Assembly Public Safety Committee

Is that correct? Yes.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I am here to present AB 1816. I first want to thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this bill. I'm proud to accept the committee's amendments. Members, in 2020, the legislature passed AB 1950 that kept most probation terms to either one year for misdemeanors or two years for felonies. However, except for narrow circumstances, that measure provided no judicial discretion for a judge to extend terms for individuals who need to complete further rehabilitation. With committee amendments, AB 1816 will now say that if a person on probation for a sex offense hasn't finished their required treatment program, a court may extend their probation for up to one extra year. This gives the individual more time to complete the necessary classes while remaining under the court's supervision. Since these cases involve sex offenders registration, Section 290, the community is safer if the person actually completes their specialized treatment rather than being released into the world with unfinished business. Members, at the heart of this issue is making sure those on probation receive the treatment and rehabilitation they need to become productive members of their communities post-probation without artificially and rigid timelines. With that, Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me here today to talk about this issue is Siri McLeod and Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California.

That's two minutes.

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Siri McLeod. I'm a senior deputy probation officer, also representing CPOC, the chief probation officers of California. I work for Placer County Probation Department. I'd like to note that I serve on a speaker of the assembly appointed position on CASOM, the California sex offender management board. I am a supervision representative for the California chapter of ATSA or the Association of the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse. I teach sex offender supervision to California probation officers through Saratso, the state authorized risk assessment tool for sex offenders committee. And I am our department trainer for sex offender supervision. Studies indicate that risk of reoffense amongst adult males with a history of sexual reoffending is highest within the first few years following release from custody. Re-offense rates decline as individuals age and remain offense-free in the community. Therefore, timely engagement in sex offender treatment upon release, whether following the instant offense or a probation violation, is critical. Longer periods of supervision can further enhance community safety by supporting sustained participation in treatment. The abbreviation of probationary periods following AB 1950 has had a detrimental impact on treatment dosage for individuals convicted of sexual offenses. Many individuals are unable to complete KSOM-certified sex offender treatment within the two-year time frame. So in practice, treatment rarely begins immediately after release from custody. Additionally, consultation with a local KSOM-certified sex offender treatment provider indicates that only a minority of individuals continue with treatment after their probation term has concluded. In sum, AB 1816 is consistent with evidence-based practices and better aligns probation terms with court-ordered sex offender treatment program timelines and completion, which supports both rehabilitative goals and public safety. Thank you.

Yes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.

Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association and with permission on behalf of PORAC in support as well.

Public safety and community advocate, and I support this bill.

and members of the committee. My name is Ilona Yanez, Deputy Public Defender at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. We appreciate the author and the committee for working on the amended language. However, we must still respectfully oppose. Under AB 1816, an individual required to register under 290C where probation files a petition to the court and the court finds the person has not successfully completed probation, an additional time is necessary for programming, the court can order the term of probation to continue for a period not exceeding one additional year. AB 1816 is unnecessary because if a person fails to comply with treatment or other conditions set by the court during the probationary period, the court may revoke a person's probation until the person's back in compliance. The period during which the probation is revoked does not count towards the termination of probation. To be clear, AB 1816 does not apply to individuals who are not in compliance. It applies to people who have been compliant with their terms of probation. Further, the real problem with this bill is that the language is vague. Successful completion of probation is not defined in the law and can be extremely subjective. On the other hand, a violation of probation is well defined in the law. And so because successful completion is not, it leaves it overly vague and subject to the discretion of a judge who may not understand what it means. The bill discriminates against a population that is already heavily stigmatized in our society and will be subjected to increased scrutiny and requirements, in most cases already for life. Keeping people on probation longer is a significant cost to the state and was a contributing factor for the passage of AB 1950. One of the many reasons the legislature passed AB 1950, which set time limits on probation in California, is because the legislature acknowledged that the lengthier probation periods increase the risk of reincarceration for arbitrary or technical violations. Moreover, studies demonstrate that probation services such as mental health care and substance...

Yes, absolutely. I would definitely meet across the aisle. And I do have my witness. I would like to respond to her comments. If I may, through the chair. Thank you. I would note, you know, this bill really is about ensuring continuity and completion of programs. And so it was structured in the way of requiring the court to make a finding based off the factors of the case. And obviously, you know, those factors are laid out in things of rules of court and statute. And so, you know, certainly open to continue talking about that. But I think, you know, we're not changing any of the options available to the court around other processes. I know revocation and different things were noted. This is really just about the option to extend and that flexibility when they make a finding based on the facts of those circumstances, that completion of a court-ordered requirement has not yet been met in order to, again, make sure that we are finalizing treatment and that they are then completing that as they return, you know, to their community.

Yes, absolutely. Hearing the witness talk about option to extend, that's unnecessary if the person is not in violation. If the person hasn't met their requirements, then they are in violation and probation will be extended. So this question of what successful completion means is overly subjective because it's not defined in the law. And that makes it potentially arbitrary and capricious how a judge might determine, oh, this person hasn't violated any conditions, but maybe they didn't participate enough in class or something like that. And that would be not successful completion in one judge's mind, but not another. And I think the problem is we want to limit the amount of time that people spend on probation that is wasteful and save resources for those who really need to be on probation because they're in violation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I am proud to present AB 2593, a bill that ensures that when we take someone into custody, we take on the responsibility of caring for them. Right now that responsibility is not being met People who are incarcerated are still having their care delayed denied and overridden by non staff And the consequences are preventable worsening conditions unnecessary suffering, and in some cases, even death. This is exactly why California's prison health care system remains under federal receivership. While the law says that care cannot be denied, the reality is that accountability is unclear and the system continues to fail these patients. That creates a system where harm can happen without consequences and where patients have nowhere to turn. And as we know, systems like this don't impact everyone equally. These failures fall hardest on vulnerable communities, including communities of color and people living with chronic conditions who rely on consistent, timely care. AB 2593 addresses this by clearly prohibiting any staff, administrator, or supervisor from interfering with care prescribed by a licensed healthcare professional. This is about making sure incarcerated patients actually receive the care their doctors prescribe and that providers can do their jobs without interference. It will help prevent avoidable harm, reduce long-term costs, and improve overall public health outcomes. At its core, this bill is about accountability and basic human rights because incarcerated individuals have a right to care and no one should be standing in the way of that. AB 2593 is about making sure we meet this fundamental responsibility. Joining me today is Dr. Jennifer Villa and the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. and Dentist, excuse me, President of the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, maybe not. Close to find. And Executive Director Doug Ciappetta. Oh, and Gary, okay, you know we got different people in the house. This is Gary Cooper.

One of the primary goals this bill will accomplish is to ensure that inmates get the specialty care that they need. When CDCR developed their medication-assisted treatment program for treatment of substance use disorder, it was clear that psychiatrists were best suited to manage substance use disorder for many reasons. However, it was incorporated into primary care. Primary care providers were told that treating substance use disorder was mandatory and that they would even pursue charges of patient abandonment against providers who did not feel qualified to treat substance use disorder given the limited training. Also, there were extremely strict guidelines on how substance use disorder treatment would be implemented on a day-to-day basis. This culminated in a Public Employment Relations Board unfair labor practice lawsuit for $13.9 million, which was won by the primary care providers. This is simply to illustrate that the pressure on primary care providers is real and that CDCR has demonstrated a clear disregard for primary care provider autonomy and professional judgment at times. This bill would allow PCPs to exercise the same autonomy in the practice of substance use disorder treatment as they have in other areas of medicine. The other area I think where this bill will have a real impact on inmate health is specialty referrals. Specialty referrals must be approved by a supervisor, and they are often denied. Inmates know that they need a specialty referral and it causes genuine distress when these referrals are denied not to mention less than optimum care For both of these reasons this bill would support the health and well of CDCR inmates

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Good morning, everyone. I bring to you today Assembly Bill 1538. This is a short, simple bill that prohibits any elected or appointed official from using their political power for the purposes of retribution. What we're seeing throughout this country is a backsliding on our democratic values. We need to make sure that people are free to exercise their constitutional rights, that those rights are not suppressed, and that people in positions of authority use that authority to do the people's bidding, not to exert political retaliation. With me today to testify for this bill is Louis Russell. Louis Russell is a high school student. He's a junior at C.K. McClatchy High School. He helped to organize the student march. I don't know if you guys noticed, but about 5,000 students were here at the Capitol earlier this year, and he helped to organize that protest and exercise his constitutional rights. He's also a current participant in my junior legislator program. Also with me here today is Vanessa Quijina, who represents the California News Publishers Association. Thanks so much. Thank you.

Good morning to the chair members. My name is Lou Russell, like she said, and I'm a student activist who works with Assemblymember Krell's Young Legislators Program. And in my eyes, AB 1538 is an essential piece of legislation. It prioritizes our constitutional rights, especially to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. And the bill creates an approach to address this gross misuse of authority that we're seeing right now by elected and appointed officials in our state and national governments. Me and my fellow students have been organizing protests, including the protest on January 30th. And we had an enormous amount of people come out. But we also had people who said they supported what we wanted to do, but they didn't want to come out because they were afraid of retaliation. They were afraid they would be arrested by federal or state law enforcement officers. And we feel like that's something that can exist in a functioning democracy. And we think that AB 1538 will help to fight back against this fear. and we think it safeguards our constitutional rights. It sets a precedent that we hope other states will follow. And for students like me and for people who were looking to express their freedom of speech and to stand up for their beliefs, it means safety to defend those beliefs without fear of retaliation. It checks the power of public officials, and it helps the public to place our trust in them. And so for these reasons and for the sake of the people of California, I ask the committee to vote aye in favor of AB 1538 Thank you Thank you very much Mr Chair and members Vanessa Cajina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California News Publishers Association

Thank you very much for your presentation, Assemblymember, and both of you for your testimony. Young man, was this your first time testifying in the Capitol?

And then just to be clear, Assemblymember, just on record, are you accepting the committee amendments?

You got it. Thank you. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's in support of the bill. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please come down at this time.

One more call. If anyone's hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come on down. Use that microphone right there. Name, organization, and position, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you very much, everybody. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Going once, going twice. Okay. Are there any other me too? Does anyone want to register a position on the bill? Okay, there's at least one.

All right. Unless there's anyone else dying to be heard on the bill, we'll turn it back to the days. Questions, comments, motions, all appropriate at this time. We have a motion by Assemblymember Wynn. Is there a second? We have a second by Mr. Gonzalez. Any other questions or comments from the dais? Okay. We'll turn it back to you, Assemblymember Krell, for a brief close.

You're a pro, too. That was easy. No, with all due respect, appreciate working with the author on this one. Appreciate her taking the amendments. Happy to recommend an aye for today. With a motion and a second, let's call the roll. For item one, AB 1538 by Assemblymember Krell, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz aye Alanis Aye Alanis aye Gonzalez Aye Gonzalez aye Haney Harbidian Lackey Lackey not voting when when I Ramos Sharp Collins Sharp Collins I Okay that measure passes but we'll allow members to add on later. Thank you everybody. All right. Seeing no other author here, I do see Mr. Flora present. And Mr. Flora is here to present on item number 28. This is Assembly Bill 2584. Before you begin, Assemblymember, you can sit down. That's okay, as well as your witness is. Just want to make a call out for the following authors if your staff is listening in. This is an order of sign in. We have Assemblymember Petrie Norris, then Assemblymember Wilson. We have Assemblymember Zabur, Assemblymember Gabriel, Assemblymember Gibson. So if you're listening in, please have them report here. All right, Mr. Flora, whenever you're ready. All right, we have a motion by Lackey.

Hello. Good morning, everyone. My name is Mike Beltran. Just to give a little bit about myself. I'm a 32-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. My last six years with the DEA, also United States Marine, in addition to black belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu. And I've been fortunate enough to referee mixed martial arts, not only in the state of California and throughout the world. So as far as when it comes down to the AB 2584 bill, I take a very strong position in supporting this bill. For one, it's something that is very important to understand what self-defense is for individuals such as yourselves, myself, and people who have a trained, perishable skill set. What I mean by that is in addition to someone starting a fight with you or becoming an aggressor towards you, okay, it is important that we are able, not just me, but everybody in here, be able to defend themselves intelligibly so that threat doesn't become harmful to the individual. With defending yourself and having that perishable skill set, this allows you to see a threat that's coming towards you and be able to apply what you know and the skill set that you have. For example, if someone comes up to you and confronts you, you see the threat, but you also don't want to engage. You try to de-escalate a situation by talking to them, bringing it down. Sometimes folks don't understand that, and they want to engage and close the gap between you and that individual. If something happens thereafter that because you try to defend yourself or you allow yourself to get hit or struck, which could cause death or grave bodily injury to an individual, that is not what we want. We want to be able to defend ourselves intelligibly to create distance call for help restrain an individual with that skill set we have by calling the police Be aware of your surroundings Maybe you have to leave and exit the situation as soon as possible so you can call law enforcement to come down and effectively do their job With this bill here, it protects you from not only engaging in a situation that you may or may not lose the situation, but you don't get sued. You're protected. And I think as American patriots and as patriots here and as citizens, Of this great country, this state. Yes, sir. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

Thank you very much for, I think you guys get my point for the most part, and I want to pass it over to my partner here, Jason. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our statements. My name is Jason Mills. I am the head instructor of Gracie Jitsu Elk Grove, and I'm also a retired Army combat veteran. To be clear, I was not a ranger, but I did support the Army rangers. I'm here today to share with you my perspective on the bill being proposed at today's hearing. I'm speaking to you in my personal capacity. I do not represent the views of Gracie Jitsu, Gracie University, or the United States Army. In my school, we teach self-defense-focused training to our students. Our main goal is to give our students solutions to tactical situations. Our strategy centers on managing distance in order to manage the damage.

Hi, everyone. Thank you for having me here. My name is Hector Fajardo. I'm a professional MMA fighter. and the Director of Operations for the Combat U program here at Sacramento State University. I'm here in support of this bill. I serve—

Awesome. Thank you very much. You guys have a nice day.

My name is Andy Foster. I'm just here as a private citizen, and I'm here to support the bill.

Yes, sir.

Disrespectfully ask for your aye vote.

Assemblymember, I just want to say on the record what I told you yesterday in our conversation. Should this make it to the floor unchanged, I don't know that I would vote for it. I do have concerns about eliminating civil liability. However, that's not the purview of this committee today. And so in the spirit of good faith and an appreciation for your working with the committee and in consideration of your witness's time today, I will be voting aye, although technically the chair has no recommendation.

My name is Shayla Wilson. I'm here in opposition to this bill on behalf of La Defensa and the Justice to Jobs Coalition.

Aye for today.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Yes.

Good morning Thank you Mr Chair members I proud to present AB 2217 sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance and Californians for Safety and Justice which will allow the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Programs, otherwise known as LEAD, to be renamed the Alternatives to Rest to continue connecting California's most vulnerable residents to critical services and expand the program throughout the state of California. Too often, poverty is criminalized and individuals who are simply seeking to provide for their basic needs are incarcerated. However, incarceration does not address the root causes of crime. In fact, it only exacerbates the underlying issues of poverty, instability, lack of access to resources, and lack of housing that contribute to crime. Established in 2017, the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Program, or LEAD, allows law enforcement officers to refer someone to a case manager for immediate crisis services instead of making an arrest. The program focuses on individuals with low-level, repeat offenses where the underlying issue is often homelessness, mental health needs, or substance use. These referrals are voluntary. They're made at the officer's discretion and connect people to housing, health care, mental health support, and substance use treatment when it's appropriate. An evaluation of the LEAD program found that it not only reduced recidivism and lowered crime, but it also successfully connected participants to housing services and nonjudgmental individualized help. In 2017, AB 2217 will rename the program as Alternatives to Arrest and will add petty theft, second-degree burglary, and trespass to the list of offenses eligible for referral through the program. The bill will also allow local jurisdictions the flexibility to add additional offenses if agreed upon by the local law enforcement and public health leadership. We can't arrest our way out of poverty, mental health challenges, or addiction. AB 2217 recognizes the simple truth and instead expands this research-backed program, which connects vulnerable individuals to housing, health care, mental health support, and substance use treatment. Members, I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today, in support of the bill, Rebecca Brown, consulting expert for the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion Support Bureau, and Glenn Backus on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance. Good morning. Glenn Backus for Drug Policy Alliance. The bill renews a grants program through Bureau of State and Community Corrections. The goal is to give law enforcement another tool to allow them to identify high-needs individuals, people who need social services, and connect them to case managers who can get them into housing, drug treatment, and systems of care. The other goal is to reduce recidivism, crime, and public disorder. The grant dollars may be used for community outreach and engagement, service costs, including drug treatment, housing, and case management. dedicated prosecutorial resources, and dedicated law enforcement resources, as well as data collection. This builds on experience in 90 jurisdictions across the U.S. that demonstrate that cooperation between police officers, case managers, and others can reduce crime. A couple key stats from the successful project in Los Angeles. Comparing people who were referred by police officers to case managers to those who were not. Those who were referred by police officers to case management were 80% less likely to get a felony arrest in the next year, and they were 50% less likely to get a misdemeanor arrest in the next year. The program in Los Angeles has proven popular with law enforcement including LAPD and Lancaster PD However the County Department of Health reports that they close to capacity and that without additional funding above their county allocation that they may need to stop taking referrals in the next 12 months. This bill and accompanying budget action will allow LA to grow and allow BSEC to identify other jurisdictions that are ready to pilot and evaluate similar programs. We respectfully ask for an aye vote. Chair Schultz, Vice Chair Olenus and distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Rebecca Brown, a Contra Costa County resident with 25 years experience designing and improving justice systems in California and nationally. I serve as consulting expert for the LEAD Support Bureau, which is the nation's leading resource for pre-booking, diversion, policy development, training, and technical assistance. In 2016, I served on the Board of State Community Corrections Executive Steering Committee that implemented California's SB 843, the $15 million pilot that seeded the successful LEAD programs now operating across Los Angeles County. That history is the foundation for AB 2217, which reflects the state's commitment to deploying public safety solutions that strengthen community well-being. What LEAD does is, based on the well-established LEAD model, the bill gives law enforcement a practical alternative for people repeatedly arrested due to chronic mental illness, substance use disorder, or poverty.

