1157. SB 1157 creates uncertainty, confusion, and delay. For the youth at the center of this bill that means continued incarceration And keeping a young person locked up after they earned a community placement is not neutral It is harm. Current law gives the court a coherent framework centered on the youth. Has this young person made sufficient progress, and does this placement continue rehabilitation while protecting our community? This bill injects uncertainty. It gives the court information about things like insurance and rate structure, but it doesn't tell the judge why it matters, what to do with it, or how it fits into the ultimate decision. Uncertainty leads to confusion. Prosecutors, defenders, and judges are trained to assess facts within a legal framework. Take a routine bail hearing. The law tells us the factors and how to weigh them. SB 1157 provides no framework. The bill hands the court a list of regulatory facts and asks the judge to decide what they mean. That is not the court's job, and there is no one in the courtroom who has the tools to help them do it. Confusion leads to delay. The court will want more information, more briefing, and more hearings to fill in these blanks. And while we litigate, a young person who has earned a less restrictive program will remain in the most restrictive one. Uncertainty, confusion, and delay are not neutral. They mean continued incarceration. Not because a young person has failed to earn release, but because lawmakers placed a bureaucratic barrier between the youth and freedom. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Good afternoon, Chair Schultz and committee members. My name is Katie Bliss. I'm the directing advocate for the Pathways to Higher Education Project at Youth Law Center. I'm here today in respectful opposition to 1157. My comments are grounded in my work partnering with the California community colleges over the last decade to expand higher education opportunities for justice-impacted youth across California. And as you know, over the last several years, California has made significant investment in higher education as a pathway out of the juvenile justice system and instead into higher education through programs like Rising Scholars, Project Rebound, Underground Scholars. Together, these programs bring college into juvenile justice facilities while creating pathways for young people to transition from confinement to college campuses. This is a cornerstone of juvenile justice realignment and its changing lives. But the continued success of this approach depends in part on the community-based options where students can live while they pursue their higher education goals. This bill puts at risk that incredible progress specifically establishes a fragmented and inconsistent gatekeeping process that will disrupt the availability of less restrictive programs and lead to more youth staying in facilities that otherwise could be building productive lives on college campuses. What is really needed is a comprehensive statewide oversight approach to ensure that these programs are high quality and meet the needs of our young people. The Youth Law Center would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the legislator on such an approach. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to vote no on this proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you both for your testimony. Next we take the Me Too in opposition Please come down at this time Good morning Chair and members of the committee Esplan Nunez on behalf of the Anti Coalition Opposed Thank you Morning, Ariana Montez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition. Good morning, Marisol Alvarez, Deputy Public Defender of L.A. County on behalf of Local 148 L.A. Public Defenders Union. I oppose. Katarina Sayeli, Community Works, in opposition. Christopher Dietz, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defenders Office, in opposition. George Bramthu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in respect of opposition. Thank you. Leslie Caldwell-Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association, also in opposition. Nedrick Miller, all of us in North Sacramento, strong opposition, also Project Rebound. Good afternoon, Chantal Johnson, directing advocate for Youth Law Center. I'm here on behalf of 36 community organizations who weren't able to make it here today, also in strong opposition. Thank you. Okay, anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? All right, we'll turn it back to the dais. Before I go to Assemblymember Harabitian, Senator, I just want to confirm, on the record, are you accepting the committee amendments? Yes, I'll accept the committee amendments, and I'll go ahead and add a little bit when we're ready to close. Thank you so much. Assemblymember Harabitian, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you, Senator. Always good to see you here in this committee. Thank you for the bill. Most of it I don't have any questions about, but I do have questions about two things, the background checks and the proof of notice. And I don't, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if your amendments solved either of these. So if they do, please cut me off. On the background checks, totally understand on its face why it makes sense. I think that many of these LRPs obviously are hiring folks on their staff that are formerly incarcerated because of their lived experience, because they themselves may have been through similar programs, and we want that. So can you explain to me how would the background check interact with the real consequence and the real-life situations of many of these programs are employing formerly incarcerated folks that might not pass these background checks, which would mean that the LRPs wouldn't be able to maybe function? Is that the intent of the bill, or is there some work around there that the background check process could account for this and allow the LRPs to continue to hire staff with that lived experience? Let me elaborate on the entire situation here. I don't know if any of you have ever been to one of these homes, and I'll call it a home, not a house, but a home, that is supposed to be there for these young youths. I went to one in Los Angeles, a good one, one that I believe is a model. They had adequate air conditioning, adequate ventilation everywhere. They had a beautiful, large kitchen. It had a recreation area. And they had the counselors that were formerly incarcerated. But to a degree that their crimes were not of murder, they were not felonies, but there were those who, yes, were in the system and were acting as counselors. In other words, I've been there. Don't do what I've done. Let me help you along. That was the spirit. And I also saw the fact that they were transported to schools, to colleges. They were literally shown how to... I turn their pants, work in that kitchen, and prepare to go out back into society. This is what it's all about. So the background is necessary for the probation department, the judge, and everyone to say, hmm, I think this guy would be a good counselor and who could be one of example. I don't think this one can, but this one could. And also the background goes on the proprietor, the owner of that home. Who is that individual? This is what this is doing. It's allowing the courts to know who is running that establishment, and we'll call it an establishment, to be able to make sure that they take in the number of young men and women. would be a house for women, another one would be for males. And would they be 12, 14-year-olds mixed in with the 21, 22-year-olds? You know, let's analyze what would be good for the ward. That's what this is all about. It gives the county the sense that they are fulfilling their requirements to take that young person from formerly incarcerated into a setting that will open up doors to bring them back into society, whether it's through high school, college, whatever it is, but to have people there that will keep them in mind to be the priority that they should be and to have a good, reliable location. Well, how about we put one in your backyard. Should we check with the city? Would that be okay? Should we check with the county? I think that would be a good thing, so there wouldn't be repercussions from the community. I think it would be a good thing to make sure that we go down and register this young person to the college and go with them, and rather than just let them fly on their own. Supervision is important because, again, they're still under the umbrella of the county, but let's make sure It's well done. The setting that I went to, there was some that wanted to become chefs. They had the kitchen. They had the people. They had the volunteers coming in and showing them how they can do that. And then they would go into Homeboy Society, the Homeboy Organization that helps these people. They had different entities. I was very, very impressed. And then I saw others that were looking to be part of the program. So there will be people that will not meet the standards of the county, the probation, and the courts, no doubt. But there will be many, many others that will. But with guidelines to help these young men and women open up the door, finish their term, and get back into society. That's what this is about. So having a background, again, of the degree of those counselors, a background of the proprietor, it's important. and to make sure that it's a good, healthy setting that these people are taken care of and not just thrown out there. So that's so important. So when they do come out, they know how to react of the freedom that they now have. That's what it's all about. It's just good supervision and good accountability. They deserve it. We deserve to give them the best we can. Appreciate that. Thank you. I do not disagree with the spirit of what you're saying. I think that obviously ensuring that individuals working with the LRPs are qualified and creating a safe environment for the youth is paramount And I just think that sometimes qualifications are in the eye of the beholder And I do think that this background check will have an unintended consequence of excluding certain LRPs or certain staff within the LRP from being able to work within these settings And in my experience, you cited Homeboy Industries, ARC, who's here. Most of these organizations, the majority of their staff are formerly incarcerated. And the LRPs have hired them and have employed them for years, and they've done incredible work. And I do worry that this process would functionally eliminate many of those folks from being able to provide the services. and if anyone had any experience with drug rehabilitation facilities, substance use disorder programs, it's rare when you see folks working there that didn't go through those programs because they have so much knowledge. And I think that is, in some ways, the unique beauty of these programs. And so I don't want that you—I understand what you're trying to get at, but I think that this provision has some unintended problematic consequences. And I trust you to work with opposition to see if we can figure this out. I'm not going to hold up the bill today, but before it comes to the floor, I would like you to consider that a bit more because I am a little concerned what you said, which is probation might not allow for certain people. That in and of itself is problematic because I'm not sure who gets to make that decision. I defer to the chair and folks that are much more experienced than me, but I'm not sure if we want to set a rule that probation gets to make the hiring decisions of LRPs. And I effectively think that the bill would cause that. The second is the public notice. As you know, as the opposition noted, and I think that some of the testifying opposition did as well on the Me Too's, many of the youth who are trying to go into these programs are trying to escape situations, whether it be a gang or other situations, where public notice could be very, very detrimental. If there's a public note, if there is a notice that is then public record of, for example, a gang member trying to go into one of these programs, that could put many people's lives in risk, including the youth. So is there any way that we can address that? I understand the notice point, but I'm worried again about this unintended consequences of outing someone who is trying to better their lives. And that's that's what these programs are for. I don't think there's any question about confidentiality. It will be there. The thing is, is that we're trying to do that. And we're talking about going back to the background check. It's the court that is going to make the decision. Always the court, not the probation department. But just to have an idea for someone to open up the file and see which one of the counselors that are going to be there. And if there's 10 applicants, well, maybe the seven that are needed are the less of the crimes, perhaps. Or if they're looking for more with someone with rehab, that they have a history of drug abuse that now has been cured, maybe that's one. But it's an evaluation of the staff. And the idea is to provide the best setting for these wards that we possibly can do. Right. Sorry. This public notice is actually about the youth who are entering into the to the programs themselves. So my concern, I understand the point you're making is to the first question. The second point was the notice provision for the youth entering the programs. And what I concerned about and maybe your witnesses or opposition can speak to it that this requirement will put into public record identities of individuals that we would rather not have that And I see your witness kind of shaking her head, so I'll defer to the author. But I just want to hear how are we accounting for this, and is this a concern? So it isn't about announcing the young people going in. It's just about the development of the LRPs in a community. So it would be about the LRP itself letting the county and the city know that it was establishing essentially a footprint in that community because that's something that we do think that the community should have the ability to know that those locations are in their neighborhoods. Okay, so there is no requirement. It's not about the young people getting noticed. I see. I thought I had read in the bill that there would be a requirement of public notice for anyone actually applying or entering into the program. No, confidentiality. Okay. Well, my mistake then. But I appreciate it. On the first point, I do think that I trust the author. I do think that there's a middle ground here and a way to hopefully account for this, but I appreciate you hearing me on that, and I'll defer back to the chair. Thank you. