Public Safety — 2026-06-09 (partial)

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. Good morning, everyone. Welcome back to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. I'd like to begin with a few housekeeping items this morning. As a reminder, there are some general rules of conduct. Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing, And as we proceed today with witness and public comment throughout the entirety of the hearing, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing. Specifically, I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's proceedings. Please be aware that violations of these rules may and likely will subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. With all that said, I know you all don't need to do that because you're all going to be polite and wonderful. Second, Speaker Robert Rivas has appointed Assemblymember Greg Hart to replace Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez for purposes of today's hearing. We will welcome Mr. Hart when he arrives. Third, we have the off-calendar items for today. I'll read these aloud. These items are off-calendar, meaning they will not be heard. We have item number 9, SB1004 by Senator Scott Wiener. That's been pulled by the author. We have item 11, SB 1208 by Senator Grayson, pulled by the author. We have item 13, SB 1338 by Senator Jones, pulled by the author. And lastly, we have item 14, SB 1401 by Senator Stern, pulled by the author. Once we have enough members present, we will establish a quorum. We will wait to dispense with our consent calendar, and so we will go first to the presentation items. As a reminder, today's hearings are heard in sign-in order. Withstanding committee members presenting their bill towards the end of the hearing, we appreciate everyone's patience. And as a reminder, the authors will have five minutes to present, as will their main witnesses. And then same with opposition witnesses, they will have combined total time of five minutes per side, as that is the committee's standing practice. My understanding is that first up this morning, we will be hearing from Senator Beckert to present SB 498.

Thank you for having me today. My name is KB Bethany. I'm with the Change Parallel Project. I'm here in support of SB 498, a bill that is truly a lifeline to my family. My husband has been incarcerated for over 12 years, and throughout that time, connection has been essential to keeping our family bond strong. We're blessed to have two beautiful children. I do my best to create a loving relationship with him through short phone calls and expensive messages. Our three knows the GTL app or as he calls it his Blue Daddy app Seeing his face light up when his father messages and calls reminds me why this bill truly matters Our daughter, an honor roll student and first-year flute player, once told her father what time a recital would begin so he could call and listen. He heard part of the performance, but the 15-minute call ended before her solo. I was left to spend money once again to try to capture a special moment through her tears. As a family, we spend between $50 to $100 a month on messages and video chats alone. That's not including money for food. Because funds placed on this account are also subject to steep restitution fines, staying connected creates a significant financial strain. Making messages free will ease the financial burden and strengthen our family relationship. I am the sole provider for my children, my mother, and my great-grandmother, who will be 100 this year. She often speaks with my husband when she can. Without the bill passing, he will have to continue to choose between messaging his children, his wife, his un-Carmen, or his elderly loved ones. My husband is aware of the financial burden and the message costs, so he tries to help by not reaching out as much, which truly takes a toll on our family. I ask you to reflect on this. Can you truly put a price on family connection? And more importantly, can you put a price on hearing the words, I love you? Thank you.

Liz Blumgatier is on behalf of Smart Justice California in support.

Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Maya Howard on behalf of San Quentin Skunk Works in proud support. Thank you.

Nedrick Miller, all of us in North Sacramento, strong support.