I'm rarely asked to talk louder. Based on the well-established LEAD model, this bill gives law enforcement a practical alternative for people repeatedly arrested due to chronic mental illness, substance use disorder, or poverty, redirecting them into coordinated, community-based health and social services instead of the costly cycle of arrest, prosecution, and re-arrest. In each community, the model works through collective local governance. Law enforcement, prosecutors, public agencies, service providers, and neighborhood leaders jointly build and steward this non-punitive system of ongoing multi-agency case coordination. Launched in 2011 and now operating in more than 90 jurisdictions, LEAD has proven effective across varied political and local contexts. Independent evaluations show that it has reduced recidivism, increases legal income, and improves individual outcomes. Four features define the lead model, population, case management, voluntary, and shared governance. And this builds on California's own proven track record, and I urge a yes vote.

Good morning, Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsor and support. Danica Rodarmill on behalf of Vera California in support. Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendez on behalf of Local 148, the LA Public Defender Union in support. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support. Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California on behalf of the Millions of Californians with Disabilities in support. Katerina Sayeli on behalf of Community Works in support. Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in support. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and support Danny Munoz on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners of Children and All of Us or None strong support April Grayson on behalf of Sister Warrior Freedom Coalition in support. Ryan Lane on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.

Assembly members of Burr, you have a chance to close. Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Sharp Collins, aye.

Is there a motion at this time?

Schultz, aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Sharp-Collins, aye.

It's an honor to be here with you today, sir. What? There you go.

And a second.

I know. Well, thank you,

the staff for their work on this bill and to let you know that I will be accepting the committee's amendments. I'm proud to present AB 1941 a bill designated to confront a very real epidemic sweeping across our state, organized copper theft. AB 1941 will do two things. One, strengthen enforcement against repeat offenders by creating a new category of organized metal theft, giving prosecutors enhanced tools and tackled, coordinated or repeated crimes, much like retail theft laws. Number two, it establishes a statewide data sharing system to give law enforcement clear sight lines into these organized operations so patterns can be seen and stopped before more damage is done. The scale of this crisis is staggering. Copper prices are at historic highs, and these are taking advantage, stripping our communities of safety, lighting, and essential services. These thefts hit where it hurts most, critical public infrastructure, telecommunication lines, electrical, water utilities, traffic, and street lights. Even fiber optic cables, which contain no copper at all, are targeted by these desperate strip of anything of value. One stolen wire, one missing connection can ripple through a community. 911 lines cut, electricity gone, water disrupted, streets left in the darkness. This is not a victimless crime. It leaves Abuelita shivering in the dark without heat or the risk of heat stroke with no AC, halts buses and trains, blacks out phone service in rural towns and leaves entire neighborhoods exposed. Cities from San Jose to Santa Monica, Richmond to Fresno to Burbank, Los Angeles itself are bearing the brunt. A striking example in my own district, the iconic 6th Street Bridge, our ribbon of light rebuilt in 2022, now lies dark. Thief stowed nearly seven miles or 38,000 feet of copper wiring. Its street value, $11,000. The cost to repair the damage, $2.5 million. A bill taxpayers must shoulder. Three years later, the bridge remains unlit, vulnerable to the same crime again. In Los Angeles alone, streetlight outage requests have more than doubled since 2021, reaching approximately 45,000 in 2024. Each case can take up to six months to even repair. Last year, I authored AB 476 to address this crisis requiring drunk dealers to track sellers more closely and expanding protections for public infrastructure. AB 1941 builds on that foundation, strengthening enforcement, protecting our essential services, and ensuring that our communities are not left in the dark, literally and figuratively. This bill is more about copper. It's about light in our streets, safety in neighborhoods, and the promise that essential services will be there when we need them the most. This morning to testify in support is Amanda Guadarrama with Cal Broadband and Richmond City Councilmember and member of the League of Cities, Cesar Zepeda. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Amanda Guadarrama, on behalf of California Broadband and Video Association, we are a co-sponsor for AB 1941. The broadband and telecommunications industry provide the critical infrastructure that ensures access to 911 and emergency alert systems and is a vital link to the daily lives of Californians. The rising market value of copper has created a powerful incentive for criminal theft and vandalism targeting communications and other infrastructure in California. In the indiscriminate search for copper, bad actors sabotage modern communications facilities that may contain little or no copper, including fiber optic transmission lines, underground vaults, and wireless communications towers. These attacks can cause widespread outages, disrupt emergency communications, and jeopardize public safety. As the Assemblymember stated, AB 1941 builds on previous efforts to tackle copper theft by establishing a new tool of organized metal theft, allowing prosecutors to bring enhanced charges for coordinated thefts. The bill also supports improved information sharing among law enforcement agencies, public agencies, and private entities such as the telecommunications companies through a statewide database to help identify patterns, connect cases, and dismantle theft rings. These incidents of theft and vandalism have become increasingly common and cause unnecessary service disruptions and threaten California consumers and businesses. AB 1941 gives California added tools needed to stop coordinated theft rings that cut off 911 access disrupt essential services and endanger communities and thus we urge an aye vote on this bill Thank you Good morning Mr Chair and committee members My name is Cesar Cepeda council member in the city of Richmond and I am here representing the League of Cities California, who is a proud sponsor of AB 1941. As you may know, metal theft has become a costly issue for cities across California and the nation, severely impacting critical infrastructure components such as streetlights, fire hydrants, manhole covers, electric vehicle charging stations, and the backflow prevention devices. Thieves often target these public assets due to the high value of precious metals, specifically copper, leaving behind significant damage that endangers public safety and imposes burdensome repair costs on local governments and businesses. In June of 2024, copper cable thefts disrupted 911 services in parts of West Contra Costa County, including Pinoa, Hercules, and San Pablo. The outages disrupted emergency communications for about a week, and then two men were arrested in June. The financial burden of repair and replacing solar infrastructure components currently falls on taxpayers, utility providers, and municipalities, draining resources that could otherwise be used for essential services. AB 1941 would prohibit organized metal theft, which is defined as acting in concert with two or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess those metal materials that have been stolen. This bill would also provide that a violation of this prohibition could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would also protect vital public infrastructure from ongoing damage by allowing prosecutors to bring enhanced charges for coordinated or repeated thefts. In closing, on behalf of CalCities, we are in strong support of AB 1941 and urge the committee to pass this important legislature. Thank you.

district? Do you really want that? Yes, this is a legitimate question. What is your district? I represent the fifth poorest district in the state. 70% of my district speaks another language other than English. 85% of my district are renters. The area that I represent is Piquita MacArthur Park, Koreatown, East Hollywood, Little Bangladesh, Historic Filipino Town, Chinatown, Lincoln Heights, Historic State Park, Lasito Rivera, Union Station, downtown Los Angeles, Arts District, Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights, City of Vernon, City of Commerce, and City of Montebello.

chair and members michelle valcaba representing the county of yolo in support Good morning.

Members Yolanda Benson a proud sponsor of AB 1941 U Telecom the Broadband Association Thank you Mr Chair Jonathan Aronbell on behalf of CTIA the Trade Association for the Wireless Industry also in support Mr. Chair, Amir Johnson with AT&T in support. Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support. Michael Pimtel with the California Transit Association, representing 85 trans and rural agencies in the state in support. Thank you. Good morning, Nicole Currian on behalf of the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in support. Chair and members, Nate Solove on behalf of Frontier Communications in support. Appreciate the whole hard work by the members, staff, and the committee. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much, everyone. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Show of hands, anyone hoping to testify in opposition? Okay, great. Come on down. We have two seats right here with a microphone. Once you begin speaking, you'll have, if it's just you, you'll have two minutes to address, oh, we have two witnesses. Okay, so you'll each have two minutes to address the committee. Your time doesn't start until you begin speaking.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's also in opposition to the bill. Please come on down. Name, organization, and position, please. Thank you.

All right. Thank you all very much for your testimony. And before we go on, I just want to thank both of you for testifying today. I do listen to everything that's said in this room. I just want to apologize if I'm ever speaking to a member of staff. It's usually to coordinate the administrative issue. But with that said, I appreciate all the testimony we've heard today. Mr. Gonzalez, I do have a pair of questions to lead us off. I was wondering, I had a chance to come visit your district and you had a chance to sort of walk me through at least partially the inspiration for your bill. I'm wondering if you can share a bit about what you're seeing in your district, what inspired you to bring the bill forward? Number one, the second question will be, We did hear from the opposition witnesses some testimony about major concerns that they have with the bill. I'm wondering if you have a response to their concerns.

colleagues. Are there questions or comments from other members of the committee? All two of you, three of you. I'm sorry, Mr. Gonzalez. I assume you don't have a question. No. Okay. Fair enough. All right. Um, Mr. Gonzalez, uh, there being no other question, If you'd like to give a brief closing, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Colleagues, the chair is recommending an aye. I appreciate the author taking the amendments, which I do think improved the bill. With that, do we have a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Oh, boy. She gave me the stare. I'm not going to forget that one. All right. With the motion and the second, let's call the roll. For item 15, AB 1941 by Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanese? Mark Gonzalez? Aye. Mark Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Harvidian? Lackey? Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Ramos? Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins, aye. Okay, that measure is on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you all very much for being here. All right, Mr. Gibson, thank you so much for coming down. Colleagues, we're next going to turn to item number 25 on your agenda. This is bill number 2499 by Assemblymember Gibson. Assemblymember, you can begin speaking whenever you're ready. Do you have witnesses in support today? Okay, They're on their way. Great. They'll each have two minutes to address the committee. The floor is yours. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Gibson. Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Lawrence. I am the Regional Advocacy and Organizing Associate for LSPC and All of Us or None. I speak from my professional capacity but I also speak from lived experience As someone who has spent close to two decades incarcerated I know what extreme heat and cold behind prison walls feels like because I survived it. I have worked and lived in facilities where the air did not cool you, it punished you. When it was 100 degrees outside, in any given working area or living quarters, it was at least 10 to 15 degrees hotter. Relief was rare and often non-existent. I can remember soaking sheets in water and wrapping them around my body just to cool from the heat. I remember heat rashes, skin damage, compounding in unfamiliar mental health episodes of panic and anxiety. And the psychological pressure of feeling trapped. I remember the fear that came with the disasters and emergency conditions. The threat of wildfire blazes with immediate proximity. Smoke rushing through cracks and ventilation shafts. The confusion, the neglect, the terrifying reality of being locked behind those walls while staff evacuated themselves. That's not safety. That's actual abandonment. In multiple offices of the Inspector General's audits, it was found that temperature in the prisons could not consistently be maintained with CDCR's own 68 to 89 degree guidelines, and that staff did not consist of the complete required heat logs. Also, that CDCR was unable to evacuate incarcerated people and staff at most prisons within the first 72 hours of an emergency. And they also lack specific external evacuation plans. AB 2499 does not demand reckless spending or immediate system-wide retrofits. It is a practical bill focused on material protections, transparency, monitoring, mitigation, and procedures. It recognizes that the legislative analyst's office report has.

Hello, Chair and members. My name is Tyresha Reed. My mother is Adrienne Bower. On July 6th, my mother died while she was incarcerated at the Chowchilla Women's Prison. It wasn't because of natural causes. It was because of heat-related incidences. My mother left behind four kids, 12 grandkids, who she loved dearly, a lot of other family members as well. My mother was not just an inmate. she was a human. She was a human that deserved the basic adequate necessities that any one of us would have deserved and needed as well. Just because someone is incarcerated does not mean that they shouldn't have heat or air or the basic necessities. Even the animals at the zoo have at least that. And I feel like this bill would support that 100%. My mother was also very young and she could have been here today. She could have witnessed her grandkids growing up. She was so close to coming home. We spent days talking to her every single day. My children and my siblings' children cry every single day because their Nana was supposed to come home and she didn't, and this could have been preventable. So I'm asking you guys to see this as a chance to prevent what we went through and experienced from happening to other families and other children whose loved ones are coming home.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California public defenders association in support. Thank you. Thank you. I would do your guess what the ACLU Cal action and proud support. Shivani Nishara on behalf of Initiate Justice in proud support. Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support. Katerina Sayali on behalf of Community Works in support. In the memory of Adrian Bulwer and Faye McCabe, Tina Brie Silva, California Coalition of Women Prisoners in support. Danny Munoz on behalf of Legal Services, Prisoners with Children, Santa Clara County Wage Left Coalition. Wage Left Coalition, WorkSafe, Legal Aid at Work, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, strongly support. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support. I'm Cynthia Rogers, and I support. Antonia Jefferson, and I support. Shantae Rogers and I support. Deontay Howard Adrian was my auntie and I support. Bernie Singh with legal services for prisoners with children, I support. Jason handle on behalf of Espe, California and support. And as Rick Miller, all of us in Sacramento, of course, I support. Thank you. April Grayson, Sister Aware Freedom Coalition, in strong support. My name is Selene Nguyen. I'm a student from UCLA, and I support. Hi, I'm Jazzy Madrigal. I'm from UCLA, and I support this bill. Danica Radarmo, on behalf of the GRIP Training Institute, in strong support. Hi, my name is Caitlin Tui. I'm a student from UCLA, and I'm in support of this bill. My name is Kayla Chen. I'm a student at UCLA and I'm in support of this bill. My name is Coco D'Angelo. I'm a student at UCLA and I support this bill. Hi, my name is Ava Johnson. I'm from UCLA and I'm in support of this bill. Hi, my name is Emily Zhu. I'm from UCLA and I'm in support of this bill. I'm Marco Duncan at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support of this bill. I'm Cassandra Gorman with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support of this bill. Saskia Perks on behalf of California Civil Liberties Advocacy in support. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in support. Shayla Wilson on behalf of the Justice Jobs Coalition and Law Defensa in support. Ariana Montez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support. Niani Miles, I support. Sierra Warren, Adrian was my mother-in-law, I support. Savon Greer to Movement for Life in strong support.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you so much for bringing forth this piece of legislation, and thank you to the family and those that are here to provide testimony. I always talk about putting a face to this, and I do truly feel for you. I wasn't going to speak on this, but you guys are here, and this says a lot. This bill, for me, is about quality of life. This is something that I've heard about. I've seen. I've taken tours of different facilities, and I have to admit I'm not okay with the current infrastructure. These prisons have been built well before, you know, well before this climate change stuff is happening. But it makes me think about all of us in this room. How do we feel when we walk outside and it's 102? You know, it's 104. We are quick to try to find some air conditioning, a fan or someplace. but then they don't have that opportunity. And that's not fair to them at all. I understand that you're in prison. There's things that have happened, but you still deserve your quality of life. There's so many people who have diabetes. It could be lupus, fibromyalgia, vertigo, and et cetera. And extreme heat increases the symptoms from vertigo. And so, and through all of that, that makes you have an impact on your mental health, your mental instability. It does cause, you know, for you to hallucinate. It calls for a lot of other things that actually happens. And it also impacts the cleanliness of the facility. So I'm knowing that this really increases the notion of feeling abandoned and, you know, because you're suffering from extreme heat exhaustion. I just hate that we're at this point where we have to bring up a bill to get this done. We shouldn't have to have a bill to get this done. And we have to remind people. To me, it's sad that we have to remind this part of it just to even try to get it done is to remind people that it's not just about your prisoners. You have workers, thousands of workers that are there that are also going through the same thing. You have your nurses, your janitors, you have your officers and all of that. But we shouldn't have to put them in the equation to make sure that we're taking care of the people that are currently in our system. You shouldn't have to use that to justify to do what we know is right. So I am 100% behind this bill. I would like to be added as a co-author to this bill. We need to make sure that we are taking care of our own. We're locking people up and putting them in there, but we need to take care of them and also protect them as well. They deserve to have a quality of life just like everybody else. That's just how I feel. So I thank you for bringing it forth, and I'm truly sorry for your loss. and thank you for always coming and sharing your story.