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? The only, I guess, question I'm going to pose to the opposition, and then I'm going to give you the chance to close, sir. To the opposition, to the points that were raised by Mr. Harbidion, is there anything that you'd like to add or that you think the committee should know? I would. Thank you so much, Chair Schultz. This is really a situation where we have a mismatch between the mechanism and the intent. A judicial hearing, an adversarial proceeding, is not a place to flesh out a regulatory framework. And so I appreciate so much the author's intent, and I believe that the groups I represent here agree with the intent. This just isn't the way to do it. And so asking judges who decide individual cases about individual people to put the bones on a checklist of operational factors is going to create delay in our courtroom, the uncertainty, the confusion. And that is unfortunately going to lead to a young person staying in an incredibly restrictive setting when they've earned a step down to something different, which is what they need to to heal and come home. Thank you, Senator. I'm going to give you in a moment the chance to respond. And if you have anything in response to what we just heard, I'd love to hear it before. Before I do, though, I do want to make just one comment. I understand there were some concerns raised by the anti recidivism coalition. amongst others, and Mr. Harvidian spoke to them on some of those points. In fairness to Senator Archuleta, those concerns did not come to the committee's attention until yesterday. So if it moves out of committee today, Senator, I have always found you to be an incredibly thoughtful and genuine legislator. Can you commit to committee to at least having those conversations, hearing them out, and perhaps exploring if there's some common ground to be found? Most definitely. This has never happened before, where we've opened up this door and realized that this is actually happening, where people are into our care without any restrictions, without any investigation, without any look-see of the adequate facilities. That's what we're opening that up. And my intention as far as background was primarily the owner of the property and the proprietor of that particular setting. That was my intention. The confidentiality of the wards in there that was never an issue with me because they should be confidential But the idea that it there that the city or the county should have an accountability And finally, it is the court who's going to make the decision upon the recommendation of the district attorney, about the prosecutor, everyone, whoever's involved in the case. The court will always have that ability. So I am willing to continue working on it as it moves on to the next level. Thank you very much, Senator. And just to be clear, this is your close. Is there anything else you'd like to add? And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Well, very good. Thank you, Senator. Colleagues, I do recommend denying. I appreciate the senator and take him at his word that he'll continue those conversations. And to anyone who raised, I think, fairly rightful concerns, but maybe came in a little late for this committee, Please engage with the Senator's office. He's very open and collaborative and like Assemblymember Harvidian. I'll be looking at the final product when it gets to the floor, but I want to give you that chance to have that conversation, sir. So before we take a motion, I actually see that we now have a quorum. Madam Secretary, would you please conduct the roll? Not the motion, but the roll. Schultz. Alanis. Mark Gonzalez. Haney. Harvidian. Lackey. Here. Nguyen. Ramos. Sharp Collins. Here. Okay, we do have a quorum present, thanks to the members who were able to make it. Now would be the appropriate time for a motion. So moved. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Harvidian and a second by Lackey. Again, the chair recommendation is an aye. Let's conduct the roll. For item 13, SB 1157 by Senator Archuleta, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Haney. Harbidion. Harbidion, aye. Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen. Ramos. Sharp-Collins. Sharp-Collins not voting. Okay, that measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome, Senator. Thank you everyone for being here on SB 1157. Senator, as you gear up and have your witnesses come forward on 907, with your permission, I'd like to just dispense with the consent calendar since I think you have a couple items on there as well. Colleagues, we have five items on the consent calendar today. And yeah, if you're a witness, you can come forward at this time. The five items are as follows. Item number one, SB 239 by Senator Araguin entitled Crimes, Criminal Threats. We have item number three, Senate Bill 758 by Senator Umberg entitled Public Health Nitrous Oxide. We have item number nine, Senate Bill 962 by Senator Archuleta entitled Emergency Vehicles, Blue Warning Lights. We have item number 19, Senate Bill 1354, also by Senator Archuleta, entitled The Military Defense of the State. And lastly, we have item 24. This is Senate Bill 1427. This is the public safety omnibus bill, with the author being the Senate Public Safety Committee. Can I get a motion on the consent calendar? Absolutely. Okay, motion by Lackey and a second by Horabitian. Let's conduct the roll. Chair echoes an aye. For consent item, Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Haney? Harbidion? Aye. Harbidion? Aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey? Aye. Nguyen? Ramos? Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins? Aye. Okay, colleagues, consent calendar has been adopted. For the members of the committee who are not present, they'll be allowed the opportunity to add on. Senator, the floor is yours on SB 907, and just as a reminder, to the extent Witnesses need it. I'll give that 30 minute 30 second visual cue so you can reach that final thought floor is yours, sir. OK, once again, good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present my bill, Senate Bill 907. As I present 907, I would like to make sure that all of us understand how important this is to me and to my witnesses and those in the room. And I ask for your consideration and please think about them as we proceed. So Senate Bill 907, which strengthens California's DUI enforcement and sentencing laws for repeat offenders. As many of you know, this bill is deeply personal to me. The following, the death of my granddaughter, Samantha. and I'm proud to have introduced this in honor of her and victims across California. I want to begin by accepting the amendments offered by the chair. However, I feel that I must explain why I am doing so for the advocates in the room and so many that are watching across California. As the chair knows, these are difficult amendments for me to accept. We are broadly in agreement with Bronze Law and the hit-and-run piece of Senate Bill 907. However, I feel our coalition was not given a chance to negotiate on the felony enhancement section of the bill, which is not right, in my opinion. We are talking about individuals who have been arrested five or more times in a 10-year period for drunk driving. And as we all know, drunk driving is such a devastating item to so many. These are policies that have received unanimous support in the Senate. It is so difficult to understand why the Assembly considers them such a non-starter. But ultimately, the remaining provisions of Senate Bill 907 are important enough that we must move on and move the bill forward. But I will tell you, I have four more years here, and I hope to continue my fight, my challenge, whatever it might be, to secure so many victims the peace of mind that they all need, as well as myself. And we will get it right sooner or later. I truly believe we can. So because of this, I am honored to be here on behalf of all of them. Senate Bill 907, which includes two provisions that will protect California's families from drunk drivers, improve road safety, hold repeat serial offenders accountable, and prevent future tragedies from occurring. The first provision, Braun's law, would mandate Watson advisements in situations where a DUI is plead down to any other charge, including a hit and run. After receiving a Watson warning, an individual who drives drunk again and kills someone faces second-degree murder charges. In addition to bronze law, Senate Bill 907 goes after repeat serial offenders with increased punishment for hit and runs if the driver has a recent prior DUI conviction Repeat offenders know that they are able to take advantage of our laws surrounding hit and runs They understand that they benefit from running away from their crime, the crime scene, and they are impaired most of the time. If they are, and if they can delay arrest until after the drug or alcohol is out of their system, it is likely that they will not only be charged, but only be charged with a hit and run. It is finally time to end California's support of the repeat serial DUI offenders, and that's who we're going after. These offenders that terrorize our streets and communities must be stopped. This is not a partisan issue. This is a family issue. California must be committed to making our roads safe and prevent the types of tragedies that have sadly made bills like 907 necessary. With me today in support is Jennifer Livy and Devin Campbell, Senior Deputy District Attorney of Orange County. With that, I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you, Senator. Between the witnesses, you have four minutes to address the committee. Your time begins when you begin to speak. Thank you. I wanted to show everybody before I put my son's life into two minutes, a picture of him. This is Braun. Over the past eight months, I've sat in all of your offices or with your staffers. I've seen photographs of your family on your wall. I've seen your young children. And I want you to take this feeling and carry it with you for a minute. You get the phone call. I'm sorry. Your son's been hit by a car and he didn't make it. I'm sorry I'm the one to tell you. We got that call. It could have been your child. Then sit with us. Sit with my husband and me. We go to the hospital and we sit in a hallway for not five minutes, not ten minutes, over an hour while we wait for our son's mangled body to be made presentable enough for us to identify him. Think about that. Imagine your loved one. Imagine looking at their dead face on a table in the hospital. It's really uncomfortable. That's my life. I wake up with that thought every morning, and I go to bed with that thought every night. I carry it all day, and I beg that I find sleep. It keeps me up at night. I'm asking you to act with urgency, that you would demand if the person in your photograph were the one that never came home. Assemblyman Schultz, I quote you, and you may have been quoting another politician, the people will save their government if the government itself will allow them. Great movements don't start with policy, but with the person who loves someone enough or a leader like you who refused to accept the state as it is. This is a bipartisan issue. This is not political. Stop making it performative politics. We are in unprecedented times. I'm looking at all of you elected leaders, and I'm asking for your help. I'm here because our only son, Braun Levy, 18 years old, is dead. He's not a statistic. I'm going to show you another picture. This is my husband who has worked for the state of California for the past 30 years He came off a night shift and he crawled into bed with our 18 son in the morning Saturday morning to watch ESPN sports I brought them a bowl of cereal and I took this picture because I thought, my God, I love them. Look at them and their little rituals. I did not know this picture would be sacred because that night Ron was killed. I've been told if you want to get away with murder go to California, get drunk and drive a car there is no sentence strong enough to describe what it means to wake up and remember your child is dead there's no punishment that can restore the sound of Braun's voice the way he filled a room the way he made people feel and the future he was supposed to have There is no law that can hand our family back in its entirety the way it was supposed to be. But the law can decide whether this state takes these crimes seriously. Too often, DUI is treated like an unfortunate lapse, an accident, instead of what it truly is, a completely preventable act of violence. When someone drinks and drives, they're turning a car into a weapon. The danger is known. The devastation is foreseeable. And when someone dies, laws should reflect the magnitude of that choice. Criminals should not fall between the cracks because it's their first offense. I respect Senator Archuleta, this author, and understand his accepted amendments. But this is a hollow victory. There is more to be done. Be the one that starts great movements in this state. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. Sir, I know that you are also witness to testify. However, that was the entirety of the four minutes. You might have a chance to make a statement if there's a question posed. But for the record, I understand you're with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, and I believe you're a sponsor of the bill. Is that correct? Orange County Attorney's Office. But nonetheless, I assume you support the bill.