Well, thank you. I want to thank KB for her testimony. And while that's one story, you know, again, I hear countless stories, you know, over the last few years working on these issues, very similar to that. So I thank her for her testimony. I appreciate you hearing that, Bill. I appreciate my colleague for letting me go first and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Fantastic.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair Schultz and members, for the opportunity to present SB 953. This addresses a serious gap in California law. When a driver causes a death through vehicular manslaughter and then receives misdemeanor diversion, The offense is not reported to the DMV, and that conduct then will have no reflection on their driving record. This bill assures that even after diversion, the underlying conduct remains recognized for what it is, a major driving risk. Under current laws, a speeding ticket can have a greater reflection on a driver's record than killing someone with your car.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members, Anthony Sampson here on behalf of SEMI. SEMI is an organization that represents companies all throughout the semiconductor manufacturing supply chain. The senators did a great job summarizing the bill. The committee analysis did a great job summarizing the bill. so I won't waste your time by summarizing again what the bill does. But I will start by saying that this bill had started as a consent item. My personal perspective is that it should remain a consent item, and part of the reason for that is the basis for the opposition letter As the senator said the opposition letter is based on a false premise as to what the bill does I will read a few statements from it SB 1306 seeks to remove regulatory controls on solutions of GBL It absolutely does not do that GBL is the derivative to make GHB, also known as the date rape drug. That is a serious accusation to suggest that any member of the legislature would introduce a bill to do that. This focuses simply on GBL mixtures, and those mixtures contain 70 percent or less, as the DEA exempted back in 2010. The formulas that we are talking about typically contain about 3 to 8 percent GBL. The risk of diversion into making this into GHB is zero. It simply does not exist. So to suggest that we are here today talking about a bill that is deregulating the derivative for the date rape drug, quite frankly, is offensive to my client in great part because of what it is that we are actually trying to do, which is simply to expedite and to improve conditions for purposes of semiconductor manufacturing. Our hope is that we can, moving forward, have an honest conversation with the opposition to the extent that they actually truly do have concerns with the idea of mirroring federal law in this regard. I know the senator has expressed his willingness to have those conversations with the opposition. Unfortunately, they have yet to be fruitful. And so with that, I respectfully request your aye vote on this relatively straightforward measure. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. I am pleased to present SB 941, which would prohibit the sale of commissary items in private detention facilities at prices that exceed 35 percent markup above the vendor cost. As you know, in California, every ICE detention facility detainee is held in a private facility operated by private corporations on private property under contract with the federal government. There are seven of these facilities throughout our state, two of which are located within my district. In these facilities detention authority of course rests with the federal government but the day conditions of confinement and commercial practices are controlled by private entities operating in the state of California One major concern is the operation of private commissaries in the detention centers which sell essential items such as food, drinking water, hygiene products, and clothing. Commissaries are often operated by third-party vendors under contract to the operator that set prices without any meaningful oversight. Through interviews with individuals who were currently or previously detained, a 2023 UCLA report found that commissary costs in private detention facilities were significantly higher than in state prisons. One individual reported spending approximately $100 per week at a private facility commissary compared to the same amount per month in a state facility. Often the markups for these products in these private detention facilities range from 75 to over 300 percent markup. Within these facilities, detained individuals often have limited access to clean water and are given inadequate meals that leave them needing, forcing them to rely on commissaries to meet their basic needs while in the institution. For many, the commissary is too expensive to purchase the additional food water they need because such detainees often only earn about $1 per day through facility work programs. Commissary prices far exceed what detained individuals can afford, and the financial burden here while they are through a review process is often shifted to their families. Often, the person who is detained is also the primary breadwinner for that household and contributes at least half of the income on average. While already dealing with these financial burdens and trying to navigate an immigration review situation, loved ones, these unreasonable price markups exact a heavy toll on families and loved ones. This bill mirrors the framework of SB 474, which essentially applies some of the same restrictions on state facilities, does not alter federal immigration enforcement priorities, detention decisions, or custody authority, and ensures that private companies conducting business in California are not exploiting people in this situation. Joining me today is Jackie Gonzalez, co-executive

Thank you very much, Senator. and to your witness for your testimony today. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to be heard in support, come on down. Name, organization, and position only, please.

Good morning. Tamar Tokat on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, in support. Thank you.

Samilia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Sanjita Nahar on behalf of Initiate Justice, in support. Thank you.

Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses here today? Or anyone else hoping to register an other position on the bill? Okay, we'll turn it back to the dais. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second and a second? Any other comments or questions? All right. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, Senator. I recommend deny. Would like to jump on the bill as a co-author. Let's conduct the roll. Thank you, sir. For item six, SB 941 by Senator Padilla, the motion is do pass. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Hart? Hart, aye. Haney, Harbidian, Lackey, Nguyen, Ramos, Ramos, aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. Okay, that measure remains on call. We'll let others add on. Thank you very much, Senator. All right, thank you to both of our, we have our last two authors here, so thank you both. Senator Wahab, we'll take you up when you're ready, and then we'll save Senator Ashby for last. We'll get you both out of here well before lunch. witness And colleagues we will be hearing senator Wahab on SB 691 on your agenda That's a nice suit All right, folks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighter. CPF represents more than 37,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical services personnel statewide. We're pleased to sponsor and strongly support SB 691 and like to thank the author for bringing this important measure forward. As noted by the author, this measure is critical to protect the privacy of patients who are undergoing medical treatment from EMS personnel in the field. When our members must remove someone's shirt to place a 12 lead on them or a patient is undergoing a psychological assessment, it's critical to know that their privacy and the information they provide can be protected. This measure would ensure that there is a process to request redaction of medical or psychological treatment or assessment that is captured by law enforcement body camera before that video is released to the public. As Senator Wahab noted, this bill allows the agency the discretion to develop their own process and how that request is received from emergency medical services personnel. I know there were some references in various letters to the nature of turning the body camera on or off. That was in a previous version of the bill that we worked hard and took amendments to remove that requirement. So this bill is strictly about a process being established where EMS personnel can request redaction by the law enforcement agency before a video is made public. We appreciate the collaboration of many of the stakeholders that worked with us. And for those reasons, we'd respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure.

Mr. Chair and members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and their patients in support of the bill. Thank you.