Just to echo my calling, I want to just thank the author, thank the family for being here today, taking time out of your day to share your story. I, too, was able to tour a facility where they didn't even have any trees, and obviously we know that needing trees to be able to suck up that sun and that energy and these are people to Ms Sharp point who are trying to rehabilitate themselves trying to get back into society And that what we are preaching about here today is to get people back into society But they can do that if they feeling sick They can read They don't feel good. I mean, we don't tolerate that in other arenas. And we want to get people to get back out there. And we are supposed to be a party of second chances. And we are supposed to be delivering that here in the state capitol. I just want to thank the author again for bringing this forward. And thank my colleague, Ms. Sharp Collins from San Diego, for also echoing this. Thank you again, Mr. Gibson, for just being the justice advocate that you are on behalf of California.

about your mother? What was she like? My mom was the neighborhood mom for all of our friends. We had a really good life growing up. She was also like the backbone of our family. My grandmother passed away at a young age and my mom stepped up and she raised her siblings, her nieces and nephews, a lot of the cousins in her generation. She helped raise them and take care of them as well. If anybody in the neighborhood didn't have food, she was there to cook for them, you know, make sure that they were okay, giving people rides to and from school. She was really the backbone of our family. Genuinely, she was, I hate to say it like this, but it's the only way I can describe it because it's her. She was a bookworm. She loved to read. She was very smart and educated. Even though she was in prison, she didn't let that stop her from continuing her education. She got multiple degrees while she was in prison. A lot of the members that were in prison with her have reached out and said she was like a mother to them and helped get their education and helped get them on the right track. So even though she was in prison, she still continued her journey of caring and helping take care of others. She just had an all-around good heart.

She was everything. My best friend, my right hand, my protector, my peace. She was genuinely my everything.

If we can yield for 30 seconds to have a moment of silence, and if we can please ask her family to stand, is that okay with you?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say thank you very much to the chair and also to the committee and to all those who came out and gave their eye and their support for Assembly Bill 2499 and to my witnesses and to the family for supporting this important piece of legislation The Village came out today in support, and we appreciate the Village. We appreciate everyone speaking in support. This is about not only those inmates that are there in our state correctional facilities, but it's about the workers as well. This bill is about raising the visibility that we must do something. California is better than this. I had an opportunity last year to go to Alabama and visit some areas in Alabama. But in that pilgrimage, we saw Alabama's state prison system. California is much better than that. I was horrified to see the prison system in Alabama and the inmates, what they went through and said, not on my watch. And when this bill came forward and I heard the stories of what's taking place in our prison system in terms of the ventilation, I grabbed the opportunity to carry and jockey this bill to talk about and raise the visibility and to talk about why this bill is important to making sure that during the hot months in these facilities that we have to do better. that we must have ventilation system. And then when I heard about Adrienne, and to hear that she passed away due to the ventilation and the heat exhaustion and how hot it would get in a facility in California to say no more should anyone have to suffer like she suffered in our facility. This is important not only to the workers, but also to those who are incarcerated in our facilities. This is moving in the right direction. I believe that the dead can speak from the grave, and she's speaking loud and clear, and she's saying that we must do something, and we must do something now. I respectfully ask for a strong aye vote in the memory of not only her, but those who've come before her as well. Respectfully ask for a strong aye vote.

Aye. Gonzalez, aye.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to start by thanking you and your committee staff and all the stakeholders for their feedback and collaboration. And with that, I would accept the amendments that have been offered. So thank you so much for that. AB 1877 really started a while back when I authored what is known as Prop D, which became the Mayor's Office of Victim Rights in the city and county of San Francisco. And that was meant to make sure that victims had a place to go free of law enforcement so that they were seen and heard and protected. that also involved doing a survey of the victims and finding out what do they need to feel protected in the city and county of San Francisco. And one of the things that continue to come up is that protective orders feel like just a piece of paper, that they don't do what they're intended to do, which is to protect victims from further harm. There's no barrier of protection that comes with just this piece of paper. No DA, no police officer goes home at night with the victim when they have a criminal protective order. They're not standing by your door. They're not there with you when you're running errands. You have this piece of paper. And the words must carry weight. And they must mean something for this criminal protective order or stay away order to have meaning and to have victims feel protected. When they don't, abusers are emboldened and survivors are left wondering if the system is capable of protecting them at all. We know that... that there are repeated violations of criminal protective orders and stay-away orders. We know that half of them aren't followed, over half of them. We know that there are egregious, egregious violations of restraining orders. And we know that these are indicators of further harm, of escalating risk, often resulting in the death of the victim and sometimes the death of children as well. We know what happens when restraining orders, protective orders, are repeatedly violated over and over and over again. AB 1877 is an attempt to show that these orders do have meaning by strengthening enforcement of criminal, protective, and stay-away orders. Right now, a violation of a protective or stay-away order under existing law is chargeable only as a misdemeanor, regardless of whether there are felony charges pending or if there are repeated violations of that order. This means that abusers simply get a slap on the wrist many times in, again, the most egregious of cases. If there is a criminal protective order in place as a result of a felony DV charge, and that person violates that order often repeatedly or causes injury even, only a misdemeanor can be charged. This system leaves victims feeling very vulnerable, setting up scenarios where the only consequences are after further harm or violence to the victim. So this piece of paper means nothing if it can't be enforced in a way that has meaning. AB 1877 would allow prosecutors to have the discretion to charge the discretion to charge a violation of a criminal stay away order or protective order as a felony. If one, the underlying conduct for the initial order was charged as a felony. if there are repeat violations of that order, and if there is a repeat conviction for a violation that occurs within one year. Prosecutors, like I said, will retain discretion to discharge a violation as a misdemeanor if they choose, which is known as a wobbler. I know you're aware of that. Based on recent events, and I can't stress this enough, it's more critical than ever that we believe and support survivors, equipping them with every tool in the toolbox to ensure their protection against their abusers. So many times women don't feel like they can speak up. They don't feel like they will be protected, and that needs to change. I have the honor today to have with me two incredible women who I have so much respect for. We have Ivy Lee, director of the San Francisco Mayor's Office for Victim Rights, and Dr. Pamela Tate with Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence. I'll turn it over to them. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Schultz, committee members. My name is Ivy Lee. I am the director of the San Francisco Mayor's Office for Victims' Rights. We serve as an independent agency that is there to support victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder and child abuse, as well as human trafficking. Through direct case work we worked in partnership with victim service providers throughout the city as well as with law enforcement city departments and the courts to identify a problem that was a pattern throughout the city At least one criminal protective order every week in throughout 2024 in San Francisco alone was charged by the DA. When we think about the criminal protective order violations that are not ever reported or not presented to the DA and followed by a prosecution, that number escalates exponentially. One of the most egregious case examples is with a client that I actually supported. She had a criminal protective order. She was stalked by a former, someone that she used to date. He violated the criminal protective order three times, twice by going to her workplace, and then the third time when he couldn't find her, He went to her child's school, chased her around the school, physically assaulted her. This was all caught on school cameras. Only after that third violation was there ever action taken to actually charge him with physical assault. The protective order violations were never charged. When we spoke with members of law enforcement and stakeholders, what they identified to us was that this is just a misdemeanor. The violation is just a misdemeanor. With understaffed police forces, with understaffed resources, they need to triage. And so because of the misdemeanor limitation on prosecutors, that was one inevitable result. And I apologize.

Thank you.

Greetings. Greetings, Chair Schultz and members of the Assembly and Safety Committee. My name is Dr. Pamela Tate, and I am the Executive Director of Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence in San Francisco. I urge you to support AB 1877 just as I do. I want to share the story of a survivor who did everything that we asked her to do when she had endured abuse at the hands of her partner. She had been beaten and threatened with a gun. She called for help, and we responded. He was arrested. A temporary restraining order was issued, and she believed, like most survivors do, that that would protect her. But after he was released during pretrial, he ignored that restraining order, and I'm going to be graphic, so trigger warning here. He tracked her down and stalked her. He threatened her again with a gun, and this time he strangled her almost to death. This is in the city and county of San Francisco. That survivor did everything that she was supposed to do. However, the system failed her. Protective orders are a few tools that survivors actually have that they can utilize to protect themselves from further harm and to protect their families. But when violations are treated like a slap on the wrist or as a misdemeanor, it's often the survivor who is sitting around like a sitting duck waiting for harm to continue to come to her door. AB 1877 matters, and it matters because it recognizes what survivors already know. Repeated violations of protective orders are not minor. They are acts of continued terrorism. if this bill had been a law the prosecutors would have already had the means to treat this threat as a violation and it would have been very serious Her abuser would have been reprimanded excuse me remanded to jail during pretrial and she would have been safe as would her children I respectfully urge you all, strongly urge you all, to support this bill. And thank you to Assemblymember Stephanie and her team, as well as Mayor Lori, for working on this. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of Mayor Daniel Lurie, City and County of San Francisco, proud sponsor of the bill and in support. And thank you for the committee for all the work.

Hi, good morning. Bobby Lopez on behalf of the following organizations in support. San Francisco Safe House, San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium, Safe and Sound, Open Door Legal, and Community Forward. Thank you. Good morning, Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorney's Association in support. Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association in support.

All right. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Going once, going twice. Okay. Would anyone else like to register a position on the bill? All right. We have one taker.

because we didn't have any opposition witness, gave them a little extra time there. So now that that's noted, we'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? Second. Okay. Motion by Wynne, second by Lackey. Any other discussion from the dais? Okay. Assemblymember Stephanie, would you like to close?

well thank you very much assembly member I want to again appreciate testimony of both of your witnesses in making the trip and being here today Your passion and your expertise Assemblymember shines through every time you present a bill in this space So with that, happy to recommend an aye. Appreciate the author taking the committee amendments. We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll. For Item 12, AB 1877 by Assemblymember Stephanie, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Haney? Harbidian? Lackey? Aye. Lackey? Aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins? Aye. Okay, that measure is out. We'll keep it open for others to add on, of course, but thank you all for being here. And next I see we have Assemblymember Wilson. Assembly member, before you get started, I just want to say for staff listening in who I have on my list, who I don't see here yet. So maybe they can show up during your presentation. We have assembly member Petrie Norris on item 10. We have assembly member Gabriel on item 24. And we have a host of authors who have not yet signed in. So if you'd like to make your way down to room 126, it's a fun time. Assembly member Wilson, the floor is all yours. As a reminder, your witnesses will have two minutes each to address the committee. Time doesn't begin until you start speaking. The floor is all yours, Assemblymember.

Assemblymember, thank you very much for all of your work on this issue. And I believe you said it, but just to confirm, you are taking the committee amendments?

Thank you very much. I know we'd get it done. And of course, thank you to both of your witnesses for your testimony. Next we take the me too others hoping to be heard in support of the bill Come on down Nain if you with an organization let us know that and your position of support please Mr Chair members Jelena Voris on behalf of the League of California Cities in support

We have a letter coming in soon. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay, we have possibly two, it looks like. Okay, come on down. These two chairs are for you. Your time doesn't begin until you start speaking, and you'll each have two minutes to address the committee whenever you're ready.

And I'm sorry, that is two minutes, but don't go anywhere. There might be an opportunity for you to add more in answering questions. All right, our next witness, you also have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. We'll hear the Me Too's in opposition to the bill. Come on down.

All right. Thank you all very much. Before we go on, anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, we'll turn it back to the dais. Mr. Lackey.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Are there other... Yes, Dr. Sharp-Collins.

Absolutely. And I just want to clarify, I know, thank you for your testimony both and been aligned with you on certain areas. And in this one, we just happened to not be in alignment today. But I know you guys spoke more broadly. And just being sure that it's clear as a part of the public testimony that this bill is narrowly focused on individuals convicted of serious and dangerous driving offenses, including DUIs and vehicle manslaughter, where as a part of their punishment or judgment is a mandatory three-year license revocation. And so we're asking this to be consecutive.

I wanted to thank you for that response because being with you yesterday in transportation, I wanted to make sure that we had the same comments here to reflect the record as it was done yesterday. And I know that Mr. Lackey brought that up yesterday as well. So I just wanted to make sure that it was being reflected here also. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you very much, Dr. Sharp-Collins. Would anyone else like to go with a question or comment or a motion?

Okay. Motion by Wynn, second by Lackey. All right. Seeing no further discussion from the dais, Assemblymember Wilson, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Wilson. Colleagues, I do recommend and I appreciate the author working so diligently, not only through the committee process, but even in the interim as we had conversations about what more we can do as a state. Appreciate all the points that have been made. And I know you to be an incredibly thoughtful and collaborative author. There might not be points of common ground, but I know that if there are any to be found, I have full confidence that you'll continue to engage in those conversations and strive to find it. So with that, I recommend an I. Let's call the roll. For item 11, AB 1874 by Assemblymember Wilson, the motion is due pass as amended to the Transportation Committee.

Schultz, aye. Alanis?

Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Harbidian? Lackey?

Lackey, aye. Nguyen?

Nguyen, aye. Ramos?

Ramos, aye. Sharp-Collins?

Sharp-Collins, aye. Okay, that measure passes. Thank you everybody We are still waiting on authors so I going to do something unconventional in a moment But before I do if you are staff listening in and you hear your author name please have them come to room 126 We are waiting on Mr. Lackey ago in the afternoon. We have no contact yet from Assemblymember Sanchez on her bills. Our vice chair should be returning and can hopefully present on his soon. We need contact from Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan. We need contact from Assemblymember Jackson, Assemblymember Patterson. And I will note that Assemblymember Gabriel has checked in as well as Assemblymember Petrie Norris. We need both of them here as well. Colleagues, just to keep us moving and to make an efficient use of time, with your permission, I'll present my bill out of order. I like to go last, but rather than everyone sit quietly, we can keep rolling. I'd like to hand the gavel without the vice chair present over to our most senior member, assembly member Ramos, to lead us through this presentation. Thank you so much. Moving on to item 27, AB 2582 from Chairman Schultz. Please begin when you're ready.

Go ahead.

Those in support?

Any others in support? Those in opposition? Testimony?

Thank you so much for your testimony. Those in opposition? Seeing none coming back to the dais. Any comments, questions from members? I do. Assemblymember Sharp calls. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All said. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any other comments or questions? It's been a motion. Is there a second?

To the author, did you accept, if any, amendments from the committee?

Thank you. With opposition also?

Thank you so much. The chair does have an iReco on this bill. Please call the roll. I think he closed. The only thing I would add is I'm incredibly jealous of the jacket of the opposition witness, so I may need to figure out where he gets those jackets. That looks awfully snazzy. Thank you. It closed by rejecting it. For item 27, AB 2582 by Assemblymember Schultz, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee.

Schultz, aye.

Alanis, aye.

Gonzalez, aye.

Lackey, aye. Wen?

Ramos?

Sharp-Collins?

workforce sharp Collins I measure passes thank you All right, thank you everyone. Thank you Mr. Ramos for chairing a committee. Gosh, I've never felt so on need to be prepared as when I'm addressing you, Mr. Chair. Okay, next we have Assembly Member and Vice Chair Alanis. He is just getting his witness ready. Colleagues, this is going to be item number 16 on your agenda. This is Assembly Bill 2004. Vice Chair, whenever you're ready, you can begin. and I do see that we have Assemblymember Petrie Norris, so we'll take her bill next, give her a moment to get settled. If you're ready, Mr. Alanis. One second. Okay. While we're sorting this out, Assemblymember Petrie Norris, are you ready to go when you're called up? Okay, well, if the vice chair needs a minute, we might go with you, we'll see. Okay, very good. Vice chair, come on up. Colleagues, change of plans. We're gonna go to item number 10 on your agenda. This is assembly bill 1830. We have assembly member Petrie Norris with us and assembly member, just a reminder, after you make your presentation, your witnesses have two minutes each to address the committee. The floor is yours whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for presenting the bill. Gentlemen, thank you both for your testimony today. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's, also in support of the bill. Come on down at this time.

All right. Thank you all very much. Now we'll see if there's any opposition witnesses here. Do we have anyone? Okay, we do. You both can come on down. These two chairs are for you. And once you begin speaking, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee.

But you might just get a question about what the analysis says. I'm glad someone reads it other than me. Of course the committee reads it. Okay, with that, let's take the Me Too's, also in opposition to the bill.

Apologies, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you all very much. Do we have any questions or comments from the dais? Mr. Lackey.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey.