Okay, I was just looking at the LA County DA rep right over there. Thank you. So please don't go anywhere because they're very well maybe questions or comments. But next we'll take the me to's in support. Remember, please confine your comment to your name, organization, and position, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Before we take opposition witnesses, I just want to do one final call because we have a lot of people in the hallway. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time. Do we, and while we're waiting, is there anyone here testifying in opposition today? Okay, I see two people. Come on down. These two chairs will be yours. like the supporting witnesses, you will have a total combined time of four minutes to address the committee. Your time will begin once you begin to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next, we'll turn to the Me Too's. If you'd like to register a position of opposition, please come forward at this time. Again, please confine your comment to your name, the organization that you're with, and the fact that you oppose.

Sorry, go ahead.

Okay, thank you all very much. I'm just giving it a moment because I'm hearing them yelling for opposition in the hallway. Is there anyone else? There are. Okay, come down.

Okay. Final call. If you'd like to register a position on the bill, support, oppose, anything in between. Okay. We're going to turn it back to the committee. Colleagues, I ordinarily like to go last, but I'd like to actually ask a couple questions. No comments, but just questions to get us started. All my questions will be directed at the proponent and the witnesses but thank you to the opposition witnesses for your testimony First of all Senator Archuleta thank you for working with the committee I have three yes or no procedural questions that I like to confirm with you

That is correct. Thank you. You understand that you are free to reject the committee amendments and to make your case to the committee today for why your bill should be passed is currently in print. You understand that, sir?

Is it your understanding that contingent upon you agreeing to the amendments, I will be making an aye recommendation today. Is that your understanding as well, sir?

And is this how you are voluntarily choosing to move forward today, sir?

This is your choice.

Understood. Thank you, sir. That's all my questions for you. And you will have an opportunity to close, of course. My next question will be directed at Ms. Levy, right?

I'm sorry. Levy. I'm sorry. Terrible with names.

Ms. Levy, I have just one question for you. I know we had a conversation in my office, and so this is a similar question, but it is not lost upon me that as we talk about policy, though we may agree on some issues and disagree on others, we're talking about a human life that was involved in here. And so to whatever extent you're comfortable, ma'am, if there's anything you can tell us about Braun, what he was like, I just would like the record to reflect who he was and how he should be remembered, not just by what was done to him, but for the beautiful soul that he was. So if there's anything you'd be willing to share, I'd like to hear it.

Well, thank you very much. It's not a performative question, but I respect your position. To the representative of the Orange County District Attorney's Office, I did have a question for you because we didn't get a chance to hear from you. You heard some extensive testimony from opposition witnesses about, I think what they described as maybe an erosion or a reduction of judicial autonomy, judicial discretion, and as I understood it, especially in the hit-and-run space, with some of the changes contemplated by the law. How would you respond to that? What do you think the committee should know?

Thank you very much, sir. For the record, I agree with your assessment. With that, Mr. Lackey, I believe you were first, and then if there's anyone else who'd like to go, just raise your hand. Thank you.

I want to give you a chance to explain that. Absolutely, Mr. Lackey. I actually plan to address that in my close. Okay. Or in my recommendation, I should say. Okay. Let me just say this. Okay. Okay, thank you.

Senator Archuleta, that you have joined the ranks of battling this very painful toxin that our society is wrestling with. And I just think that we should be doing everything we can. I know that this bill gets us to a degree, so I'll be supporting it. And I just want everyone else to know, and even those that are on the other side, that even those that have this problem, I want to help them too. And I want to save their lives because a lot of times these collisions are solo collisions. And the people who have made this poor choice lose their life. So everybody wins when we're helping heal. And part of healing is attaching consequence. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much, Assemblymember Lackey. If I can interrupt the proceeding for one purpose, to the other senators that are seated in the front row, we've been informed that we're going to have to stop at 1215. So we'll have time to finish this bill. Rest assured, Senator Archuleta. To all the other senators, I'm really sorry. We can take you right up as soon as we're done with lunch caucus. You're obviously welcome to stay, but we will not be able to hear your bills before lunch. So I'm very sorry for that. With that said, oh, and then the other thing I just briefly say, thank you for your comment, Mr. Lackey. Senator, I know this is a personal matter to you. I think you have been fighting in this realm already, even before this bill, and I know you will continue to. So I wanted to acknowledge that as well. To the vice chair or to Dr. Sharp-Collins, are there questions or comments? Dr. Sharp-Collins, please. I'm sorry. Okay, so you're good. All right. Mr. Vice Chair, would you like to ask a question or make a comment?

That's correct.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Before I turn it over to Senator Archuleta to close, are there any other questions or comments from the dais? Okay, and I will use this plug, of course, to say, if you're a member of this committee and you'd like to come down before lunch, we could definitely use your help on some votes and going over items. Senator Archuleta, your opportunity to close, sir.

Thank you very much, Senator. Colleagues, I know I'm prone to have lengthier explanations for my recommendation. This will be my explanation, and this will be my statement on the matter that I would like duly noted. First of all, Senator, I cannot imagine the gravity of the loss that you have sustained and your family has sustained, as well as that of Ms. Levy and every other advocate who is here. I saw many people speaking in support of the bill, holding up pictures of their family members. As a prosecutor, before I joined DOJ as a deputy district attorney, I prosecuted DUIs more than any other crime. I cannot understand what you're going through. It's impossible because unless you suffer that loss, you can only imagine it. And I apologize that you have all been through that. I really do. And I apologize that in doing my job and doing what I believe to be good policy, that that may hurt you as well. And for that, I do sincerely apologize. I would like to explain the recommendation, though, as requested by Mr. Lackey. The committee does take the issue of DUI, and even more broadly than DUI, reckless driving road offenses in general, incredibly seriously. And I'd like to briefly note the context in which SB 907 sits. Over the course of the last six months, this committee has heard and passed, by the way, 14 bills, 14 bills related to impaired driving, speeding, reckless driving, and other road safety matters. That, of course, includes, as we've discussed, Senator, my bill, Assembly Bill 1546, which gives prosecutors the ability to charge felonies earlier and steps up penalties, sentencing, if you will, for repeat offenders. But the package is not mine and mine alone. It is, as Mr. Lackey is well aware of as a joint author on several of these measures, a bipartisan package, which now 907 is all part of that conversation as well. The package includes efforts this year to mandate ignition interlock devices for first-time DUI offenders, increase the period of license revocation for repeat DUI offenders, clarify the application of DUI laws when driving automated vehicles, which is an emerging issue, prevent repeat DUI offenders from purchasing alcohol, require additional DUI detection training for law enforcement, increase the points against a person's driving record for vehicular manslaughter, while intoxicated, postponing license revocations while a person is incarcerated, and ensuring the application of points to one's driving record even when they complete diversion. These are all bills that have passed out of this committee this year. Fortunately, and with great thanks to you, Senator, because you've agreed to accept the committee amendments, we're adding to that list today by expanding the circumstances in which the Watson warning must be given to include when a defendant pleads guilty or no contest to a different or lesser offense instead of DUI. This is good for public safety, and it gives prosecutors, our folks on the first line, greater ability to file where appropriate those second-degree murder charges for someone who is consciously disregarding that known risk and repeatedly jeopardizing the safety of our community. Your bill also increases penalties for hit and run when a person has a prior DUI I appreciate the comments of your witness from Orange County District Attorney Office and I think this is a long overdue change which actually I think this is technically the third bill along these lines we passed out of committee this year I know some fell along the way elsewhere, but this is something the committee has routinely supported. I want to acknowledge that it has not been easy getting to this point. As you mentioned, Senator, and for a little context, the committee staff at my direction offered you four separate sets of amendments, each new set of amendment directly in response to an issue that you addressed. In contrast, I am not aware of any counteroffer conveyed to the committee, ever. I am not, I understand that your advocates have insisted on passing the bill without so much as changing a comma or a period, and I get that. And in spite of that seemingly impasse, I'm incredibly grateful that we were able to find a path forward today and add real tools to keep our streets safer. The issue with the enhancement, Senator Archuleta, is this. I actually don't disagree with what you're trying to do. That's why I introduced AB 1546. And if we were talking about, for example, tackling the triad, as we know in sentencing, where you have a low, mid, high term. So let's say it was your second felony DUI. Maybe there should be more time attached to that. That's something in theory that I could support. I'd like to work with you on it in the fall. The problem with the enhancement, and it's further detailed in the analysis, are the irregularities that occur. Examples which I could highlight might include a person, a repeat offender, of course, not hitting or injuring or killing someone, serving more time than someone who did. And those are the kind of irregularities I try to avoid. We didn't have that opportunity to go back and forth. And I think that I'll own my part of it. And I think there was a lack of dialogue in both directions. But I treat this as an invitation. I would like to work with you next year on this issue. I am almost done, but I believe there is more work that we can and should do together. But I would be remiss if I didn't caution this author, all the authors in the building, all of the advocates. We can be more effective in our advocacy and in our legislating if we approach these conversations with an open mind and a genuine willingness to negotiate in good faith and a willingness to accept other ideas that might get us where we want to go but may not be what we set out with on day one. While these attributes of open communication may have been lacking in this instance, I believe that we can get there. And I welcome the opportunity to work with you, sir, in partnership as we continue legislating in this space this year and next. And finally, but certainly not lastly, I'd like to take a moment to thank the authors, this author, all of the authors on all of the bills that I have mentioned this year, some of which are sitting up here on the dais, all of the advocates, the survivor, all of those who have been impacted by this seeming plague of DUI and road violence that seems to be affecting California. I believe that this committee, working in partnership with all of you, has delivered a robust package of reforms. And my hope is that my sincere hope is that when we conclude session at the end of this year, Governor Newsom will be presented and will sign a slate of bills that will make California's roads more meaningfully safe. That's not to suggest that the work will be done. I don't know that it can ever be done. I don't think that's the right approach. I think that we constantly have to be looking at how we can do better. but I think it's a good first step this year. So I thank you, Senator. I sincerely do. I look forward to continuing to work with you and you are a tremendous advocate, sir. You have my profound appreciation and respect With that colleagues the chair is recommending an aye I believe we need a motion We do need a motion Do we have a motion Yes sir Do we have a second All right We will not know the outcome because we don have all of our members but let conduct the roll For item 6, SB 907 by Senator Archuleta, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Aye. Gonzalez, Haney, Harvidian, Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Wynn, Ramos, Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. That measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome, sir, after the lunch break. Thank you, everyone. The committee is now going to go through our items and allow folks to vote, so please don't leave quite yet, Mr. Lackey. To everyone else, we'll be back in this room at 1.30 p.m. to dispense with our remaining items. Thank you. So, colleagues, there are a number of items that we, yes, thank you all so much. If you can, as you're exiting, that'd be great. Colleagues, there are a number of items. I'd like to just take motions and cast the votes on them. So, we'll start with item three by Senator Umberg. Is there a motion? Which one? Oh, I'm sorry. We have item four by Weber Pearson. Is there a motion? Motion. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll. For item 4, SB 874 by Senator Weber Pearson, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Haney? Aye. Harbidian? Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen? Ramos? Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. That's on call. That measure's on call. Next we have, I believe, item number 5 by Umberg. Can we get a motion? We have a motion by Sharp Collins. I will second. Let's conduct the roll. For item 5, SB 884 by Senator Umberg, the motion is due pass to the Elections Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, not voting. Gonzalez? Haney? Harbidian? Aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Nguyen? Ramos? Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins, aye. Okay, that measure is on call. We've already dispensed with item number six. We now jump down to item number 10 by Grayson. Is there a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. We also had item number seven. Is there a motion? Great. And is there a second? Great. Let's conduct the roll. For item seven, SB 936 by Senator Blakespeare. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez, Haney, Harvidian, Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Wen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. That measure remains on call. I believe now we go down to item number 10 by Grayson. Is there a motion? Motion. Second. Great, let's conduct the roll. For item 10, SB 1056 by Senator Grayson, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alaniz? Aye. Can I co-author a disclosure? Alanis, aye. Gonzalez, Haney, Harbidian, Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Gwen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins. Sharp-Collins, aye. Okay, that measure remains on call. We'll note the co-author request by our vice chair, and that brings us down to item number 13, which I believe, okay, see this is what you get for leaving. Item number 12, can we get a motion? Great, I'll second, let's conduct the roll. for item 12 SB 1111 by Senator Ashby, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Haney? Harbidian? Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen? Ramos? Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. Okay, that measure remains on call. Did we already do the motion and the vote on 13? Does anyone need to add? I think we at least, Dr. We have Alanis. Alanis, would you like to add? Aye. For item 13, SB 1157 by Senator Archuleta. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Okay, that measure remains on call. Actually, it does pass out, and we'll allow others to add on. All right, next we go down to number 15 by Grayson. Motion. Oh, yes, is there a motion? Motion. Second. Great. Conduct the roll. For item 15, SB 1208 by Senator Grayson, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis. Aye. Gonzalez, Haney, Harvidian, Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, not voting. Okay, measure remains on the call. We are waiting to dispense with item 17. 16. Oh, you're right, we do have 16. Yes, okay, is there a motion? Motion. Second. Great. Let's conduct the roll. For item. I thought we did. Yeah. Okay. Noting the aye vote by Dr. Sharp Collins on 15, which is why I got confused too. Okay. Item 15 SB 1208 by Senator Gratians, Sharp Collins from not voting to aye. Great. Now we're on 16. Is there a motion? for item 16 SB 1266 by Senator Stern. The motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Shultz. Aye. Shultz. Aye. Aye. Gonzalez. Haney. Parbidian. Lackey. Aye. When Ramos. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, not voting. Okay. That remains on call. Now, as I was saying, we're moving past items 17, 18, 19 was dispensed with on the consent calendar. We're waiting on Mr. Allen for 20, I believe. Yes. Great. We're waiting on 21. Okay. Now we go to 22. Is there a motion? I will second. Let's conduct the roll. For item 22, SB 1379 by Senator Cervantes, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. Allen, Ease. No. Alanis, no. Gonzalez, Haney, Harbidian, Blackie? No. Blackie, no. Nguyen, Ramos, Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins, aye. That remains on call. We now go to item 23. Is there a motion? And I will second. Conduct the roll. For item 23, SB 1418 by Senator Cervantes, the motion is due pass to the Elections Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez, Haney, Harbidion, Lackey, Lackey, no. When, Ramos, Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, aye. I just want to say, because it's our final hearing, Tom, I love the way you say no and I really going to miss that It so fun It like an emphatic heck no All right We are waiting on 24 and 25 Actually wait one of them was on the I believe 24 was on consent I apologize So the last item for which we need a motion is item 26 by Becker. Is there a motion, Dr. Sharp-Collins, maybe? If not, that's okay. Okay, I will motion. Is there a second? Oh, you're motioning and I am seconding. Okay, very good. Let's conduct the roll for item 26 SB 493 by Senator Becker. The motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz. Aye. Schultz. Aye. Alanis. No. Alanis. No. Gonzalez. Haney. Harbidian. Lackey. Lackey. No. Wend. Ramos. Sharp. Collins. Sharp. Collins. Not voting. Okay. That measure remains on call. Colleagues. We'll be back in this room at one 30. I will note that Public Safety Chair Argeen has requested to go first so we can get back to his committee. So we'll start with his bills and then we'll be waiting on Jones, Smallwood Cuevas, Allen Grove, and I believe Perez. So please be in this room at 1.30 p.m. All right. Thank you, everyone. We'll see you at 1.30. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right, everyone. Welcome back from lunch. Thank you for your patience. We have a lot of business to tend to. I only see one author here in front of me, and that is Senator Smallwood Cuevas, who will be presenting on SB 1203. Great. The floor is yours. You can begin whenever you're ready. As a reminder, your witness or witnesses has four minutes. Four minutes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and appreciate all of your hard work today. I am so proud to present SB 1203. This is the Stand for Security Act, which seeks to modernize training standards, strengthen accountability, and establish a clear professional pathway for private security guards across California. I want to reaffirm my commitment to take future amendments, which we'll be doing upon appropriations, and that is for the BSIS to conduct a regional training capacity analysis to identify and ensure that qualified third-party organizations are ready to provide de-escalation training, to delay the employer's prohibition for providing the de-escalation training requirements for two years, and to remove the exemption for church, mosque, and other place of worship, private security officers, from the training requirement under SB 1203. At the outset, it is important to understand the scale and the evolution of this workforce. I had the honor of helping to organize private security officers as a young organizer.