Are there other questions or comments from committee members? I had just a couple of quick ones. First of all, Mr. Campbell, nice to see you again. It's been nice to see you on your journey. Could you just, as I, as I handled with the earlier bill, I think it's important that we all see is this opportunity to remember some of the people that inspired the legislation. Could you tell us just a little bit about Hart and Ruby?

And Hart was a clown. He was the funniest guy in the room, loudest, most obnoxious, and most off color. But he was the most beloved in his crowd. He was a real, they're both leaders, both leaders. And he was an actor. Thank you. Of course. Thank you for being here today. You certainly carry them with you. And I know they're here with us today as well. My next question is to the opposition. Was there anything of note that you felt the committee should consider from the analysis that was prepared on the bill? This is my giving you a lifeline. Sorry. It's been a long day. I did want to just like kind of point to the unintended consequences and the analysis where that it does talk about IDs being effective, reducing DUI recidivism for offenders, but that it can also increase the risk of crashes due to the retesting that can also contribute to distracted driving as we reported in the New York Times. And this is why it's really important to kind of maintain discretion when you talk about these first-time DUI offenders, especially with such a low recidivism rate, around 3.7%. So mandating it just one, like, across every case isn't really the most appropriate. So we should maintain discretion as it is a case-by-case basis. Thank you very much. My last question was back to the author. Having heard some of the testimony from opposition witnesses, just wondering if you or your witnesses had any brief response. Just very briefly, I will start by acknowledging and highlighting the point that our opposition witness made, that I think you said the concerns sound minuscule compared to what is at stake and what's out on the line. I could not agree more with that sentiment, and I think that summarizes the opposition quite eloquently. Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments from the dais? All right, I believe we still need a motion. Okay, motion by Alany, second by Lackey. Without anything further from the dais, Assemblymember, we'll turn it back to you for a close. Thank you. And I want to begin also by thanking you, Colin, for once again being here, for sharing your story, for letting us get to know Ruby and Hart a little bit, and for your advocacy to protect children and families across the state of California. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for pausing us for a minute. and for focusing us on Ruby and on heart. Because sometimes we get lost in the conversation around the statistics, and the statistics are alarming. But this is not just statistics. These are our daughters and our sons who are dying. It's our moms and our dads that are dying. It's our neighbors and it's our friends. And this is a truly preventable tragedy. This does not need to continue to happen. AB 1830 is common sense AB 1830 will make our roads safer AB 1830 will save lives Thank you again for your support and I respectfully ask for your aye vote Thank you Assemblymember I just briefly say, yes, I appreciate your witness and a prior witness sharing a little bit about some of the folks that we've lost. This is a people-focused business. I can tell you that chairing this committee, it is emotionally draining to deal with the issues, but it's important that we don't lose our humanity in the process of trying to find good legislative solutions. So, Mr. Campbell, thanks for sharing today. I also want to note that I do, I have heard and I continue to hear some of the concerns of the opposition. And while I know they're not yet in support of this bill, and perhaps that point will never be reached, I do think the bill has been substantially improved. I appreciate the author working with us to include those affordability measures, some reporting back measures to the legislature. All of those make it a heavier lift, arguably, but I know that you, Assemblymember, have been committed to ensuring that we have a final solution that is as equitable and in balance as possible. So I appreciate your collaboration there. With that, colleagues, I do recommend an aye. With the motion and second, let's conduct the roll. For item 10, AB 1830 by Assemblymember Petrie Norris, The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz? Aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Haney? Harbidion? Aye. Harbidion? Aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey? Aye. Nguyen? Ramos? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Sharp-Collins? Sharp-Collins? Aye. Okay, that measure is out. We'll keep it open for other members to add on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, everybody. Quick programming note, everyone. We have three more bills we're going to take before the lunch hour. We have a bill from Assemblymember Gabriel who's here. I believe Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan is also here. And then we are going to hear the vice chair's bill. That will be it before the lunch break. So if you're not one of these three individuals, your bill will be after lunch. Other programming note, I apologize. We're going to be in the small room next door in 127. So maybe use the restroom and grab your drink before you go in because it's hard to get in and out there. All right, with that, next in terms of sign-in order is Assemblymember Gabriel presenting on AB 2378, followed by Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan. Take it, leave it for the budget chair to jump ahead. Quick reminder for your witnesses, your witnesses get two minutes each to address the committee. Their time starts once they begin speaking. Mr. Gabriel, at your convenience, the floor is yours. Are you ready, Mr. Gabriel? I am. Okay, the floor is yours. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I am pleased today to present AB 2378, which will establish an Office of Community Violence Intervention to administer and guide the CalVIP program. As I'm sure you're aware, the CalVIP program is California's flagship community-based violence prevention program and a proven method for reducing gun violence. Last year, California had its lowest gun homicide rate in recorded history, which was driven by significant reductions in the violence rate among populations targeted by the program. But there's still room for improvement. While the Board of State and Community Corrections currently administers the CalVIT program, there is no dedicated senior director to guide the program This bill would address this issue by establishing the Office of Community Violence Intervention within the BSEC to be led by a full director with direct experience in community violence intervention. Under the director's leadership, the office would be able to more effectively administer the program, coordinate with the Department of Justice's Office of Gun Violence Prevention, engage in long-term strategic planning, share best practices, evaluate grant implementation, and provide technical support and assistance to applicants and grantees. And so doing this bill will strengthen and improve the CalVIP program, enabling it to build on its successes and better fulfill its life-saving mission. When implemented, this bill will save lives, maximize the impact of public funds, and ensure that California remains a national leader in common sense gun violence prevention. With me today to testify in support of the bill are two outstanding witnesses, Mike McLively, the policy director from the Gifford Center for Violence Intervention, and Sam Vaughn, the director of the Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety. Thank you and respectfully request an aye vote. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Mike McLively. I'm the policy director of the Giffords Center for Violence Intervention. And I'm also one of the founders of the CalVIP Coalition, which represents dozens of organizations, hundreds of individuals around the state that are working to intervene and interrupt cycles of violence in California. For years, our coalition has been pushing the legislature to invest more in CalVIP, the California Violence Intervention Prevention Program, and you all have answered the call. Most notably, in 2021, increasing funding for the program by $200 million. And then in 2023, becoming the first state in the country to create an excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition that is currently providing funding for CalVIP. In the years since that investment was made, CalVIP has helped deliver historic results to California communities. As you heard Assemblymember Gabriel say, we are seeing record reductions in homicide at a statewide level and incredible results at a city level, too. In Modesto last year and in East Palo Alto, there were zero homicides for the entire calendar year. Zero homicides. And in Richmond, as you'll hear from Director Vaughn in just a moment, only five homicides, the fewest number ever recorded in Richmond's history. These are San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, all CalVIP-supported cities, all seeing decades low levels of homicides and shootings. We are seeing incredible results that CalVIP is helping to deliver. And what these cities have in common is that they have expanded out their capacity to intervene with those who are at the highest risk of being involved with shootings. using credible messengers to deliver tailored services that help prevent violence for those individuals. This bill, 2378, will help build on that success and take it to the next level by creating an Office of Community Violence Intervention at the BFCC. This is a simple but powerful idea to bring subject matter expertise to the BFCC and expand its mission to not just deliver grants to our communities, but to support the entire field as it continues to grow. Assembly Bill 762, which was passed in 2023, directs the BSEC to support the entire field. I have your two minutes. Okay, thank you so much. I'll just wrap up by saying supporting our CVI workforce is excellent public policy. We are seeing the results. We want to continue to build on them. Thank you for your time. We urge your guest vote. Thank you. You have about a minute and 45 seconds left. Here we go. Nice and quick. Good morning. My name is Sam Vaughn. I work with the City of Richmond's Office of Neighborhood Safety. I've held the lead role in that department for the last four years, and for 13 years prior to that, I held every role that the organization had to offer from part-time staff to program manager. The city of Richmond has had steady decline in gun violence over the last 16 years and last year as Mike said we recorded our lowest amount of homicides since we kept records which was five Eighty percent reduction since its inception in 2007 We have had multiple evaluations connected to our work, as well as a study published in the American Journal of Public Health. Our work has been tried and proven as an effective strategy. Let me interrupt, Jim. Can you move your mic closer, please? I can't hear you. Our work has been tried and proven as an effective strategy. The City of Richmond has received CalVIP funding for four of the five cohorts and CalGRIP prior to that. CalVIP has been extremely important to the work that the ONS does because as the City's General Fund provides resources for our operations, without CalVIP much of what we have done would not have been possible. CalVIP is evolving from just a funding source to supporting this emerging field of CVI across the state. And as we've seen at the local level, including in Richmond, it is important, it's truly important to have leaders in government who understand the field and who have actually done the work. What this bill will create is to bring expertise directly to BSCC. This will allow BSCC to have the capacity to interface with the field in a knowledgeable and effective way, similar to what Biden did when he put Eddie Baconegra to the DOG to oversee its CVI work. This would be our local version of that national process. The state has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in CVI work, and we need to keep building infrastructures as well as making sure that the field of CVI keeps its fidelity. CVI becomes the fix-all for-all. That would diminish the work. Having someone who is an expert sitting in BSCC would be a guardrail to keep that from happening. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much for your presentation, Assemblymember. Thank you both for your testimony. Now for the Mean Tos. Cassandra Whetstone, volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention in support and also support from Movement for Life Gun Violence Reduction Program here in Sacramento County. Mary DuPau, gun violence survivor, volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention in support. David Bond with Everytown for Gun Safety here in support. Elizabeth Carpenter, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support. Yara Judal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support. Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Next, we'll go to opposition witnesses. Do we have any opposition witnesses here? Okay, Mr. Budget Chair. Scared off the opposition witnesses. Do we have any other me-tos? Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? No? We'll bring it back to the day. As questions, comments, motions? Okay, we've got a motion by Alanis, a second by Dr. Sharp-Collins. Mr. Lackey, you have the floor. Yeah, I don't mean to be cynical. Mr. Lackey, I apologize. I think we might have some opposition witnesses. Do you mind if we do that first, Mr. Lackey? Okay, go right ahead. Adam Wilson on behalf of GOC, Gunners of California, and Gunners of America in opposition. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Clay Kimberling with the National Rifles Association, respectful opposition. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. Back to you. Yeah, as I was just saying, I don't mean to be cynical, but I am. preventing gun violence in any way, shape, or form, but creating another bureaucracy. Help me just understand how this bureaucracy will make an impact, because I want to believe it. So please Please try to convince me so I can support reduced gun violence, because that's what I want to do. I will do my best, and I know you're very sincere about that, Assemblymember Lackey. I think what this does is it's not creating a new bureaucracy. It's just making sure that we have a leader in place that is rooted in an understanding of how to most effectively administer these funds, that is rooted in an understanding of how to achieve those reductions in gun violence, how to save lives. we have, with prior legislation, already have BSCC administering this program. So this program exists. Dollars are flowing through it. They're going out into communities. They're going to people like Director Vaughn, who are doing unbelievable work to save lives, to protect people in communities, to bring gun violence down. You've heard about the unbelievable results that this program has demonstrated. But what we have identified as a very small shortcoming of that is that we need a director in BSCC who is able to coordinate with other parts of government, whether it's with the DOJ, with local governments, with tribal governments, and make sure that we just have that expertise in place at the very top. So this is actually a very small bill. It's a modest bill. But it's just about making sure that we have someone who has the right expertise to make sure that we're doing the most that we can with the dollars that are flowing through that program. Well said. Thank you. Thank you, Assemblyman Lackey. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Okay. Mr. Gabriel, would you like to close? Very much appreciate the time. Grateful to the CalVIP Coalition for their incredible work across the state. You guys have saved countless lives. And with that, I would respectfully request an aye vote. All right. Thank you, colleagues. Chair recommends a strong aye on this one with the motion and second in hand. Let's call the roll. For item 24, AB 2378 by Assemblymember Gabriel, the motion is due pass for the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney. Barbadian, aye. Barbadian, aye. Lackey, aye. Lackey, aye. Wynn. Ramos, aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp-Collins. Sharp-Collins, aye. Hey, that measure passes. Mr. Gabriel, you got him on board. Good job. That was a good answer. You might just have a future in this line of work. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you, everybody. Assembly Member Bauer-Can, thank you so much for your patience. You are next on the carousel. Hey, we'll see if I can get a strong eye recco and an eye for Mr. Lackey. Okay. Hi, everyone. It's fun to be back. I used to sit here. Maybe it was only Mr. Lackey and I at the time. So thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm proud to present AB 2047 along with my sponsors, Everytown for Gun Safety. As many of you know, I started my political activism in part in Moms Demand Action, helping to work in our own community to end gun violence. So this bill is really near and dear to my heart because it builds on that work in what I think is an incredibly common sense way. So AB 2047 builds on prior legislation to address the newest firearm threat, which is 3D printed weapons. This legislature has done an immense amount of work to try to reduce the number of 3D printed weapons in our state. and we just honestly need to do more. Since January of this year, there have been several 3D printed gun busts and recoveries in California, including San Jose, San Bernardino, and Santa Rosa. And we cannot stand by while these firearms continue to flow into our communities. As I was walking into this committee hearing, actually, I was speaking to one of our own law enforcement officers in the building, and she mentioned to me that they're seriously concerned about these because they're not detectable in our screenings as people enter the building. So these guns are dangerous for a multitude of reasons that being just one of them Obviously they not part of our permit system our tracking system all the ways that we try to reduce gun violence and make sure guns are in the hands of responsible gun owners alone So we committed to continuing to work with stakeholders on this bill to make sure it doesn't have unintended consequences. It is moving to the Privacy Committee next, where we deal with the tech issues and make sure that this is really a doable and implementable law. With that, I'll turn it over to my witness, Crystal Lopalito, Director of Policy and Advocacy for Everytown, and Daniel Smith, a student volunteer with Student Demand Action right here in Sacramento. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Crystal Lopalato, and I serve as a policy advocacy director for Everytown for Gun Safety. Together with Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, we are the largest gun violence prevention organization in the nation. We're proud sponsors of AB 2047 and grateful to Assemblymember Bauer-Keyen for bringing the bill forward. AB 2047 is an exciting technological solution to the dangerous problem of firearms made with household 3D printers. It's the common sense next step in California's fight against ghost guns. The 3D printed gun crisis is not a far away or a future problem. It's happening here in California right now. In just the six-month span between September 2025 to February 2026, we've tracked numerous instances of 3D firearm manufacturing operations uncovered by law enforcement agencies all around the state. As we sit here today, at this moment, there may be a 3D printer somewhere in California making a functional ghost gun for someone who is not legally allowed to purchase or possess guns because they're underage or have previously been convicted of violent crimes or gun trafficking. This threatens everything members of this committee have done over the last many decades to strengthen California gun laws to protect our communities. California lawmakers can't sit idly by while teenagers, extremists, and people with violent criminal histories can easily print guns in their basements and bedrooms. To be clear, there's so much positive creativity and innovation happening as 3D printing becomes more accessible and affordable. This bill won't stifle or threaten that. Technology now exists to block the printing of files that have been specifically identified as firearm design files. Ensuring that technology is equipped on all printers sold to retail consumers in our state is a new and preventative way to effectuate California's existing laws, which already prohibit 3D printing guns and unlicensed firearms manufacturing. Thank you. We ask for your aye vote. Dear Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the committee, my name is Daniel Smith and I'm a student at Sacramento State, constituent of District 10 and speaking on behalf of Students Demand Action today. AB 2047, the Firearm Printing Prevention Act, serves as a way to prevent people who aren't allowed to have firearms from obtaining untraceable ones. As of now, anyone with a 3D printer can pay for a file, buy a filament, and successfully print a gun in the same day. And because this can be done entirely at home, it's a way to bypass California's already very strong gun legislation. As a student, 3D printers are provided at us to no personal cost through our schools and through our public libraries. And as an individual, I can buy my own 3D printer for less than $250 off of Amazon or any other major retailer. I can have it shipped here within the same day, same week. There's no rush. there's no question for how accessible getting a 3d printer is for the average citizen and with that comes the risk for foul play california has a huge influence on the rest of the nation and so when we act the side effects of it are felt everywhere tackling this problem here locally could save sorry tackling the problem locally could save lives from people across the nation this bill requires the manufacturers of all 3D printers sold in California to equip their printers with technology that scans files to check for similarities to known firearm prints. And if it comes back as a match, the printer will not print that file. By stopping the ghost forms from being printed in the first place, it helps prevent illegal and unregistered guns from being in our streets and in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Please pass this bill to keep our communities safe. And thank you. All right. Thank you for presenting the bill, and thank you both for your testimony here today. Now we'll hear from the Me Too's in support of the bill. Come on down. Please state your name. If you're with an organization, let us know that, and, of course, your position. Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in strong support. Thank the author for tackling this difficult but important issue. Good morning. Good morning, Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady Campaign and Brady California in support. Thank you. Kevin Guzman on behalf of the California Medical Association, in support. Linda Peacock, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support. Sarah Berger, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support. Kathleen Kirk, volunteer for Moms Demand Action, and I approve. Thank you. Mary Duplaw, I am a gun violence survivor and a volunteer for NorCal Gun Violence Prevention. Someone's talking in my ear, so that's why. Cassandra Whetstone, volunteer with NorCal Gun Violence Prevention in support. David Bond with Everytown for Gun Safety. Proud to be in support and proud to be a sponsor. Yara Judal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support. Elizabeth Carpenter, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in strong support. Claire Senshner, gun violence survivor, and volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support. Erin Mullen Brosnan, volunteer, Moms Demand Action, here in support. Thank you for your consideration. All right. Thank you very much, everybody. Next, we'll take opposition testimony. Are there anyone here in the room hoping to testify in opposition? Yes. Okay. So come on down. So for purposes of our testimony, you both can sit here in these seats. You'll have two minutes each to oppose. To those in the back who also want to be heard, you'll have a chance after this testimony to register your position of oppose. All right. Whoever would like to begin, you each have two minutes. Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a alleged advocate with ACLU CalAction. I want to start that we have two primary concerns with this bill. The first is that this proposal creates a redundant criminal penalty. It is already unlawful to 3D print a firearm without the proper license. Over the last several decades, our criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. We must avoid creating redundant criminal penalties when the misbehavior we're trying to prevent is already criminalized. Beyond this redundancy, this bill poses grave risk to many users of 3D printers and their right to privacy. This new required software contains troubling similarities to efforts by governments and corporations to either break end-to-end encryption or include content scanning technology on people's electronic devices. At the ACLU we have warned of the dangers that this technology brings and how it may be exploited to conduct far surveillance Mandating an algorithm that scans for the possible printing of a ghost gun poses similar risk Once this proposed scanning algorithm is in place, it could be abused by governments or corporations to prevent socially or politically sensitive 3D printed designs infringing on our civil liberties. This type of software creates a permanent backdoor into what an individual chooses to 3D print in the privacy of their own home. And once this new infrastructure exists, it is a simple software update away from tracking political dissent or preventing 3D printed designs that may cut into the profit margin of a powerful corporation. We remain skeptical of any software that contains a client-side scanning system that is purportedly only designed to capture specific files, as this software invades the privacy of its users with 3D printers who will, by necessity, have everything they print scanned and approved by an opaque government algorithm. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 2047. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Clay Kimberling. I'm the California State Director for the National Rifles Association. I'm also authorized to speak on behalf of gun owners of California today in respectful opposition to Assembly Bill 2047 on behalf of our tens of thousands of members across California.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear the me too. So if you'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill, you can come forward at this time. As a reminder, per committee rules, just confine your comment to your name, the organization you're with and your position, which I would anticipate is opposed. Whenever you're ready. Adam Wilson, on behalf of Gun Owners of America, in opposition.

Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, we'll turn it back to the dais. Mr. Lackey, I saw you first.

Okay. Okay.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Are there other questions or comments from members of the committee? All right. I just have one to the author. I appreciate the very concise and to the point testimony of the opposition witnesses. Does the author or her witnesses have any response to the

Someone's having a lot of fun upstairs.

Thank you both for the answer. Looks like there's much more fruitful discussion to be had. With that, unless there's anything else from the dais, Assemblymember, give you a chance to close.

Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? All right, with a motion and a second, Chair's recommendation is a strong aye. Oh, strong aye. I don't know what's going to happen with your other wish list, but I'll give you the strong aye. So with that, let's call the roll. For item 17, AB 2047 by Assemblymember Bauer-Cahan, the motion is due pass to the Judiciary Committee. Schultz?

Schultz, aye. Alanis?

Alanis, not voting. Gonzalez?

Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Harbidian?

Harbidian, aye. Lackey?

Lackey, not voting. Gwen? Ramos?

Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Okay, that measure is on call for absent members. Thank you very much. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you all for being here. We're gonna take one more bill before the lunch hour. Dr. Jackson, thank you for showing up. We're gonna have to take your bill after lunch, but we're happy to put you first after lunch if you'd like. Vice chair, you have the floor, and I have my opportunity to extract revenge. I'm kidding. Please continue.

Go ahead.

It give us other protections afforded Thank you Thank you And who will be your second witness today Right here The daughter Wonderful You have two minutes

Thank you for your presentation and thank you both for your testimony today. Appreciate you being here. Next, we'll take the me-toos in support. Come on down. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please let us know your name, if you're with a particular organization, and your position, which I presume would be support.

Thank you all very much for your testimony. Next, we'll go to any opposition witnesses. Do we have opposition witnesses here? We do. Okay, so you two will have these seats right here. When you begin speaking, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee.

And I'm sorry, that is two minutes, but thank you. And there might be an opportunity to add more if you're asked a question. Your turn.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. Come on down.

Thank you, Mr. Perry. Anyone else? Okay, we'll turn it back to the dais for questions, comments, motions, Mr. Lackey.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lackey. Are there other questions or comments?

That's actually a great question.

Say again.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Assemblymember Alanis, I have a question for you and I have a question for your witness. the family member. So maybe in a moment we can have her step up to that mic over there. But my first question to you, Mr. Aloniz, you've heard some of the concerns raised by the opposition. What's your direct response to them?

Thank you. Could I sorry I don have a question for you but someone else might and that appropriate Can I actually get your other witness up here or maybe at that microphone the family member I think it was Mr Scanlon daughter Hi Pauline. What was that?

Pauline?

Oh, sorry. Hi, Pauline. How are you?

I had two questions for you. I've had a theme going today, and I think it's appropriate. Could you tell me a little bit about you, Dad, so we don't forget him?

Is there anything else? I had one more. I appreciate you sharing all that with us. I believe at my core that he's with you today and he's standing right next to you. I agree. Unfortunately, I can't hear what he has to say, but if I can ask a really unfair question of you, it would be if we could hear him, what do you think he want this committee to know about the importance of this bill?