while you're observing this hearing, right? So when we say performed on the job, that's how security officers are often forced to do their retraining. And this is an industry that is $34 billion, and these officers on average are earning about $38,000 a year, placing them at and below the poverty level. So we are asking these workers who are too often earning poverty wages to manage some of the most volatile public situations in the state, yet we're not giving them the tools they need to do it safely. And the consequences are becoming increasingly visible. This moment today is about changing that. And we know that the stakes are high, and we know in places like LA County, where we're going to bring 15 million people, where we know the federal government, our state, our city are investing billions on security. We think that part of the legacy of the games is to have a trained workforce here in California. And we can't forget who, when we say workforce, who we're talking about. These are black and brown men. And why shouldn't these workers get skilled training? Why shouldn't they see upskilling in their job? This is not just a training gap. This is a failure in the system, and SB 1203 takes the practical steps to ensure that workers have real training that strengthen their skills, particularly around de-escalation, that we are reviewing the wage and workplace conditions, and that we're holding employers accountable through stronger reporting and enforcement, as well as addressing this whole issue of implicit bias and making sure that we're not creating occupational segregation by denying this workforce the right to be upskilled and properly trained. With me to testify today, I have two witnesses, Sebastian Avalos. He is a security officer and a translator. With us Araceli Rudia will help us with the translation We also have Earl Hayes who a security officer at a major health care facility here in Sacramento and a former law enforcement officer If there are any technical questions, David Fujimoto is also with us today. Thank you very much. Whenever you're ready. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Schultz and members of the committee. My name is Earl Hayes. I live in Folsom and work as a security officer at a hospital here in Sacramento. I've been a security officer for nearly three years, and before that, I spent 15 years with the San Francisco Sheriff's Department. I'm here today because SB 1203 is about public safety. There's a common misconception that private security officers simply observe and report. In reality, we're often the first to respond when someone is trespassing, acting disruptively, or showing signs they may harm themselves or others. Our job is to recognize problems early, de-escalate situations, and prevent them from becoming crises that require law enforcement intervention. When we do that well, everyone is safer, the public, patients, staff, and first responders. What surprised me when I entered private security was that the basic guard card training does not require meaningful de-escalation instruction. There is no requirement for practical scenario-based training, even though communication is one of the most important tools we use. I was fortunate to bring years of law enforcement experience into this profession. I learned how to stay calm, assess situations, listen to people, and reduce tensions before it turns into violence. but many new security officers don't have that background, and they're still expected to handle volatile situations. At the hospital where I work, especially in the emergency department, emotions run high every day. Good de-escalation skills can prevent injuries, reduce the need for force, and help keep the public and health care workers safe. SB 1203 recognizes the realities of modern security work by ensuring officers receive meaningful de-escalation training. Better training means safer outcomes for everyone. I respectfully ask for your yes vote on SB 1203 and thank you for your time. Thank you. And I'm going to pause time before we go to our next witness. We have two and a half minutes remaining. We are not going to count the time for translation. So just the amount of time that the witness is speaking is what will count. And then we will pause when we hear the translation. We're ready whenever you are. Buenos tardes, miembros del comité y presidente Schultz. My name is Sebastian Ábalos Tizol. I live in the area of the Bahia and I'm a member of the SEIU United Service Workers West. I've worked as a security officer for four years. First, at the reception of a commercial building and then at a pharmacy in the center of San Francisco. The security officers are the first people to respond. When there is an incident, we protect workers, clients and public to intervene in situations preventable and in dangerous situations. Every day we interact with people who are experiencing a crisis, including people who face mental health problems. One day, a man entered the pharmacy, being in a way, and the person asked me to intervene, that I came to the hospital. The work of security is a risk, but a greater capacity, especially in escalating techniques, can help reduce those risks. It can help to respond to the security officers in a way more efficient, to avoid the situations escalating, to become violent and to keep everyone safe for workers, leaders and people who are experiencing a crisis. Respectfully, I ask you to support SB 1203. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Ada Celina. I will be translating for Mr. Tizol. Good afternoon, members and Chair Schultz. My name is Sebastián Avalos Tizol. I live in the Bay Area, and I'm a member of SEIU United Service Workers West. I have worked as a security officer for four years, first at the front desk of a commercial building and later at a pharmacy in downtown San Francisco. Security officers are often the first people to respond when something goes wrong. We protect workers, customers, and the public by stepping into unpredictable and sometimes dangerous situations. Every day, we interact with people in crisis, including individuals experiencing mental health challenges. One day, a man entered the pharmacy behaving erratically. The staff asked me to help, so I approached him calmly and asked him to leave. Instead of leaving, he became increasingly aggressive, cursing at me, and threatening me. As I continued to ask him to leave the premises, he suddenly attacked and stabbed me. I needed 23 stitches. I had to take time off work to get better, but because I couldn't return while I was healing, I was terminated. I understand that security work comes with risks, but more training, especially in de-escalation, can help reduce those risks. It can help security officers respond more effectively, prevent situations from escalating into violence, and keep everyone safer, workers, customers, and the people in crisis. I respectfully ask for your support of SB 1203. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Gracias. Next, we'll take the Me Too's in support. Please come on down. I will note for the record that we have a motion already by Dr. Sharp Collins. I anticipate there'll be a second shortly. With that, we'll take the Me Too's. Monica Madrid, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHILLA, in support. It was the Mayo Policy Intermittent Miss Averdee Group here on behalf of Carissa and Central American Mission Center, in support. This is James Lenz, Los Angeles, California. I'm in support of this bill. My name is Miguel Vincennes. I'm here to support SB 1203, and thank you for your valuable time. My name is Peggy Manzano. I'm a security officer, San Jose, California, and I support SB 1203 being a security 26 years. Thank you. That's Sierra Mere, San Jose, California, and I support SB 1203. Hello, my name is Haley Denisha Green, and I work out in Sunnyvale, and I also support SB 1203. Isabel Alvarado, San Francisco. I also support SB 1203. Thank you. My name is Richard D'Eustafield. I'm speaking for myself and I support this bill. Hello there My name is Wayman Fathory I work as a security officer in the LA Compton Watts area and I wholeheartedly support SB 1203 Thank you Afternoon. Jamil Hunt, 13-year security professional working in Sacramento. I'm in support of SB 1203. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Flor Molina, 20 years in security, and I'm in support of SB 1203. Good evening. Gregory Armijo, Security Guard, seven years in Sacramento. I'm in support of SB 1203. My name is Ariel Park. I'm a security officer in San Francisco for 13 years, and I support SB 1203. My name is Larry Taylor, security officer, member of USWW. I support SB 1203. Leon Jenkins, security officer, for one of CREs support SB 1203. My name is Rodriguez Natalia. I'm from Los Angeles, I'm from WU. Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. My name is Gilberto Rubio. I'm a security officer for the past five years and I support SB 1203. Thank you guys. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Akiba. I've been a security officer for 40 years. I'm with SEIUSW and I highly support SB 1203. Thank you so much. My name is Gustavo Garcia and I'm a security guard from Martinez, California. I'm a member of SAIUD and I support SB 1203. My name is Josefina and I support SB 1203 and I'm from San Diego. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Elmer Lozardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. My name is Yolanda Rieta. I come from San Diego, California, and I support the SB 1203. Sorry. Buenas tardes. Estoy muy feliz de estar aquí hoy. Mi nombre es John Hoyos. Vengo de la ciudad de San José. Y tengo la fe puesta en Dios y en ustedes que vamos a apoyar la SB 1203. Buenas tardes. My name is Maria de los Angeles Delphi, I'm from San Diego, and I'm supporting the C-E-B-1203. Thank you. Good afternoon my name is Celene Garcia I am from San Diego I support SB Good afternoon my name is Marisol Loaiza I from San nombre es Marisol Loaiza y vengo de San Diego vengo a apoyar a la SB 1203 Gracias Hola, buenas tardes Soy Leo Ruano, vengo de San Diego y apoyo la SB 1203 Mi nombre es María Becerra y vengo a apoyar también a la SB 012 12B, gracias Hi, my name is Veronica, and I'm from San Diego, California, and I'm here to ask you, can you support the SB 1243? Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Blanca Martinez. I am a UBS worker, and I come from Los Angeles. I am here today to request your support for SB 1243. Thank you. Hello, good afternoon. I'm Gabriela Guzmán, I'm from San Diego and I'm going to support the SB 1203. Good afternoon, my name is Patricia Velázquez, I'm from San Diego and I'm supporting the SB 1203. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Rosario Martinez. I'm a security guard from Los Angeles. I thank you so much in advance for your support. And of course, I'm supporting SB 1203. Have a good evening. Thank you. Hi, my name is Hector Alfaro, trabaja en LAX. I'm here for SB 1203. Thank you. Hello, I am Daniel. I work at Disneyland Resort and I support SB 1203. Good afternoon. My name is Myra and I also work at Disneyland Resort and I support SB 1203. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Tina Kramer. I work for Disneyland Resort and I support SB 1203. Esther Sandoval, Director of the Diznyland Resort Good afternoon, my name is Esther Sandoval, I work for Disneyland Resort and I also support SB 1203. Good afternoon, my name is Hector Ojeda and I work for the Disneyland Resort and I support SB 1203. My name is Brian Christensen, Disneyland Resort, I support SB 1203. Pilar Torres 1203 gracias buenas tardes mi nombre es juan guay yo vengo de los ángeles soy janitor y vengo apoyando a la ley sb 2 0 3 mi nombre es alma mart vengo de los california y estoy apoyando a la sb 12 03 buenas tardes mi nombre es My name is Salma Martinez I from Los Angeles California and I supporting the SB 1203 Good afternoon my name is Liliana Macias I from Los Angeles I a janitor and I supporting the SB 1203 Hello, my name is Erica, I'm from Los Angeles and I'm supporting the SB 1203. Gracias. Good afternoon, my name is Maria Gonzalez, I come from Long Beach and I support the SB 1203. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Teresa Barrios, I am a janitor in San Jose and I support my colleagues to support this project of SB 1203. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Sonia Díaz, I am a janitor, I am from San José and I am in support of the SB1203. Thank you for listening. Good afternoon, my name is Viviana Restrepo, I am from San José and I am in support of the SB1203. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Alexis Guillen. I'm a security officer in San Francisco, member of USWW, and I support SB 1203. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Alexander Nunez. I'm a security officer based out of Century Plaza, Los Angeles, a member of USWW, and I am in support of SB 1203. Good afternoon. My name is Alex Garcia. I'm from Ceres, California, and I'm speaking in support of SB 1203. My name is Maria Romero from LAX. I'm here to support SB 1203. Thank you so much. Hi everyone, Veronica De Lara here with SCI United Service Workers, yes with SB 1203. Good afternoon committee, Christian Ramirez, proud vice president of SCI USWW in support of SB 1203. Gabriella Khan, just a community member in support of Senate Bill 1203. Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California, sponsors of the bill and strong support. Thank you so much. Well, thank you all. I'm getting the note that's everybody. Well, I just want to say to all the Disneyland Resort workers, I've always felt that room 126 is the happiest place on earth. So I'm glad that you're in my happy place today. Clearly, I'm alone because I don't see a single committee member with me, which we're going to change. We're going to change that. All right. Next, we'll take our opposition witnesses. Do we have one or two? We do have two. Okay. Could we free up one or yeah, these two chairs here on the end? Thank you. And then gentlemen, you know the drill between the two of you. You have four minutes, however you'd like to pursue. Anyone can go first. Thank you, Chair. Colleagues, Dean Grafiela with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of Allied Universal. We are in opposition to SB 1203. While the stated goal of the bill is to support security officers, this legislation will severely jeopardize public safety. Well known are the high rates of retail theft and property crime. This bill's astronomical costs will force struggling retail businesses to eliminate human security jobs, replacing them with modern advances in technology. Less human present on the ground means less direct support for our local law enforcement officers. By prohibiting licensed security companies from conducting their own required training and mandating the use of third parties, this bill creates a massive recruitment bottleneck. This mandate will severely delay the deployment of security guards, worsening the current shortage. Approximately 15,000 more guards will be needed for the LA Olympics alone. On the following point, we must be clear. Intense cost pressures will fuel a dangerous, unregulated and underground market. Small businesses will be incentivized to turn to untrained, unlicensed personnel like ushers or event staff. This proliferation of unregulated staff will directly compromise public safety at a time of heightened risk like the Super Bowl and the 2028 Olympics. To close, I'll quote a recent CalMatters piece. A minimum wage may be a circular economic firing squad. Hiring wages, higher wages can lead to higher consumer costs, which increases pressure for higher wages and pushes those caught in the middle trying to survive to lower cost states. I urge a no vote on SB 1203. With me today is Mark Miller with CalSaga. Thank you. Hi, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for having me. My name is Mark Miller and I represent CalSaga, the statewide association for more than 300 licensed security companies. California's security industry is already among the most highly regulated in the nation. Officers complete 40 hours of state mandated training, including classroom instruction on powers to arrest, appropriate use of force and de-escalation. They also complete annual continuing education, which reinforces those same principles. CalSAGA supports strong training standards, but we have concerns with SB 1203. First, the bill requires additional de-escalation training from third-party organizations using evidence-based trauma-informed methods. but those organizations have not yet been identified and their capacity is unknown. With roughly 350,000 licensed guards in California, this will create a major bottleneck, delaying hiring, complicating scheduling, and slowing deployment of security personnel when they are most needed. Second, the bill literally prohibits security companies and their affiliates from providing this training while allowing labor organizations to conduct other training. This creates an uneven standard and restricts the very employers responsible for training and supervising guards today. Third, the cost is significant. Estimated over $500 million annually, these costs will ultimately fall on taxpayers, schools, hospitals, state government, county governments, local governments, and businesses. SB 1203 will not improve public safety instead it will delay hiring leave post unstaffed and worsen the existing workforce shortage It may also drive unregulated activity as bad actors look for ways to avoid these requirements For these reasons, I respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me-toos. Anyone else hoping to register a position of oppose on the bill? Okay. We will turn it. What was it? Yeah. If you'd like to register a position. Yes. Hi, Colin Gallagher. I just wanted to state a position of opposed on the bill. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Duly noted. We will now turn it back to the dais. Dr. Sharp Collins, since you're the only one here, any questions or comments? Comment before I run out? Sorry, comment. Honestly, thank you, Senator, for bringing. Sorry. It sounds like there might be some more opposition. Great. All right. We'll go ahead and take it at this time. Hold that thought, Dr. Sharp-Collins. Good afternoon. Andrew Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition. Jenny Aguilar on behalf of California Business Properties Association in opposition. Thank you. All right. Thank you all very much. Final call. Anyone in the hallway? Anyone want to just want to try the mic to see if it works? Okay. Dr. Sharp Collins, thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Smallwood Cuevas, for bringing forth this particular bill. And I appreciate your testimony. I'm sorry that that happened to you as well. And I know so many people that are security guards. and too often people think that security for some is just for them to be there to observe. Training goes beyond the observation side of things. It builds the knowledge of instincts. It makes a measurable difference when it comes to outcomes. So I'm a firm believer that proper training can help save lives. And if we can get the proper training to assist with de-escalating things, I am all for that because I know for a fact it's going to allow for people to better handle emergencies but also try to deescalate certain type of situation. I hear the opposition's concerns as well. I do, which is the same concerns that I think anyone would also have when it comes to regular officers as well. But I do believe that if you're going to be working at the county, because my daughter was a security officer at the county, and there's other places. So just to even be there and not have the other deescalation tactics, that is very concerning, because I did fear for her life at times of making sure that she would be okay when certain things happened. So thank you for bringing forth this bill. I am supporting this bill. I do think that it is highly important as we continue to ask people to come into this particular field, and they should be able to make sure that they're adequately trained, similar to other officers as well, as they move forward to continue to protect and serve. Their lives are also on the line just like our lives are on the line here being elected officials. So thank you for that. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Sharp Collins. Also, I'm loving the use of jazz hands today. This is great. It's a great visual way to show me how you feel about the comments without interrupting the proceedings. So good job. Gold star, everybody. All right. I only have one question, Senator. I can pose it to you and you can address it in your clothes. But given some of the concerns that were raised by the opposition, which parsing it out, I don't know that I necessarily heard an ideological opposition. I think we all agree that we want our security guards to have the training to be successful in their jobs to keep themselves safe to keep other people safe But there were implementation concerns raised by the opposition And so I wondering if you could speak to your thoughts on that and should the bill move out of committee your methodology for maybe working with the opposition to address those. Absolutely. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much, Assembly Member, for your comments. And we continue to work with the opposition. I mean, this is about making sure we have safe workers, safe communities, and the way that we do that is, I think, first listening to the workforce. I think this is a training that came out of workers' experiences, and we heard the opposition's concerns about the timing of this. We are taking amendments to address that, and at the end of the day, I have to push back on this preventing folks from being hired. We just had a job fair in my district. South Central is one of our community's large, significant, dense security officer population. There were 100 positions. 2,600 people showed up for this job fair. I have been, because I mentioned I've organized in security, I have worked with Allied and Securitas and a number of others in the past to build out workforce community pathways. there is still and always will be a very steady and permanent pool of workers who are ready to go to work and particularly go to work in a job where they can be upskilled, in a job where they can be well paid, in a job where they can feel like they have a ladder that goes from security maybe into police or first response work. That's what our job is here to do, is to help people upskill and move into career. The last point I want to make is it costs $2,000 to rent a studio apartment in South Central, Slauson and Inverness, where there are very few amenities. That is where our rental market is. So in communities where a lot of these workers come from, what might have been affordable two, five years ago is no longer affordable. You have to have a living wage to rent in South Central, certainly any place else in the city. And so this is about making sure that when we have top-notch industries that are the third largest employer that are grossing $34 billion a year, we think that that means that they should have a trained workforce and invest in that workforce. And that's simply what this bill does is simply invest in the workforce. It invests in our community and it makes sure that this is a career that many, many others will want to join and be a part of in the future. And that's why I'm proud to present this bill With that, I fondly and enthusiastically ask for your aye vote. Well, thank you very much, Senator. I will be recommending an aye today. I think it's a very laudable goal with commendable aims that you're trying to accomplish. I would just say to the opposition, some of your arguments are not lost upon me. I think there are some legitimate questions there. Some I disagree with, but some that are legitimate about implementation. And if this were the Labor Committee or another committee, perhaps I'd raise it there. But we're looking at it narrowly today through the lens of public safety. And in that sense, I do recommend an eye. I think this is fitting with the mission of this committee to advance policies that keep communities safe. So I do recommend an eye. We had a motion before Dr. Sharp-Collins left. I will second it. So we'll conduct the roll. You can just call my name and wait for everyone to show up. For item 14, SB 1203 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. That measure's on call. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you everybody That measure remains on call We let you know the outcome And we are now in need of an author I will page if staff for Chair Araguin is available if he's available, we'd love to take him at this time. I know he has a busy day. But any other author who has signed in, we are ready to go for you right now. So come on down to room 126. Thank you. I can stand it for Arrageen to the shot. Okay, quick public service announcement. I know that Chair Arrageen is in several places at once, but we are still waiting for Senator Jones, Senator Grove, Senator Perez, and we have not yet had any contact with Senator Allen. So if he could make his way here to a minimum sign in, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. This morning. Yeah. Exactly. All right, everyone. Quick programming note. Sorry to keep you all waiting. I share your frustration. We don't have any Senate authors. Senators, please make your way to room 126. We don't have any committee members either. I have to go present a bill in Senate public safety myself, so I'm going to go and shame everyone to come here. But we are going to be in a recess until we have an author available. Either myself or another member of the committee will gavel back. Thank you in advance for your patience. We hope to resume as soon as possible. We are in recess momentarily. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Back from break, we're going to start with Senator Jones, item number 2, SB356. Senator Jones, all yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. as I was introduced. I'm Brad Morrow, the Chief Deputy DA in Colusa County, and I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association to express our strong support of SB 356, as was stated by the senator. SB 356 is a common sense step in the right direction for making sure that survivors of the most serious and violent crimes, their families and the families of those who were not fortunate to survive what happened to them, have some amount of transparency and truth in sentencing that the judge hands down at the time somebody is convicted of committing some of our most serious and violent crimes that we have in California. The original purpose of elderly parole along with the other suite of laws that were passed at the time was to lower the prison populations of California to conform with the consent decree. And at this point, the California prison population is at its lowest point in at least the last 30 years. The people who remain in custody and the people that elderly parole mostly affects are those who have committed the most serious crimes that exist in the state of California. The survivors and the families of survivors and victims of crimes that are no longer with us, were initially traumatized by the act that was committed on them by these perpetrators. They were again re-victimized by having to go through the court process, but at the end of that court process, they received some bit of closure from the judge who handed down that sentence that is the subject of most of the elder parole eligibility people. by having the elderly parole levels where they are currently, the victims and survivors and families of those people have to be re-traumatized by hearing from the parole board or the victim witness advocates of the county that the crime happened in that the person that did this to them or a member of their family is up for parole, sometimes decades earlier than that original sentencing judge handed down. And they have to go to those parole hearings and confront those people much earlier than they anticipated doing. SB 356 is a step in the right direction to help prevent the re-victimization of survivors and their families. And the California District Attorneys Association is in strong support of it. And we ask for your aye vote.

I'll be fast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and members, Carl London here on behalf of Crime Victims United. Nobody has to be a victim. Nobody has to be the family member of a victim, especially when that person is never coming back again. And this helps correct the law, we think, in a way that is more fair. 50 is by no means the marker of an elderly person. Moving it to 60 is certainly better. I would say that we would still caution, however, that this does move away from the model of determinate sentencing. And victims feel like they do have a right to, when a case goes to trial and a jury finds someone guilty of a particular crime, and the sentencing follows, they have a right to a certain level of certainty and predictability around that sentencing. We're still kind of in a place where we're starting to go away from that again. but this at least moves in the right direction in terms of the crimes that are committed by persons who should stay in longer. So we thank the author for this and would urge your support for this measure. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tamar Tokat on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support. Good afternoon. Usha Machar on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support. No, Carlos here.

Support Ryan Schoen with California Narcotic Officers and Riverside Sheriff's Association and the other PO.

My name is Christopher Dietz, and on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, I am testifying in respectful opposition. to SB 356. The elderly parole program safely reduces incarceration costs for the state and mitigates unconstitutional overcrowding and overburdened healthcare delivery in state prisons. The elderly parole program is backed by decades of research confirming that older adults who have served lengthy sentences pose near zero public safety risk. Release rates for this program have remained conservative and recidivism rates are among the lowest of any release program nationwide. Elder parole isn't just good policy, it's a proven public safety strategy. It incentivizes rehabilitation and lowers the risk that someone is going to be rearrested after release. People released on elder parole are among the least likely to be rearrested. Arrest rates drop to about 2% in people ages 50 to 60. 65 years old, which is the age range at issue related to this bill. The elder parole program has sufficient built-in safeguards. The most obvious of these is that elder parole eligibility triggers a hearing, not an automatic release. The parole board is three times more likely to deny than grant someone parole, and they are even less likely to grant elder parole. In 2025, the parole board granted parole in less than 25% of cases. The first time elderly parole hearing grant rate between 2021 and 2023 was just 9%, and only 16% of scheduled elderly parole hearings in this time period resulted in a grant of parole. Parole board decisions are bound by the law, the evidence before them, and expert risk assessments. The parole board is made up of 21 full-time commissioners, the majority of which are former law enforcement and corrections professionals. The rest are former judges and psychologists. These are neutral decision makers. An evidence-based parole system advances fairness and safety. Politicizing the parole system undermines both. Please vote no on SB 356. Thank you. You have about a minute and a half. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Claudia Asesena. I'm the staff attorney at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. I provide legal support for parole candidates, and I work every day on making the parole process more equitable and accessible. I'm here to oppose SB 356. Again, parole eligibility is not parole release. This bill assumes chronological age equals risk. Experts from an array of disciplines, including medicine, social work, mental health, criminology, and law, have researched and written about older incarcerated people with many points of consensus. They agree that chronic stress, limited access to health care, poor nutrition, poor sleep, and physical toll of decades inside are abstractions. Their research shows that incarcerated people age approximately 10 to 15 years faster than people in the community. So when the calendar says 50, biology says something different. This program is called Elderly Parole Program because that's what the science says these people are. And the underlying policy logic isn really about the word elderly at all It about the empirical relationship between age and recidivism Nothing has changed about the science of aging and the science of aging out of crime that justifies rolling this back. Making categorical policy from exceptional cases is exactly how disproportionate systems get built. The people who would lose access under the bill are not the exception. They are the thousands of aging people who have done 20 years, transformed themselves, and are waiting for the opportunity to be heard at a parole suitability hearing. And if they are found suitable, the board retains the ability to review and change grants of parole. We urge a no vote. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defenders, Office in Opposition. Leslie Caldwell for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition, as well as initiate justice in opposition. Lucy Buchan, Smart Justice California in opposition. Derby Ounoshek from Uncommon Law in respectful opposition. Jim Lindberg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed. I'll be on behalf of ASLU California action in respect of opposition.

Move the bill. I'll second it.