but I think that with the kind of man that I know my dad to be is he's very selfless. And I think aside from himself, he's probably just trying to speak for everybody else, not just working, but those to come, making sure that their safety is the first priority over anything else, making sure that when they're in the prison interacting with these inmates, that they're safe, that they have the proper equipment to protect themselves. Because like Mr. Lackey mentioned, what's more valuable than life? You can't argue that. And if you pass this bill, it increases those chances of our officers going home safe to their families. And I think that's what my dad would say. I think so, too. Thank you. I have no other questions. Dr. Sharp. I'm just sticking with consistency today, and I'm asking that as we prepare to recess for lunch, if we can acknowledge all of the families that have been here this morning with a moment of silence before we recess for lunch. OK, we'll certainly do that. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Sharp Collins. Anyone else? OK, Assemblymember Alanis, you have a chance to close. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Ramos. Great questions. And I want to thank the Scanlon family, Tepa, Pauline, and their daughters here. I want to thank the Fresno County and San Joaquin County deputies who have came down here. As you guys know, I was in law enforcement prior to this, and I got into that job because I wanted to help people. I wanted to help people who were helpless, that needed the help, that were calling for the help, and I wanted to be there to be that person, just like Officer Scanlon was. And so I've seen this going on for years, and now I see myself in a position where I can now help them. And so with your guys' help, I would also like you guys to help them. So I'm asking for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second? We have a second and a third. All right. With that, colleagues, Chair recommends a strong aye. Let's take the roll. For item 16, AB 2004 by Assemblymember Alanis, the motion is due pass. Schultz? Aye. Schultz? Aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Haney? Harbidian? Aye. Harbidian? Aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey? Aye. Nguyen? Ramos? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins? Aye. Okay, that measure passes. Before we break for lunch, at the request of Dr. Sharp-Collins, we'll have a brief moment of silence. Commencing now. All right. Thank you, everyone. We'll meet back next door, room 127, at 1.30 p.m. with 10 items of business to dispense with. 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. Welcome back everyone to what I have to believe is the world smallest committee room But here we are. Thank you all in advance and appreciate your help working together to get in and out of those very tight rows. It's remarkably how poorly designed this room is, but we will persevere. So we still have our quorum. I just had a quick programming note. I wanted to note that Assemblymember Matt Haney will not be able to join us today. He'll be dealing with a personal matter. We wish him all the best. But we do have a quorum and we'll carry on. Next, in terms of sign-in order, we have Assemblymember Sanchez with two items before the... Oh, I'm sorry. Assemblymember Ransom is here. I'm so sorry. Assemblymember Sanchez, hang tight. Assemblymember Ransom, would you like to begin with AB 1605 or AB 2259? Fantastic. So, colleagues, this is going to be item number 23 on our agenda, Assembly Bill 2259 by Assemblymember Ransom. Just as a reminder, after lunch, Assemblymember, once you make your presentation, your witnesses will have two minutes each to address the committee. same courtesy will be afforded to opposition witnesses. The floor is all yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Today I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2259, which is a simple bill to solve a major problem. Each year, thousands of Californians are released from our correctional facilities without access to basic mental health care. While our Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provides many programs programs to help inmates with the diagnoses and history of mental conditions, it does not offer necessary therapy to inmates who are about to be released back into the community. The circumstances that put an individual into the justice system are varied, but the traumatic experiences are real and common. Assembly Bill 2259 would create a pilot program at two prisons, one women's facility and one men's facility in order to give inmates within 90 days of their release a date date of parole eligibility to access a simple mental health service program this bill would ensure that people nearing their release dates have access to mental health visits two per month until the date of release arrives giving inmates basic access to health care whether in person or virtually can be a life-changing benefit to justice impacting individuals giving them the opportunity to process experiences and prepare for return to society. The mental health supports offered by this bill, alongside other programs, provide help to newly released individuals so that they can get back on their feet and hopefully stay out of prison. With me today to testify, we have Esteban Nunez on behalf of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Chair and members of the committee, my name is Esteban Nunez, and I'm here representing the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. AB 2259 holds profound significance to me, drawing from both personal experiences and insights gleaned from those currently incarcerated who face ongoing hardships. When I first entered the prison system at the age of 21, I was confronted with a stark reality and an unfamiliar set of situations. It was a journey marked by accountability for my actions and grappling with the harm that I caused my community and my family. moreover I was compelled to confront the underlying traumas that had contributed to my destructive path struggling with cultural shock and emotional numbness I found myself battling depression Eventually I was classified as triple CMS which is a designation reserved for individuals grappling with mental health issues, granting me access to vital mental health resources, such as therapy. In therapy, I began the arduous journey of unraveling my childhood traumas, particularly the impact of being molested at the age of six. Confronting these painful memories shed light on the motivations behind my past negative behaviors. It became evident that my actions were in part driven by a subconscious attempt to compensate for my inability to protect myself as a child. While acknowledging that this does not absolve me of my responsibility for my actions, it underscores the critical role of rehabilitation in my journey. Moreover, the discussions with fellow incarcerated individuals revealed a startling prevalence of similar childhood traumas, often normalized and left unaddressed. The essence of this bill lies in its commitment to providing essential therapeutic care to those who may not fit within the existing classifications of the prison system. It recognizes the inherent stigma surrounding mental health care within the prison walls, both among the population and its staff. Many of our rehabilitative program participants currently incarcerated have expressed a dire need for support, but fear the consequences of seeking help within the current system. Therapy should be available to incarcerated individuals, irrespective of diagnostic labels. Research demonstrates that incarceration exacerbates underlying traumas, and the provision of therapeutic support can empower individuals to develop healthy coping mechanisms essential for successful reentry into society. This bill is also aligned with California's CalAIM initiative, which is designated to improve continuity of care for justice-involved individuals as they transition back into the community. And I'll stop you there. We're a little over two minutes, but I let you go because you're the only witness. Appreciate your testimony, and there could definitely be an opportunity for more in terms of answering questions. So thank you, and thank you, Assemblymember, for presenting the bill. Folks, as best we can, I know it's tight quarters, we have the microphone right over here next to Assemblymember Wynn. If you would like to present your Me Too testimony in support of the bill, you know the drill. Sorry again for the very tight quarters. Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in support. Chair members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support. Hian Nguyen, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in support. Hi, Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in proud support. Tina Marie Silva on behalf of CCWP, California Coalition for Women Prisoners in support. Karen Vickery, Mental Health America of California, proud co-sponsor in support. Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition to the bill? By a show of hands, anybody? Okay. Anyone else wanting to register an opinion on the bill? Okay. Back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions? Okay. We have a motion by Wynn and a second by Mr. Gonzalez. Any other discussion from the dais? All right. Easy peasy. Assembly member, would you like to close? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So first of all, I want to thank Mr. Nunez for coming here today and for sharing our rationale and some lived experience and that why this matters to this community and to this state So I just want to close by saying that if the objective of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is truly to rehabilitate people and give them a fair chance, that work starts and ends with mental wellbeing of people in their care. This bill is an essential step in providing that care. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Assembly Member. and thank you for taking the words right out of my mouth and extending that courtesy and thanks to the witness. I, too, recommend an aye. And with a motion and second, we'll conduct the roll. For item 23, AB 2259 by Assemblymember Ransom, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Harbidian? Lackey? Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins. Okay, that measure passes, but we'll allow others to add on as they come back to the room. Thank you. And that brings us to our second Assemblymember Ransom Bill of the Day. Colleagues, this is item two on your agenda. This is Assembly Bill 1605. And Assemblymember, do you have any witnesses with you today? I do. Okay. Oh, perfect. As they make their way in, just let them know they'll have two minutes each to address the committee. And Assemblymember, the floor is yours whenever you're ready. Awesome. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members again for the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 1605, which is a bill designed to enhance public safety in our state. Assembly Bill 1605 allows judges to place a no alcohol label on IDs of individuals convicted of serious and repeat DUIs, preventing alcohol purchases to help cut down on repeat offenses. As we've heard and will continue to hear, we have some real stark issues that we are trying to address across our state with drunk driving. This bill will give us an opportunity to deal with the root cause, which is access to alcohol for people who cannot handle it responsibly or who have demonstrated an addiction. As mentioned, we will be giving the judges a tool. Minnesota has a similar law that they introduced in the early 2000s, and data shows that prohibition and restriction has reduced recidivism. The second-time offenders who had a sobriety requirement showed a 74% reduction in recidivism. If you are a serious and repeat offender, then this is something that would be for you, to prevent you from making alcohol purchases. Forgive me. According to the California Office of Traffic Safety, in 2023, nearly 1,500 people were killed in alcohol-involved traffic crashes in California, accounting for roughly one-third of fatalities statewide. This is not just a DUR number, which with hundreds of thousands of people across our state experiencing incidents with drunk driving, it's really important that we are stepping up right now. This is an entirely preventable epidemic that we are facing, and the bill attends to address the root cause. I want to demonstrate, or I really want to be clear that this is not a blanket ban. One of the things that we've heard is, you know, what about constitutional rights? This is not a blanket ban. This only applies to repeat and serious offenders. Many DUI offenders struggle with disorders. And while alcohol addiction could be a health issue when it intersects with driving, it becomes a public safety crisis and we have to respond to that. So this supports accountability and intervention, having this tool for judges to work alongside ignition locks and mandatory treatment. California already adds restrictions to driver's licenses after DUI's convictions, and license suspensions we see are also included, but that alone is not enough. We've seen people go around license suspensions, go around the ignition locks. So we want to make sure that we are adding another tool to keep our public safe and make sure that we are responding properly to the epidemic that we are facing. Here with me today, in order to add additional context, I have Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chief Association to testify. Thank you. And before you present, Mr. Feldman, I will just ask of the author, is the author accepting the committee amendments today? Yes, I want to say thank you to the chair. We've had some very lengthy amendments, and so I really do appreciate their work to help us get to a place that meets the needs of the committee as well as the bill. Thank you. And the feeling of respect is certainly mutual. I would just add for those in the room, if you're trying to follow along right outside the door, I'm told we have a four page document entitled amended mockup for the 2025, 2026 AB 1605 ransom bill. I would just note that you'll find the bulk of the changes listed in sections one through four on pages one and two, as well as in addition on the very top of page three. With that, Mr. Feldman, you have two minutes. Yep. Thank you, chair members. Good afternoon. now. So I first say I'm glad to hear that things were worked out on this policy and thank the chair and thank the author for all their hard work on this one, because I do think it is important policy discussion for us to continue having in the legislature. You know, we're working a lot on DUI issues. We're looking a lot on the penalties and the accountability side, but the preventive side is just as important. And I think to the extent that this bill actually gets at the root cause, obviously fully aware of the practical implementation issues. And I'm glad to again, see the amendments work through some of those points. But the state does restrict individuals from purchasing certain products if they're shown to be irresponsible or negligent. Firearms, obviously, but if you're convicted of animal cruelty, you might be prohibited from purchasing an animal. Certain online accessibility if you're convicted of having child sexually abusive material. So we do have a history in the state of regulating when someone has been found to be clearly too irresponsible or dangerous to possess, you know, whatever product it might be. And so when it comes to alcohol, I mean, obviously there's workarounds, obviously there's issues that we'll have to continue to work through. But in all those other instances, we don't just ever say, well, it's too hard to do this. We should just, you know, forget the laws and allow everyone to just purchase what they want. No, we work hard to create a policy that's reasonable, meaningful, but does actually try and protect the public, and this bill does that, and for that reason, we are in strong support. Ask and I vote. Thank you. Thank you both very much. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's in support of the measure. Feel free to come forward at this time. Kevin Usman with the California Medical Association, in support. Good afternoon. Justin Vanzel on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition, in support. Good afternoon. Raul Verdugo on behalf of I'll call justice in support of AB 1605. Great. Thank you all very much. Just final call. I know it's tight quarters. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. Do we have witnesses in opposition? Okay. Great. So if you going to give a me too I think you can start lining up There will be two opposition witnesses So whichever two We have two seats right here in front and you have two minutes each to address the committee Hello. Hello. Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. My name is Hyun Nguyen, Campaigns and Policy Manager with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in opposition to AB 1605. That would create significant risk to civil rights and equity. LSPC and All of Us or None have been champions of Ban the Box, a national civil rights movement led by formerly incarcerated people and their families to combat job and housing discrimination. Our opposition to AB 1605 flows directly from this legacy. Ban the Box succeeded because it recognized that visible record automatically excludes people from consideration regardless of their qualifications or rehabilitation. A marked license functions as a visible scarlet letter that will trigger automatic discriminations in employment, housing, and public life. People with arrest records or conviction records need and deserve reliable access to income through safe, good-paying jobs. This is just not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of public safety as well. Research on reentry consistently shows that stable employment is one of the most critical factors to reducing recidivism. The Federal First Step Act and California's own Fair Chance Act recognizes that removing barriers to work is essential for helping people successfully reintegrate. An employer seeing a mark during a required I-9 verification or a landlord reviewing IDs will have immediate grounds for discrimination, even if the individual has completed probation or maintained sobriety. So this policy directly undermines the very employment opportunities that evidence shows are essential to preventing re-offense. The bias that perpetuates systemic racism because black, Latinx, and indigenous people are disproportionately penalized by the criminal legal system and therefore are more likely than other racial or ethnic groups to have records. If the goal is to reduce repeat DUI offenses and prevent serious harm, the legislature should prioritize investment in treatment, substance use services, preventative technology, and restorative accountability approaches that directly address behavior change. And that's your time. I'm sorry. Thank you. But we have another witness. You also have two minutes. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members. My name is Rebecca Miller, and I'm an attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and I'm testifying in respectful opposition to AB 1605. We appreciate the amendments, and we're looking forward to reviewing them. I think we're particularly heartened to see some of the reduced criminalization and the increased judicial discretion. While acknowledging the devastation that impaired driving can cause, Western Center is concerned that this bill proposes an unproven approach that's overbreathable of harmful unintended consequences. A driver's license is a critical piece of personal identifying information that people rely on for their basic needs, to apply for employment, to apply for housing, to open a bank account, to cash a paycheck, to register children for school and identify oneself when picking them up from daycare or camps, to obtain prescriptions and medical care, and to receive public benefits and social services. A designation on their driver license advertises a criminal conviction far beyond the intended scope and with questionable value for public safety and for low Californians with fewer options and less resources this can compound barriers to economic stability for them and their families We concerned about discrimination and stigma not just for the individual but for their family members and their children. This bill will also involve significant costs for enforcement and implementation at a time of limited resources. as we encourage the legislature to invest in more targeted, Evin-based approaches to keeping Californians safe. Thank you. Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear the me-tos from others in opposition or registering any position on the bill. Please come forward at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Member, Sarah Phlox, California Federation of Labor Unions. I believe I'm a tweener in transition. We had an oppose unless amended position because of representing delivery drivers, bartenders, food service workers. We just saw the amendments, but on first glance, they look like they go very far in addressing our concerns. So we really look forward to moving to a neutral position. We just have to take one look outside of committee, but we look forward to this bill moving so that we can get to a neutral position. Thank you very much to the author and to the committee. Thank you. Next. Good afternoon, chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California and Unite here. I just want to echo the comments of Sarah with Labor Fed. Again, thank you to the author and the committee for their work, and we also look forward to moving to a neutral position. Thank you. Shivani Nishaw on behalf of Initiate Justice and Respectful Opposition. Shayla Wilson on behalf of La Defensa and the Justice Jobs Coalition. We'll take a look at the amendment, but at this point still in opposition. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in opposition. Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendes on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union in opposition. Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition. Great. Just one last call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Yes. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California. We really appreciate the author taking our concerns into consideration, and we're going to review the amendments. Great. Thank you all very much. We'll turn it back to the dais now. Questions or comments from members of the committee? Assembly member Wynne, was that? Oh, okay. Oh, double duty today. Very good. Or would anyone like to make a motion at this time? Thank you. Perfect. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion from the dais? No. Assemblymember Ransom, back to you. Awesome. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So first of all, I want to start by thanking even those who are in opposition of this bill. I find myself on the opposite side of folks who I typically have worked with, whether it be labor, whether it be justice organizations, because it's the right thing to do. If we want to talk about rehabilitation and restorative justice, restorative justice and rehabilitation both require accountability. And it also requires that we employ tools that are helpful to individuals who are struggling. And so while I appreciate and understand that people are fearful and concerned, I really want to say that one of the first questions, as someone who spent a lot of time training people on restorative justice across the state, one of the first questions we would ask is how can we make things right for victims? And when we have these conversations about opposition I don hear anybody talking about the victims people who are losing their lives by people negligence recklessness irresponsibility or even their illness So while I have sympathy and empathy for people who are in the justice system, the goal is to be able to keep those people out of the justice system by doing something that they're not doing for themselves, but also by prioritizing those who, without no fault of their own, innocent people out on the streets, minding their own business. And the next thing they know, they know their lives are taken and their families are changed forever. And so that is what we want to address. We have an epidemic. We're not as a state. We're not leading in resolving this and we cannot do it by keeping the status quo. And so that's why we brought this bill today. So I appreciate the healthy dialogue. I'm happy to continue it. We've had great conversations with labor, with the Teamsters and others, and we're hoping to get to a healthy place to address any of the worker issues. But this is about safety. This bill gives judges the tools that they may use to address the root cause of the problem. And we're looking at people who are a serious and dangerous threat, who have done this over and over again, because DUIs are preventable. We need people to be responsible and our roads to be safe for our kids, our community, and for everyone here. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. I'll just briefly note, colleagues, I am happy to be in a position to recommend an aye today. Really appreciate the hard work of the author. I know that the bill as amended isn't everything that you set out to do. I think, nonetheless, it does seek to add a critical tool to the toolbox for judicial officers to hopefully prevent repeat offenders from becoming the reality that they often are. I also want to thank much of what we heard from the opposition, both in the form of the testimony from our witnesses and others who registered a position. I won't submit that we addressed every concern, but I think that some of the provisions around decriminalization address many of the comments that were highlighted in the letter from at least a few of those in opposition, as well as the amendments to 23600.5 subsection A. So really appreciative of the author to get us to this point. And with that, I recommend an aye. So we have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll. For item 2, AB 1605 by Assemblymember Ransom, the motion is due pass as amended to the Government Organization Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Harbidian? Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Okay, that measures out. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. You got it. We'll let others add on as they come back. Just a quick programming note, because I know we have a few authors here that might have to be elsewhere. Next in sign-in order, we have two bills from Assemblymember Sanchez. Then we have Assemblymember Jackson. If he is not here, then Mr. Patterson, you would be... If he is here, then Mr. Patterson, you'll be waiting for just a little bit. Sorry, poor Mr. Lackey's at the tail end, but we'll get everyone done today. Assemblymember Sanchez. Are we going to begin with item seven? This is 1747. Please. Okay. We'll start with that one. Thank you. Item seven, everybody. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and staff. I am here today to present AB 1747, a measure to ensure that when a drunk driver takes the life of a human on California's roads, our laws reflect the gravity of that tragedy currently under a The existing law of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is considered a wobbler. This means a driver who is under the influence of a substance and kills another person can be charged with a mere misdemeanor. To put this in perspective, under our current code, an intoxicated driver could face a lighter sentence for killing a person than another driver might face for simply injuring one. This inconsistency fails to adequately protect the public from dangerous drivers and, worse yet, denies justice to grieving families who lost loved ones. The need for this reform is underscored by the recent CalMatters investigative series. Their reporting revealed a shocking reality. Alcohol-related roadway deaths in California have surged by over 50% in the last decade. That is twice the national rate. AB 1747 is a straightforward fix. It eliminates the misdemeanor wobbler option, making vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated a mandatory felony. This ensures a uniform, serious response throughout the state's criminal courts. Testifying with me today is Assistant Sheriff Jeff Puckett from the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Assistant Sheriff Jeff Puckett, and I'm here representing the Orange County Sheriff's Department. In my current assignment, I oversee policing services for 13 contract cities and multiple unincorporated areas, which gives us the largest public safety footprint in a county of 3.1 million people. I'd like to thank you for your consideration of AB 1747. I want to express that we are proud to partner with Assemblywoman Keith Sanchez on this important bill. By reclassifying vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated as a felony, this bill ensures that individuals who endanger others by driving under the influence will face meaningful consequences. Like the Assemblywoman pointed out, 50% of vehicle collisions have been increased in California, which outpaces national trends. It's important to say that Orange County, which reflects the majority of the state, arrests approximately 10,000 people annually for DUI, of which we know one in four repeat offenders. In recent years, California has averaged more than 1,300 fatalities annually from drunk driving crashes alone. These tragedies are the result of individual bad decisions and are further enabled by public policies that do not adequately deter dangerous behavior. In addition to looking at the data, it's also important to recognize the human impact. And while I can certainly share many stories in regards to the human tragedy that this crime impacts, I think one important one to know is that on November 18th in 2025, a 13-year-old boy by the name of Luis Morales Pacheco was walking to school in the city of Dana Point when at 08.15 in the morning, a repeat DUI offender ran him over and killed him on his way to school. This tragedy could have been avoided had this law been in place with stricter prosecutions. Under current California law, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is classified as a wobbler, meaning it can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony. And when charged with a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty is one year in county jail. This structure of keeping it as a wobbler allows for inconsistent sentencing outcomes in cases involving devastating loss of life. An intoxicated driver who caused a fatal crash could actually receive a lighter sentence than another impaired driver whose actions result only in injury. This creates significant injustice and inconsistency for victims' families and does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime. AB 1747 strengthens the safety of California's roads by eliminating that misdemeanor option, and we would ask this committee to consider an aye vote moving forward. Thank you for the presentation and for your testimony, sir. Next we hear from those hoping to speak in support of the bill Please make your way over to that microphone Name organization and position please Mr Chair and members Corey Selzel on behalf of the California State Sheriff Association in support Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorney's Association in support. All right, wonderful. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay, I just do that, by the way, so if anyone's in the hallway, they have a moment to come in. All right, next, do we have anyone hoping to testify in opposition? We do. I see a couple. So come on down. Once you're seated and start speaking, you'll each have up to two minutes to address the committee. Good morning, Chair and members. Eric Henderson, I'm the Policy Director at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition to AB 1747. The Ella Baker Center believes that we all deserve to feel safe on our roads and avoid preventable deaths. However, we hold the view that the approach outlined in this bill fails to provide a meaningful solution to the issue it seeks to address. Instead, it seems poised to further overcrowd our jails and prisons without tackling the underlying problems. Many people who engage in impaired driving are experiencing a substance use disorder. Addressing impaired driving solely as a criminal legal matter ignores the complex health issues that often contribute to such behavior. This narrow focus misses a crucial opportunity to offer the treatment these individuals truly need, as well as to provide support to the survivors. Importantly, the proposed felony changes related to intoxicated vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence have the potential to encompass a diverse spectrum of individuals in cases, as noted in the analysis. Many of these cases may not warrant a felony charge, and currently prosecutors have the discretion to determine whether to file a misdemeanor or a felony charge, and judges can also evaluate the circumstances of each case to decide whether a misdemeanor or a felony would be more suitable considering various factors. I also want to highlight, as noted in the analysis, there's little evidence suggesting that the courts are misusing this discretion, and also noted in the analysis, the need for this legislation remains unclear. The Ella Baker Center believes that we must connect individuals to treatment, counseling, and support both before and after such incidents occur. This method offers a more humane and effective approach to ensuring public safety and addressing the root causes of impaired driving. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Good afternoon, everyone. I am Esther Mendez, speaking on behalf of the local 148 union in Los Angeles, and we respectfully oppose this bill. The way the law is currently working right now is that there's currently discretion that the judges and the prosecutors can use when addressing cases that involve people who were intoxicated that resulted in somebody's death. And the way that the discretion works is that the ultimate question is, was there gross negligence? And if the answer is no, the next question is, was it done while committing an infraction? And so there's a big difference between gross negligence and an infraction, and that is determined on a facts-to-facts basis, meaning each case is observed very differently compared to the other What this law would do is that it would remove that kind of analysis that is very critical in our justice system. Our justice system currently functions in a way where we balance the facts. We look at the law and we treat every case as its own case and not treat it as any other case. And by implementing this law, we are creating an unjust system that prohibits balancing the facts of the case. Gross negligence is completely different from an infraction. An infraction is a simple act that can be treated with a citation. Gross negligence is way beyond that. It requires the mental state of reckless disregard of human safety. And by implementing this law, we would be removing this from the court system. That means that judges and prosecutors that are evaluating these cases will not have the opportunity to treat them differently as they deserve to be treated. That's why we have this justice system to balance the facts of the case and ensure fairness for everyone. Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the Me Too's. If you'd also like to be heard in opposition to the bill, please make your way up to the microphone. Everyone take their time. Don't trample over each other in this small space. As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of this room. Whenever you're ready. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed. Shayla Wilson on behalf of Law Defensa and the Justice Jobs Coalition in opposition. Tina Marie Silva, California Coalition for Women Prisoners in strong opposition. Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition. Shivani Nishara on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. Ariana Montez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition. David Martinez with Streets for All. We're opposed unless amend to include discretion for extraordinary circumstances. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU CalAction in strong opposition. Okay, thank you all. Final chance if anyone else wants to be heard of the bill. Okay, we'll turn it back to the data. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? One, I would just ask Assemblymember Sanchez, having listened to some of the testimony from the opposition witnesses, do you or your witness have any brief response you'd like the committee to consider? Sure. I appreciate that. Is this my close as well? Okay. Okay. Great. I just want to make sure that we all understand. I know that we have other work in this space that other colleagues are doing, but this is a baseline about accountability, right? And it's just starting to make sure that if an intoxicated driver, it's recognized that this is taken as a serious felony because we are always standing on behalf of the victims and justice and accountability and making sure that this is a life-changing experience for them and it shouldn't be treated as anything other than that. Before I go on are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee All right With that is there a motion at this time We have a motion and a second at this point assembly member this is your closing If there anything else you like to add Thank you members today. We have a choice. We can stand with the families who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers, or you can support those who like to drink and drive. I pray that you make the right choice. Please support AB 1740 47 and help make our roads safe. Well, thank you very much. Thank you to everyone who testified. Colleagues, I am recommending a no, and I'd like the opportunity to explain why. Before I go on, I would like to thank Assemblymember Sanchez. Like you, I too am very concerned about the safety of our roadways, and I want to ensure that our laws are responsive to the evolving challenges of our state. I also apologize for needing notes, but there are so many bills to keep track of that I couldn't possibly keep all that in my head. For that reason, I authored AB 1546 earlier in this session, a bill to increase punishment for repeat DUI offenders. I will also note that this committee, including today, has passed or considered bills to clarify that completion of a court-ordered misdemeanor diversion program for specified driving offenses does not dismiss required point assessments to a defendant's driving record, and to clarify that the date of revocation following a conviction for specified offenses begins when the DMV actually revokes a person's license and not on the date of conviction. Today, we've already heard or will be hearing bills to mandate IIDs for first-time offenders, to toll driver's license revocations for specified offenses during periods of incarceration, and to increase the points added to a person's driving record for specified crimes. I bring all that up to say that this committee takes the issue seriously and is passing a number of initiatives to tackle the issue of drunk driving on our roads. With all of that said, I do have concerns about AB 1747. Your bill would require intoxicated vehicular manslaughter with ordinary negligence to be punished as a straight felony, rather than as alternate felony misdemeanor treatment. To be very clear, in most cases, intoxicated driving resulting in death deserves felony punishment. For example, a person who kills someone while driving impaired and with gross negligence as opposed to ordinary negligence is a person, in my view, deserving of felony punishment. And indeed, under existing law, they may be punished by incarceration for up to 10 years in state prison. Intoxicated vehicular manslaughter with ordinary negligence, however, and in my view, requires a greater range of possible outcomes to account for the facts of the particular case. For example, an intoxicated driver whose conduct fell just short of gross negligence and whose negligence was the sole cause of death should be punished more harshly, in my view, than a person whose negligence amounted to low-level speeding or where there were other contributing causal factors that contributed to the person's death. In short, that's a long-winded way of saying that my position is that prosecutors in courts should retain authority and discretion to evaluate the facts and to determine the appropriate charge and punishment in these instances. I will also note separately from what I just mentioned that the bill would create inconsistent punishment under the penal code by authorizing harsher punishments for intoxicated manslaughter with ordinary negligence than are required for similar offenses that involve greater culpability, such as gross vehicular manslaughter. For all of those reasons, and with nothing but respect to the author, I'm unable to support the bill today. And again, I recommend a no. With that, we have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll. For item 7, AB 1747 by Assemblymember Sanchez, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Schultz, no. Alanis? Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Gonzalez, not voting. Haney? Harbidian? Lackey? Aye. Lackey? Aye. When? When not voting. Ramos? Ramos not voting. Sharp Collins? That measure remains on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you all for your testimony. Assembly member, I know you have one more. Same witness? Yes. Okay, easy enough. So this, colleagues, will be next on our agenda. Item number eight. This is Assembly Bill 1748, almost as if you timed that to get the two bill numbers. Very well done. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and staff. I am now presenting AB 1748, a bill that will prevent tragedy on our roads. Last year, an investigation by CalMatters reporters Robert Lewis and Lauren Helper was aptly titled 15 DUIs still driving California's failure to take repeat drunk drivers off the road. The report revealed a troubling reality of the state's approach to reinstating licenses for those convicted of a DUI. Despite California being the birthplace of our nation's anti-drunk driving movement, California's alcohol-related roadway deaths have spiked over 50% in the last decade, double the national average. Annually, over 1,000 Californians lose their lives to drunk drivers. Yes, annually. Despite this, California returns licenses to repeat offenders significantly faster than other states. For a third DUI, a third DUI, not first, not second, but a third, the state typically imposes a three-year revocation. In Nebraska, the same driver loses their license for 15 years. In Connecticut, they are never allowed to drive again. Our current relicensing timelines signal to dangerous drivers that their privilege to drive is more important than their right to live. And AB 1748 changes that by aligning our revocation timelines with the gravity of that offense. Testifying with me today is Assistant Sheriff Jeff Puckett from the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Jeff Puckett, again, Orange County Sheriff's Department. Again, proud to work with Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez on AB 1748, which we feel is incredibly important legislation to increase public safety in the state of California. By extending license revocation timelines related to driving under the influence, this bill will enhance public safety on California's roads and highways. Drunk and drug driving continue to pose a serious danger to motorist, passengers, and pedestrians. And as mentioned earlier, over the last decade, alcohol-related vehicle collision deaths have increased by 50%, which by far outpaces every other national trend in America. California, again, has averaged 1,300 fatalities annually from drunk driving crashes alone, and like we identified, one in four offenders are usually repeat offenders. AB 1748 addresses one critical part of this problem, which was identified by CalMatters, which is California's rapid reinstatement of licenses to first-time and repeat DUI offenders. California returns driver's license to repeat DUI offenders much faster than other states. In the CalMatters investigation done in 2025, a driver's license in California is revoked for three years after a third DUI, compared to eight years in New Jersey and 15 years in Nebraska. The investigation also identified individuals with many as six DUI convictions who are still able to regain a license in California. AB 1748 strengthens roadway safety by increasing license revocation timelines for individuals convicted of DUI or DUI involving bodily injury, which, from a patrol operations perspective, enhances that repeat impaired drivers are usually the individuals most frequently involved in serious injury and fatal collisions This bill sends a clear message that driving around the influence is unacceptable and that California is committed to protecting the public by confronting repeat impaired driving behavior Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, we'll take the me too's. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, come on down. Hi, good afternoon committee chair and members. My name is Raul Verdugo on behalf of Alcohol Justice And we are in strong support of AB 1748 and echo the need for effective deterrent strategies to prevent repeat DUI and protect public safety. Thanks. Mr. Chair and members, Corey Sazillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support. Thank you very much. And you're correct, Vice Chair, you're still wearing the very snazzy jacket that I envy. Right again, thank you. All right, anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Come on down. Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendez here speaking on behalf of the local 48 LA Public Defender Union, and we respectfully oppose this bill. So this bill, what it's really doing, it's criminalizing mental health. I know that DUIs involve people that have been harmed by those who have been drinking and driving. But a lot of times, as a practicing attorney, I see a lot of the clients walk in with letters from their rehab center. And this rehab center is basically addressing the substance use disorder recognized in the DSM-5 that is causing the person to drink and drive in the first place. So this law, one of the things that stands out to me the most is that it's trying to revoke the license from a person permanently. And it's also trying to extend the beginning stage of the timeline when a license is suspended. I represent indigent people who come from low-income backgrounds, who live in Los Angeles. That is not transit-centric. It is driving-centric. And these people are often trying to rebuild their lives, not only to just help themselves become a better person, meaning trying to access education, address that substance use disorder, but also create a safer community for everyone. I am going to disclose something personal. I have been convicted of two DUIs. It was not the DUI school that changed my behavioral pattern. It was not any of the conditions that the court had imposed on me to complete. It was the rehab program that I had signed up for, and that was 10 years ago. After I graduated from that rehab program, I was able to reach 10 years of sobriety this year, and I'm no longer drinking and driving. And the reason I bring that up is because punitive measures like this one is not the reason why I was able to create a safer environment for everyone. It was access to resources like rehab. Good afternoon Chair and members of the committee. My name is Ilona Yanez, Deputy Public Defender at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and I'm testifying in opposition to AB 1748, which substantially increases the length of driver's license suspensions and revocations that apply to DUIs. And to begin with, we wholeheartedly agree that DUIs are a problem that must be meaningfully addressed and prevented. We understand and support efforts to improve road safety However this bill is not evidence and will not lead to increased road safety Under current law judges already have the authority to impose such penalties including license revocation in individual cases. We wanna preserve judicial discretion to impose penalties that are appropriate for a particular individual because unreasonable restrictions won't serve public safety and will lead to avoidable violations and a revolving door to the criminal legal system. Access to a driver's license is a fundamental need for Californians, especially those re-entering society after incarceration. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, a license suspension can make it harder to find and keep a job, increase exposure to the criminal legal system, and place a great strain on a person's life and the life of their family. Research has found that having a valid driver's license and possession of a car is a stronger predictor of finding employment and leaving public assistance than a high school diploma. Almost 30% of jobs require some amount of driving and 75% of workers commute to work in a car. And I can speak from personal experience that for many of my clients, having a job and gainful employment and being able to pick up their kids from school, take their grandmother to a doctor's appointment is the best deterrent for getting back into the system. It follows that by drastically increasing the period of license revocation without providing accessible mental health and substance abuse services and robust investments in transportation, public transportation, we're setting up people to lose their jobs, to be housing for housing instability and social isolation, which exacerbates stressors that cause individuals to abuse alcohol in the first place. This can lead to unintended consequences of more accidents and fatalities on our roads, not less. Please vote no on AB 1748. Thank you both for your testimony and just want to say congratulations to you on 10 years. That's a remarkable achievement. So good on you for doing that. All right. Me Too's in opposition to the bill. Come on down. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Sheryl Wilson on behalf of La Defensa and the Justice of Jobs Coalition in opposition. Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition. Tina-Marie Silva on behalf of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners in opposition. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU CalAction in strong opposition. All right. Thank you, everybody. We'll turn it back to the dais. The members of the committee have questions, comments, or motions. All right. Right on cue, guys. We have a motion. We have a second. Any other comments, questions, coffee orders? Assembly member Jackson's ready to run out and grab coffee. No. Okay. Very good. All right. Like I will do, like I did last time to not interrupt the flow of your closing assembly member. I would just ask you don't have to, but if there's anything that was brought up in opposition testimony that you'd like to respond to chair, do you mind if I allow my witness to share his testimony and response to as absolutely comfortable with that? Go right ahead, sir. Do you have any response to what we've heard from opposition witnesses? today. I do, and I appreciate the respectful testimony brought up in opposition. There are actually a few points that I agreed with, but I'd like to take a chance to maybe add on a little bit more context. So the comment that was made in terms of suspended license and using that as kind of a blockage towards rehabilitation is in fact true, but I think it leaves out the part that a DMV commissioner or a judge can still order a license to be suspended with exceptions for employment for work or other meaningful life activities which this bill certainly does not change We see that in law enforcement on a daily basis for those specific reasons In addition to that, one of the things I think that was neglect and not being brought up was an analysis was completed of this bill, which got some things wrong. Specifically, there was an NIJ article that was cited in regards to not being a complete deterrent effect because basically a lack of advertising on the part of the offender knowing specifically what the crime is. That actually comes from the godfather of modern criminal justice systems, a gentleman by the name of Sasari Beccaria, who's a 17th-century philosopher and is widely regarded as the godfather of Western criminal justice. The comment was made in pro-support of this bill as being a deterrent factor, and that's what it is at its basis standpoint. point. This bill acts as a deterrence. DUI offenses are widely advertised and pushed by all municipalities and law enforcement agencies across the state, and harsher penalties allow us to continue to use this as a deterrent factor against repeat offenders. I believe these are important facts that did not get brought up by either the opposition or the analysis part of this bill that merit certainly further discussion and hopefully an aye vote to move this bill forward. Thank you very much. Does that raise any other questions or comments from members of the committee? I'll just say, sir, I now want to grab a drink with you and talk about 17th century philosophy. A coffee, to be very clear, but we should definitely talk about 17th century philosophy. I'm on my fourth cup of the day. Okay. Do we have a motion? We do have a motion. Okay, Assemblymember, you have a chance to close if you'd like.

Okay. I appreciate that. I'm sorry to disappoint twice in one day. I am recommending a no, and I'll have a slightly briefer explanation. I won't repeat myself, but as I did mention earlier, the committee has already passed out, or I anticipate we will pass out today, several bills strengthening California's laws related to DUI license suspensions. I will also note that my bill, AB 1546, if signed by the governor, would increase the license revocation period for serious repeat DUI offenses from four years to five years. Shortly, we'll be hearing Assemblymember Lackey's bill, AB 1687, authorizing an eight-year license revocation for repeat impaired drivers, and AB 1874 by Assemblymember Wilson, which we previously passed out, would toll the license revocation term while a person is incarcerated. Your bill certainly appreciate the intent, but your bill would go further by drastically expanding the length of DUI license revocation by, among other things, number one, increasing the license revocation for a DUI with two priors from three years to 10 years. And number two would create permanent license revocation for DUI crimes that currently result in four-year revocations. revocations. This approach, among many of the concerns that I have, the key one is this. This approach would create inconsistency in the state's license revocation framework by singling out DUI license sanctions for lengthier suspensions, whereas other serious vehicle crimes that are punished more severely in terms of incarcerated time would receive comparatively shorter license sanctions. For example, this bill would subject misdemeanor DUI with two priors to a longer license revocation term than gross vehicular manslaughter that results in death. Further, the bill would establish permanent revocation for specified offenses, including DUIs with three or more priors. A lengthy license revocation is certainly appropriate in these cases. For this reason, my bill, AB 1546, would increase DUI penalties and also created a new five-year license revocation for serious repeat offenders. But in my estimation, and with all due respect, a permanent license revocation is unwarranted and, I would say, excessively punitive. For that reason, I'm recommending a no on AB 1748. Let's conduct the roll. For item 8, AB 1748 by Assemblymember Sanchez, the motion is due pass through the Transportation Committee. Schultz? No. Schultz, no. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez? Gonzales not voting. Haney, Harbidian, Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen not voting. Ramos? Ramos not voting. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, no. We have a few members to add on, but it appears that measure will fail. May I ask for reconsideration? Yes, I'll grant it. I'm sorry. Do we have unanimous consent of those presents to grant the reconsideration to the member? Does anyone object? Okay. Reconsideration will be granted. Thank you, assembly member. Thank you to the witnesses. Okay. And yes, just to be clear, philosophy discussions over coffee. Very nice. Okay. Next we have Assemblymember Jackson. Are you here? Yes, you are. Okay. We have, this is item number 19 colleagues. This is Assembly Bill 2119, and then we will get to Mr. Patterson, who's been waiting very patiently. Thank you, Assemblymember. Assemblymember Jackson, the floor is yours. Do you have any witnesses with you today?

Okay, so you feel free whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. We'll now go to the me twos. Are there any other folks that would like to register a position of support on the bill? Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Yeah. Come on down. Great. And then just because I think I didn't see you earlier, I'll just remind everyone you each, you each get two minutes to address the committee and I'll, if you look up, I'll try to time you when you're getting close.

Mr. Chair and members, Corey Sazillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, regretfully in opposition to the bill. Obviously, law enforcement doesn't disagree with the sentiment of the bill's text that every victim of sexual assault or domestic violence has a right to a fair, unbiased, and complete investigation. In fact, we think every victim, irrespective of the crime, deserves that. no matter the victim's characteristics. But this bill makes broad pronouncements about how certain investigations should be conducted using undefined and vague terms and then opens the door for litigation that could result in enormous fiscal liabilities for public agencies. Under the bill's language, a person could assert that a law enforcement officer or agency failed to take a quote-unquote complete investigation an undefined term of a reported crime and that alone would be the basis for the person to then sue the agency for actual and compensatory damages pain and suffering punitive damages and attorney fees and court costs Similarly, law enforcement could, by no fault of their own, fail to collect quote-unquote all relevant evidence in connection with a case and be subject to the same type of litigation. Obviously, law enforcement attempts to do its best when investigating reports and collecting evidence, in all cases irrespective of the victim's characteristics, but this bill opens the door to baseless claims and crippling litigation that could result from a person simply feeling as if the investigation of their crime report failed to meet their personal expectations. The bill also installs unfunded mandates related training and the adoption of policies. And the analysis also notes other practical concerns with the bill. And for this reason, and those previously stated, we must oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. Would anyone else like to register a position of opposition on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it over to the dais. Any questions or comments from committee members? Or if not, motions are also okay. We have a motion by Sharp Collins. Do we have a second? Second by Ramos. Oh, sorry, Ramos. Comment. Okay. Thank you. So we do have a motion and a second, but the floor goes to Assemblymember Ramos.

Absolutely. If I may, Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for those comments, Assemblymember. You have my commitment to work with them. I don't see any ideological differences here. I mean, obviously, Again, as you know, the process, we all saw the analysis at the same time, and so we haven't had even the opportunity since last night to kind of work through it and kind of figure out and even provide technical assistance. So I have given my office direction to reach out to all the agencies to ask for technical assistance to continue to work through the process and to make sure that if there's unintended legal liabilities that aren't really supposed to be a part of the process or intent of the bill, but really just making sure that based upon, you know, sometimes depending on who comes to the door when they are receiving a report, as the Department of Justice has noted, sometimes it's based upon their own biases that, hey, no, you're a male. It's not possible for you to have been sexually assaulted. So therefore, we don't think an investigation is necessary, and we move on. And it happens because that was the author of this bill. And so I think that we have some things that we can work on. And the idea here is just to try to get as many people justice as possible, of course. And we will continue to work with the opposition today and any opposition in the future. We want to get this right. And we want to make sure that we do this in a fair and balanced way to everyone involved in the process. And so, Assemblyman, you have my commitment to go through this process and also to work with your office as well to ensure that the lived experiences of our first people of the state are included in the process.

Thank you both. Any other questions or comments? All right. Would you like to close, Dr. Jackson?

Well said. And just to confirm, you are taking the committee amendments?