Thank you, sir. Members, appreciate your time and consideration today. SB 356 seeks to better balance opportunities for rehabilitation with the interest of victims and the expectations of our courts and the safety of our communities. One of the things I will address points of the opposition, one is overcrowding, was stated in the opening. That issue has been solved in California. We're now way past the constitutional overcrowding problem. elderly parole. I agree with some of the arguments, uh, you know, that the opposition raises regarding elderly parole and the research behind it. Uh, the argument today is, is that, is that elderly parole number 50 or is that elderly parole number six, uh, age 60? And I would agree that at age 60, a lot of those arguments apply, uh, at age 50, between 50 and 60, not as much. Regarding recidivism rates of zero or near zero, near zero is not zero. And whatever percentage above zero, depending on the crimes that are being recommitted, that's why we're here today is to determine whether we want to tolerate that or not. And then regarding instituting a hearing, that's the other reason for this bill is the victims are not expecting for their victimization to be re-heard again until the perpetrator is at least 60. As a result of this bill, some victims, not all, but some are having to go through a hearing at least three more times than they were expecting. If the perpetrator is being heard at 50, it's not unheard of that they could get a parole hearing every three years after that. So that three more times that the victims are having to be re and living through the horrendous story that they already had to tell So with that this is a measured and targeted update that preserves the elderly parole process while ensuring eligibility standards better reflect the seriousness of these offenses. And for that, I ask for us all to bring back balance to the elderly parole program and vote aye on SB 356. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to thank this committee for its mental health diversion reform work that they've done in the last six months, especially Assemblymember Wins' bill authoring AB 46, which the governor did sign yesterday. AB 46 makes an important improvement by giving judges greater discretion in mental health diversion cases, and I wholeheartedly supported that bill. We all recognize that there are cases where diversion is appropriate When a serious mental illness contributes to criminal behavior treatment can be the right response However judicial discretion is not enough For the most egregious violent offenses there must still be accountability through the criminal justice system Under AB 46, a judge could still grant diversion to someone who beats a child under the age of eight so severely that that child dies. A person who repeatedly traffics another human being can still receive diversion. In my own county, former disgraced Republican County Supervisor Zach Scrivener was granted diversion after sexually assaulting one child and physically assaulting two others when they tried to stop the abuse. He was granted diversion. AB 46 is a very strong bill, and I support the author and congratulate her on her success in getting that bill to the governor's desk, and it will make a difference. But it simply doesn't go far enough. All across California, there have been absolute horrendous cases of child abuse where the parents and abusers are using mental health diversion as a get-out-of-jail-free card, with no accountability for justice for the victims. A one-year-old baby girl died from skull fractures and brain hemorrhaging while in the sole custody and care of her father, who admitted to heavy drinking. He claimed he didn't remember what happened and he was granted diversion. He made a choice to drink. A three-year-old little boy was found overdosing on lithium after being force-fed his mother's medication and locked in a filthy room with signs of long-term abuse, yet both caregivers were granted diversion and never charged with a child abuse case. This little boy was overdosing on an adult prescription of lithium that was force-fed to him. A 20-month-old baby is dead. He had catastrophic internal injuries and nearly 50 external wounds, which his parents blamed on clumsiness, and they sought diversion. A three-month-old infant suffered a skull fracture and brain bleeding consistent with abuse, living in conditions so severe that his little face was covered in cockroach bites. And, of course, his mother sought diversion. And a two-year-old little girl was brutally beaten, held underwater, and slammed against concrete. Abuse and torture, which was captured on video, the perpetrators videoed their abuse of this child. The abuser sought diversion to escape any type of justice. That's not why the mental health diversion program was meant to be, and it's exactly why reform is needed. The legislature has already recognized some crimes to be so serious for diversion, like murder, rape, and other violent sexual offenses, that are already excluded because we determined as a legislative body that these crimes warrant prosecution before diversion can be considered. So the question before you today is pretty straightforward. Should the abuse or torture of a child that kills that child be treated any differently? Should someone who is trafficking human beings be treated differently? We've all worked on securing good legislation for human trafficking victims and making sure those perpetrators are held accountable. To allow human trafficking perpetrators and people that commit these crimes of selling another human being to be eligible for diversion is completely unacceptable, and that's one of the things I would like excluded. In what world is it okay to exclude an individual from diversion for lewd acts with a child but say someone who abuses that child to the point of death and say they have a gambling addiction or erectile dysfunction or anything on a DSM list or a gaming disorder can be free for diversion I not asking for a long list of new exclusions SB 1373 takes a measured approach and adds to a narrow and appropriate list of crimes that are already excluded by law. It aligns with judicial discretion and public safety standards established in AB 46, and it simply adds a narrow set of exclusions with the worst offenses and allows prosecutors or defense attorneys to request an evidentiary hearing to ensure that mental health diagnosis supporting diversion can be properly established. This isn't about denying anyone treatment. People with serious mental illnesses should absolutely receive treatment. But someone who kills a child through abuse or repeatedly traffics another human being should not be able to avoid criminal justice, the criminal justice system, receive treatment, and ultimately have their record dismissed without being accountable. We also know that diversion is not being applied uniformly across California. Judicial discretion varies significantly from county to county. That's why the legislature has always included statutory exclusions for the most serious and heinous crimes to keep consistency and application of the law. Again, that's what we're attempting to do today. Across the state, we can continue to see examples of defendants convicted of serious crimes, including child sexual assault, being released through discretionary processes, despite significant public safety concerns. One example is Carl Carconi from El Dorado County, convicted on six counts of sexual child assault, facing up to 18 years in prison. He was released under a judge's discretion before sentencing and was on the run for 10 months. While not a mental health diversion case, the recent controversy surrounding the release of David Allen Thunston highlights the public concern of discretionary decisions involving violent offenders. Time and time again, California has seen violent repeat offenders hurting children be released early through various discretionary mechanisms undermining the confidence of the justice system. SB 1373 is a measured approach which complements the work which has already been done by this committee. Yesterday, Sacramento County District Attorney submitted a letter supporting SB 1373, and he stated, like Assemblymember Wins AB 46, SB 1373 preserves meaningful access to treatment while reinforcing accountability and public safety protections. Rather than conflicting approaches, these legislative measures are complementary efforts designed to improve the clarity, integrity, and consistent application of California's diversion statutes. For the right people, diversion can be a real rehabilitative path, and we've seen it work. We can protect communities from dangerous predators while also making sure the system works in the way it was supposed to. Today with me in support are Timothy O'Hare from the Placer County Deputy District Attorney's Office. and Jake Martin, an associate of marriage family therapist from Los Angeles and founder of Community Search Party.

Thank you. I'm Timothy O'Hare. I'm with the Plaster County District Attorney's Office. AB 46 was a monumental step in the right direction because it gave judges more discretion to evaluate an individual claim for diversion. and SB 1373 complements AB 46 perfectly because it ensures that judges have sound information to base their newfound discretion upon So in other areas of law like habeas corpus and writ practice or in resentencing a prima facie hearing is used to weed out frivolous claims for relief but not to grant relief The problem with 1001.36 right now is that many California counties, like mine and Placer County, have interpreted 1001.36 Subdivision E to be a vehicle to grant mental health diversion based only on offers of proof or hearsay. And that creates a junk in, junk out situation. When all a court has before is a two-page report from a doctor who checks boxes down a form, and this doctor has only met the client for about two hours without reviewing any medical records, we don't really know much about the underlying issue affecting a defendant, but we're still asking a judge to make a decision on mental health diversion. The additional hearing that's in 1373 creates an option for the prosecutor or the defense to either stipulate to diversion or to ask for an evidentiary hearing where those offers approved for hearsay can be substantiated with real evidence. In that light, SB 1373 puts wind in the sails of AB 46 because it ensures that judges have high-quality evidence in front of them

Corey Salazar on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. I'll try to be brief. We don't do immigration enforcement. We don't want to do immigration enforcement. We don't have the resources to do it. We're already governed by SB 54, and I'm sorry, but you can't limit the feds through this bill. I'm not condoning what they are or are not doing. It's just the reality. We've already seen it with bills this session and court decisions. I understand it's going to be left to hamstring state and local law enforcement. That's just the way it is. It's going to restrict local participation in joint law enforcement operations. It's going to go far beyond immigration. It's going to impact terrorism, gang activities, fentanyl, human trafficking, fugitive task force operations. We're not going to be able to share intelligence. it creates a whole bunch of problems for really no discernible benefit towards stopping the feds from what they're doing. So for those reasons, we'd ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC and echo the position of the chiefs on this. Thank you.

Good evening. Daniel Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in opposition and aligning our comments with those made regarding the task force implications. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm bringing it back to the committee. Anybody would like to express concerns or questions?

Does anybody else would like to express their perspective?

Thank you. Is there no other comments? We're ready to call for the question. Oh, I guess we do need a motion to second.

Okay, now we're ready. For item 11, SB 1105 by Senator Perez, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Hi. Schultz, aye. Alanis, Gonzalez, Gonzalez, aye. Haney, aye. Harbidion, aye. Lackey, no. Lackey, no. Nguyen, Nguyen, not voting. Ramos, aye. Ramos, aye. Sharpe-Collins, aye. All right, everyone, before we all leave, I know we all have flights to catch, other things to do. If you'd all join me, this is Mr. Lackey's final public safety hearing, and he has given an awful lot to this committee So I just want to say before we adjourn for the evening, although I think we actually have to do vote count, Tom, it's been a pleasure working with you. You've given so much to the state, and so if there's any brief thing you want to say before we bid you adieu, at least from this committee, wanted to give you that moment.

Okay. To our advocates, thank you. Have a wonderful interim. We'll see you next year, I pray. To my colleagues, we're now gonna go through the items and do final add-ons and we'll see if we end up having a 77.2 hearing or not. With that said, Madam Secretary, please call through the roll. Have a good night, everybody. And for Mr. Haney, we have a whole lot to go through. For consent items, Haney? Haney, aye. Item one, SB 239 was passed on consent. Item two, SB 356 by Senator Jones. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Do you want to say it? Okay, that bill is out and consent calendar was previously adopted. Item three, SB 758 by Senator Umberg. This item was adopted on consent. Item four, SB 874 by Senator Weber Pearson. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. That measure passes. Okay, that bill is out. Item 5, SB 884 by Senator Umberg. The motion is due passed to the Elections Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Thank you. That bill is out. And, Mr. Haney, at this point, it's aye recommendations on all bills from the chair. Aye, or aye as amended, I should say. Item 6, SB 907 by Senator Archuleta. The motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. That bill is out. Item 7, SB 936 by Senator Blakespeare. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. That bill is out. Bill is out. Item 8, SB 948 by Senator Araguin. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Alaniz? Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Bill is out. Item 9 SB 962 was passed on consent Item 10 SB 1056 by Senator Grayson The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee Haney Haney, aye. Bill is out. Item 11, SB 1105 was just dispensed with. Item 12, SB 1111 by Senator Ashby. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Haney, aye. That bill is out. Item 13, SB 1157 by Senator Archuleta. The motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Out. Haney, not voting. That bill is out. Item 14, SB 1203 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. This item is on call. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. That bill is out. item 15 SB 1208 by Senator Grayson the motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee Haney Haney I that bill is out item 16 SB 1266 by senator Stern the motion is to pass as amended to the appropriations committee Haney Haney I and that bill is out item 17 SB 1330 by Senator Argin, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. That bill is out. Item 18, SB 1338, was pulled by the author. Item 19, SB 1354, was passed on consent. Item 20, SB 1365, by Senator Allen, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. This item is on call. Alanis? Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. When? Okay, that bill is out. Item 21, SB 1373 by Senator Grove. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? No. Haney not voting. Okay, that bill is still out. Item 22, SB 1379 by Senator Cervantes. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. That bill is out. Item 23, SB 1418 by Senator Cervantes. The motion is due passed to the Elections Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Okay, that bill is out. Item 24, SB 1427 was passed on consent. Item 25, SB 1446 by the Senate Committee on Public Safety. The motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. That bill is out. Item 26 SB 493 by Senator Becker. The motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. This item is on call. Haney. Haney. I. And that bill is out. Thank you everyone. Thank you again to staff. We'll see you in 2027. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.