Okay. Thank you. Colleagues, I recommend an I. Appreciate the author and take him at his word. Sounds like there's more conversations to be had. I trust that they will happen. And as I told you in private, Dr. Jackson, to the extent that I or committee staff can continue to be a resource in any way, shape, or form in facilitating those conversations, happy to do it. Let's conduct the roll. For item 19, AB 2119 by Assemblymember Jackson, the motion is due pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee. Schultz? Schultz, aye. Alanis? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Harbidian? Lackey? Lackey? Not voting when Ramos Ramos I sharp Collins, sharp Collins. I. Okay. That measure remains on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Patterson, you have been incredibly patient. Uh, if you are ready to come up, uh, we'll be going to item number 22 colleagues. This is assembly bill 2237 by assembly member Patterson. The floor is yours whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 2237. Specifically, this problem addresses misdemeanor sex offenses. Under current law, sex offenders convicted of misdemeanors are placed on probation for just 12 months. The required sex offender counseling as Deputy Probation Officer McLeod will talk about are ordered to complete those courses that typically last 18 months or longer That means supervision ends before treatment is finished Accountability ends early and risk is pushed back into the community unmanaged. AB 2237 closes the gap by allowing probation terms of up to three years so courts can ensure the treatment is not just started, but that it's completed. And let's be clear about who we're talking about. These are offenses like the man who sits next to the young teen at the children's movie and slowly rubs her leg as she's paralyzed with fear. The man who videos young girls and women in public places without their knowledge or consent. The man who masturbates in public directing his conduct towards children and families. These aren't low-level offenses. These are predatory behaviors. They cause real harm and they often are early indicators of escalating conduct if not addressed with meaningful intervention. Probation is the tool that allows us to intervene. It requires counseling. It creates structure. It provides supervision and accountability, but it only works if it lasts long enough to matter. If probation ends at 12 months, while treatment is still ongoing, we are effectively walking away mid-process, removing oversight at the very moment it is most critical. AB 2237 is about prevention. It ensures that individuals complete sex offender counseling and remain supervised while doing so. That is how we reduce recidivism. That is how we stop misdemeanor conduct from becoming felony conduct. This bill strikes the right balance. It preserves judicial discretion. It prioritizes rehabilitation, and it puts public safety first. For those reasons, I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 2237. Thank you.

Next we take the Me Too in support Kim Stone Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorney Association in support Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association representing the county probation officers in support

Hi again, Stephanie Herrera with the Empower and Resilience Project in support. Annabelle Velasquez with Justice Advocates Battling Exploitation and Lies in support.

All right. Thank you, everybody, for registering your position of support today. Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition? Okay. Do we have one or two witnesses? You have two. Okay. Can I get one of you to thank you? One of you are more than welcome to stay up with Mr. Patterson. We just need those two chairs right there. Thank you. All right, come on down. Once you begin speaking, you will each have up to two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey.

Can you hear me? Wonderful. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Shivani Nishar, and I'm the policy associate with Initiate Justice. We are in respectful opposition to AB 2237. There's no evidence that shows that adding even an additional year to someone's probation term increases their chances of success or enhances public safety. And since 2021, when AB 1950 was implemented, research has continued to demonstrate that longer supervision periods amplify stressors that make reintegration more difficult. People on multi probation face ongoing uncertainty about the future navigate homelessness difficulty obtaining stable employment and constant fear that minor missteps could trigger legal consequences even when they are making positive changes in their life This demonstrates that social stability, not just time under supervision, is critical to safety outcomes. National analyses show that a disproportionate share of jail admissions, which is incarceration, result from technical, non-criminal violations rather than new offenses. As a reminder for us all, technical violations can look like being late to a treatment session because you need to take multiple buses to get there, or struggling to pay a fine payment on time because you can't get a job. Imagine not being allowed to live in a certain neighborhood because your standard probation condition requires you to avoid certain people, yet that is also where your family lives, and you need to drop your child off with them so that you can attend mandated treatment. This is the real juggling act that people on probation struggle to maintain, forcing them to be dependent on the hopeful goodwill of their probation officer and risking a single technical violation that can result in a loss of all the positive time spent while on probation. Researchers have also found that lengthy probation terms can actually result in a net decrease in public safety. This is because extended terms can serve as a disincentive for people on probation to engage in programming, such as sex offense treatment programs, while simultaneously increasing the obstacles people face in establishing resources to help prevent crime. Finally, states that have reduced supervision links and moved away from overly long probation have actually not seen rises in crime. Instead, they have freed resources for targeted support services, mental health care, substance use programs, education, and employment assistance, which evidence demonstrates are far more effective at cultivating a safe society. And I'm sorry that's your time. Thank you.

Glenn Backus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition. Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition. Sheila Wilson on behalf of La Defensa and the Justice of Jobs Coalition in opposition. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition. Ariana Montez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Katarina S. Haley on behalf of Community Works in opposition. Deputy Public Defender Esther Mendez on behalf of Local 148, the LA Public Defender Union in opposition. Abbie Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action in opposition.

Yeah, first off, let me just say that I'm very frustrated by a reality that it seems to exist in our culture. The probation officers are limbo officers. They're not embraced by law enforcement because they're too friendly with offenders. And they're not embraced by these folks because they're too harsh on offenders. My personal opinion is that these people are trying to help. They're motivated by pure motives and trying to assist offenders. Now, it's a very complex population, and it's filled with a variety of people and their desires to want to improve and want to change. Sex offenders need help, folks. They need help. And this is not driven, this piece of legislation, to try to punish. It's to try to help. And I know that it's perceived in the hearts of many people that probation officers are punitive. I think that's unfair. It really is unfair because they're trying to help people adapt into society. And it's viewed by too many people as something that is truly unfair to these people that have a no-win set of circumstances. They have no allies except fellow probation officers. That's wrong. It's wrong. And I hear the opposition say that there's no evidence to show that extended probation helps. You know why? Because we've never done it. So there's definitely no evidence. So give it a try. I'm telling you, folks, sometimes stereotypes are the enemy to good change. And I think that's what we have here. and I hope that you'll give this a chance because it is well intended and give it a chance to prove itself. And I am clearly in support of this.

Assemblymember Lackey. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. So California law doesn't currently publish, doesn't currently punish repeat non-injury DUI drivers as potential felons until their fourth DUI and doesn't ever require felony classifications. There's 28 other states that mandate felony classification before that fourth non-injury DUI, and nearly every state mandates felony classification if those four DUIs happen within a decade or a 10-year period. So in California, approximately one-third of all DUI convictions are repeat offenders, but those repeat offenders account for two-thirds of the DUIs with injury or death. So those are the ones we really need to worry about. They're doing the most harm. Those repeaters are killing Californians. In 2023, 1,355 deaths in alcohol-involved crashes, which is a 55% increase up from 2014. This increase is unique to us in California. It's more than double the national average over the same time period. This bill only makes a repeat DUI a wobbler, meaning that there's discretion to both the charging DA, whether to charge it as a felony or a misdemeanor, and if the DA does elect to charge it as a felony, the judge still has discretion to reject that charging decision and knock it down to a misdemeanor if they feel the circumstances warrant. We think that this reasonable bill makes sense and deserves your support. Hi, and my name is Linda Bridgman-Smith, and I'm here today on behalf of the California Association of Driving Under the Influence Programs, or CADAP. We are in support of AD 1686, and in general, CADAP is in support of all legislation that enhances and clarifies existing law. And those expectations for DUI offenders is incredibly important for everyone who works within the licensed DUI program system in the state of California. What has been said earlier today by a number of people is that DUIs are 100% preventable, and they are. And the importance of this legislation is that it holds accountable those individuals who have done it not just one time, but three times. And that means that they have probably been through a DUI program already. They have already been informed of certain things, and they have decided to continue to engage in this adverse behavior. And so holding them accountable with the knowledge that it will be a felony will be important for that individual, in our opinion, but it's also important for everyone else within the DUI treatment system because they know that there are consequences for actions if you continue to engage in this reprehensible behavior. I would like to note that CADAP is 40 years old this year and has been providing advocacy, education and training around driving under the influence issues from the viewpoint of the licensed DUI program in the state of California Those programs that are licensed for DUI specifically are the only program that is capable of providing the certificate of completion that allows someone to get a driver's license back should the Department of Motor Vehicles deem that it is appropriate to do so. I also want to note that DUI programs get no public funding, and so there are payment arrangements on an individual level for every single one of those participants who are in the program, and they are able to work out payment plans because it is recognized that this has an impact on them. And thank you for this bill and your consideration.

Hi, everyone. I'm Esther Mendez, Deputy Public Defender, on behalf of Local 148, the LA Public Defender Union, and we respectfully oppose this bill. Particularly with this bill, I want to raise my experience as a practicing criminal defense attorney. We have clients who are undocumented, and when they're undocumented, the consequences of the law are different. This kind of elevation to DUI charges would definitely make them more vulnerable to ICE. I know that we have received information in general that ICE tends to work with prisons sometimes. And also, right now, the way DUIs function is that it goes to the character of an undocumented person who wants to apply to become a citizen. and the more DUIs a person gets, the more vulnerable they are to eventually get deported. So this kind of elevation to a second DUI would definitely put them at risk. It's already a very risky environment for undocumented people in our state. And another thing is I know that there were some issues about looking at punishment as prevention. and one of the unique things about DUIs in criminal cases is that there is no mental health diversion option and mental health diversion basically allows a person being accused of a crime to address their mental health needs with adequate resources. DUI schools do not give rehab kind of education or practices and I also heard a person over here state something about DUI schools would work with what a person can afford. That's not true. I have seen many, many clients come back and tell me I cannot afford these classes, and this results in violation of their probation. So there's no rehabilitative option for clients right now, and just putting another consequence onto their situation is not going towards rehabilitation at

I have a couple things. You said you're practicing with the LA District or what, the Public Defender's Office?

You mentioned about how prisons are working with ICE Yes Is that facts Right now what we doing at the office is that we cannot guarantee clients that if they go to prison that ICE is not going to work with the prison, meaning anybody who's in charge of disclosing information, that we cannot ensure that their undocumented status would not be disclosed and put them vulnerable to ICE. And I have heard circumstances where as soon as clients are released from prison, ICE is right outside waiting to put them in a detention center to eventually deport them. Okay. Also, you mentioned about the consequences of undocumented people if they get DUIs may not be able to get documented. Do you think DUIs are a good thing for them to get documented, or maybe they should not get documented or not get DUIs?

Gotcha.

All these bills are mixed in with me, too. And under current law, that wouldn't happen until the fourth DUI. Okay. Well, I would hope they wouldn't even get to the third or the second. But you also said that looking at punishment as prevention, you were talking about mental health. So are you saying that everybody who has DUIs has mental health?

Comments? Okay. The only thing I would ask in fairness, Mr. Lackey, is having heard some of the opposition testimony, aside from your closing statement, anything else you'd like the committee to know? No. Okay. Well, thank you, sir. With that, I think we need a motion and a second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Your closing statement, sir.

Well, thank you, Mr. Lackey. I, too, and I believe I can speak for all of us, say that we're concerned about the increase in DUI-related fatalities and injuries in California. And I think we can all agree on one point, that is that there is more that we can and should do to keep our roads safer. I also agree that existing law is insufficient. Currently in California, as was stated in the back and forth involving the vice chair, a person's first three DUIs within a 10-year period, barring injury to others and other circumstances, they're all treated as misdemeanors, and only on the fourth can a person be prosecuted as a felony. That's why, as I know you know, I authored AB 1546 to address this very issue. Among other things, my bill makes a third DUI with 10 years of wobbler, as well as the fourth. And by the way, the fifth becomes a straight felony. I believe that 1546 is the more appropriate next step towards strengthening our DUI laws, and I base that on my career prosecuting DUI cases. So today, I'm sorry to say, sir, I am recommending a no, but I appreciate and admire your commitment in your more than a decade plus of experience and commitment to California. And regardless of what happens with this bill today, I hope you believe me when I say, sir, I look forward to working with you to send a robust reform package to the Senate and with any luck off to the governor's desk. So we do have a motion and a second. The chair's recommendation will conduct the role and we'll probably need to wait for the absent members to find out. For item four, AB 1686 by Assemblymember Lackey, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Schultz. No. Alanis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Aye. Haney, Harbidian, Lackey? Of course, aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Sharp-Collins? Okay, that measure's on call, waiting for absent members. Can I ask, make a request that if it falls short, I be granted a reconsideration? Yes, and should it fall short, I will grant the reconsideration. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to one more item. And now I get to do my performative piece. To all the other members that are not here, I am now going to shame your staff, I'm kidding. But if you could please send your member back to room 127 We have one more bill and I really hoping to get all these folks home by like 415 So please come back to room 127 Mr Lackey you have the final item of the day This is item five AB 1687 You can begin whenever you ready Well, I'm as ready as everyone else is.

Thank you for your time today, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Rhonda Campbell. I am the Victim Services Manager for Mothers Against Drunk Driving in California. I'm here today in very strong support of AB 1687. For me, this issue is not just policy. It's personal. My sister Irene was killed by a repeat DUI offender. Our family lost someone we loved deeply because a person who had already demonstrated a pattern of impaired driving was still able to get behind the wheel. When people talk about impaired driving, they often focus on statistics, but behind every statistic is a family whose lives are forever changed. One of the moments that will stay with me forever and for the rest of my life was at my sister funeral As Irene casket was being closed for the final time my mother screamed a scream that was the sound of pure heartbreak A mother saying goodbye to her child is a sound that never leaves you. That moment represents the families, the realities of many of the families that I work with face after an impaired driving crash. The empty seat at the dinner table, the birthdays and holidays that will never be the same, the milestones that person will never get to experience. In my work supporting victims and families that have been impacted by impaired driving, I have met many people whose stories mirror my own. Far too often, the responsible party had multiple prior DUI convictions. The warning signs were there, yet the opportunity for another tragedy still existed. AB 67 addresses this reality. By strengthening license revocation for individuals with repeated DUI convictions, this bill recognizes a serious threat that repeat impaired drivers post to everyone on our roads. No law can bring back my sister, but we do have the opportunity to act in a way that may prevent another family from experiencing the same devastating loss that mine did. In honor of my sister Irene, and on behalf of all the victims and families of California, I respectfully ask for your support for AB 1687. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association, along with a number of states' law enforcement organizations in support of 1687, which increases the DMV revocation period for a third DUI conviction. Current law sets license revocation for a third DUI conviction in just three years, while other states have established anywhere from 18 to 15 years to permanent revocation of that offender's driver's license. In light of the heightened media scrutiny around our state's lax DUI laws, we were disappointed to learn that committee amendments have reduced the proposed additional five-year revocation to just a single year of additional license revocation for a third DUI. A single year of additional license revocation seems wholly inadequate to address the dangers these three-time convicted DUI offenders pose to the public. However, we also recognize that a one-year increase is preferable to the status quo, which is why we support AB 1687 and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair and members of the committee My name is Melanie Kim State Policy Director at the San Francisco Public Defender Office We wholeheartedly agree that driving law under the influence is a problem with devastating consequences that we must meaningfully address and prevent We also appreciate the author and the committee for working on the amended language. However, we must still respectfully oppose. Under current law, judges have authority to impose penalties, including license revocation in individual cases. It's important to preserve judicial discretion to impose penalties that are appropriate for a particular individual. AB 1687 implements a license revocation period for eight years for a range of DUI offenses. After four years, a person may apply to the DMV to have their driving privilege reinstated on the condition that they install and maintain an IID. We're concerned that the application after four years will favor individuals who have the means to pay for and maintain IIDs. IIDs are cost prohibitive with upfront and monthly ongoing costs. We do not oppose the use of IIDs when they're implemented in a way that is evidence-based, publicly funded, appropriately tailored, and with meaningful due process. Although the existing law allows for discounted IID fees based on income, these programs are often poorly advertised, difficult to access, and inconsistently enforced. Individuals who can't pay for IIDs will be subjected to the eight-year revocation period, which may result in exacerbating the stressors that lead people to abuse substances. Californians rely on cars to live and make ends meet. By greatly increasing the period of the license revocation without providing accessible mental health and substance use services and robust investments in public transportation, we are setting individuals up for job loss, housing instability, and social isolation, which can be a revolving door to more tragedies.

Mr. Lackey, would you like to close? Yes, certainly I would. It has been a very long day and a lot of discussion about this particular problem. And I'm telling you, even though it's been a long day, we deserve to hear more. It is until we can fix this problem, we need to keep talking and talking and talking. This is my 12th year in the legislature, and this is the last time I'll have to really speak in committee to this issue. And what I want to tell you, you as how proud I am. That I've seen dramatic improvement on how we look at this. It's no longer just Republicans beating the drum. I'm very, very thankful. I also want to thank CalMatters because that article that they wrote at the end of last year was more impactful than 10 years of me pounding my fist here. I'm very, very thankful for that because it was compelling. And it woke people up. And I'm very, very thankful. Whatever and whoever awakens people, I'm forever grateful. As you can see, I will carry this with me, my life. what I've seen and the tragedy and the preventable tragedy, for heaven's sake. That's why we're still talking about this stuff, folks. We can prevent this stuff. And if we don't, we need to send a message of intolerance. And that's what this bill has accomplished. I mean, not only do we have a bipartisan approach to this, but I want to thank the chair for taking an active role in addressing this issue. I barely even got bills heard in the past with committee chairs and chair. You have my admiration. Thank you.

I don't know.