Oh, okay. So do you know hard on behalf of, um, sorry, send you to know hard on behalf of initiate justice and opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition to the bill. First, let me acknowledge the authors and sponsors worked really hard on this bill and I think made a lot of changes to minimize the impact. and what we saw is real negative implications of what Mr. Zubers had indicated is no longer in the bill in terms of creating a situation where EMS personnel could direct or even ask law enforcement to turn off their body cams or otherwise limit recording We acknowledge that out of the bill What left in the bill is sort of this awkward process where EMS can ask for redaction of footage I understand EMS's HIPAA concerns or HIPAA obligation. That's not law enforcement's obligation. It's sort of this whole thing begs this question of at what point does the HIPAA obligation begin and end? if I keel over and have a heart attack and somebody starts doing chest compressions and Mr. Chair, you pull out your cell phone and start recording this, it, it does, does the AMS professional have an obligation to tackle you and knock the phone out of your hand and say, no, no, we've got a HIPAA, you know, obligation here. So I think that still lays in the offing. Also as noted in the analysis, the penal code 832.7, already speaks to situations in which body cam footage must be redacted, especially if it's a disclosable record. The bill includes language that says before release in terms of when an EMS professional can request redaction. I assume this means that the contemplation is that it's a record that's going to be released. If that's the case, I'm not sure what this provides, given what current law says. If it's not the case, if it's that they can ask to, or that we have to create a policy that allows them to ask us to redact a record that is never going to be disclosed, that creates a bunch of work potentially for us that really doesn't make any sense. So again, acknowledging the strides the author and the sponsors have made to improve this bill, but we still remain in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Turning it back to the dais, questions or comments, Mr. Ramos. Thank you so much to the Sheriff's Association. Developing these policies, is that something that's done in meet and confer? Is it something that a policy's done and then goes to the Board of Supervisors for approval? How does that process take place?

Again, through the chair, those policies address a number of things, right? So the impacts of body cameras, right, those capture not only activities undertaken by those in the field, right, those who are recorded by the body cameras, a member of the public, a suspect, that sort of thing, but also that which is done by the peace officer or the employee who is wearing the body camera So there disciplinary functions There liability functions Yeah there are a number of purposes that obviously body cams serve and that the policies would regulate And once these policies are derived and written up, does firefighters believe that they should be able to see that policy before it goes into action?

Thank you. What if a policy is derived through the chair and submitted to the board of supervisors or the authority board and fire personnel doesn't agree with that policy?

So just to add to that, you know, I just want to be very clear about this is that, you know, body worn cameras right now shall not be used to record confidential medical, dental and mental health assessments, appointments or consultations. One of our concerns is that when somebody is in a situation, for example, I'll just give our city as an example, our Hayward firefighters are actual paramedics and they receive the large majority of 911 calls. In fact, when I was on city council, I requested a survey of our 911 calls and kind of like a little bit of an audit. And it was deemed that roughly about 31% of the calls were actually crime related, if you will. The rest were largely health care related. And because of the fact that there's a lack of information when you arrive on scene, law enforcement does show up, right, depending on what the call was about. What we are trying to do, and again, the redaction may include blurring patient, right, in the work and CPR. And I want to be very clear when, for example, my father, I've called 911 because my father had a kidney transplant. We didn't know what was going on with him. And we had both firefighters as well as law enforcement show up. It was a health issue, not necessarily a criminal issue, right? And, you know, they take care of that individual right then and there. they lame out. But I want to be clear that sometimes, for example, if a woman needed support and they cutting her shirt open and her bra open and she is fully exposed We know that law enforcement both from the police side as well as the fire side do try to create a perimeter, try to push people out from recording anything like that as much as possible. But when these videos become an issue that they are releasing to the public, we are asking for our local, let's say, paramedics, firefighters, whoever is providing that type of care, be able to go over the video and just say we would like these parts redacted because they are sensitive. We want to make sure that both our law enforcement as well as our, you know, paramedics and so forth are in collaboration. We are leaving through this bill it at the will of the local jurisdiction. And usually the fire chief and the police chief typically work well together and try to find a policy that makes sense. I also want to be very, very clear that this is really just to protect patient privacy when requiring law enforcement or any agency to kind of just, again, update their policy to allow for clear, consistent requests for redaction. And lawyers are deeply involved before the videos ever get released. So I just want to state that there are steps to this. We just want to make sure that it's uniform and privacy is the most important. So this redaction, just literally, again, blurring patient care and muting audio if needed, so that if a patient does admit to, hey, they took drugs, right, or they did something, that that is kind of protected where they can be honest with the person that's providing them the care at that moment. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramos. Any other questions or comments from the dais? No? All right, Senator, would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, colleagues. I'll try to be quick and get you out of here as fast as we can. I am here to present SB 5-6-2, I'll start by accepting committee amendments. SB 5-6-2 is intended to provide a pathway to financial relief for individuals who are arrested, use a bail bond agency, but ultimately have no charges filed against them or charges are dropped early in the arraignment process. These individuals often face an incredibly unjust situation. despite charges not being filed or having been dismissed, often folks have to choose between rent, food, or paying bail for a crime for which they ultimately are never charged. The bill applies to defendants and allows them to receive a partial refund if the terms and conditions of the bond are dismissed or dropped by the district attorney or court within 20 days of posting of the bond. The refunded amount is set by the judge's discretion but can be up to 80% of the premium amount paid. This is ultimately, fundamentally, about fairness. It's really about the cost of justice and the disparity that so many Californians face in accessing equal treatment in courthouses across the Golden State. I am truly honored to have these two incredible witnesses with me today. We're all quite fortunate to hear from them. We have Josh Mittman from the Bail Project and Esteban Nunez from the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Chair, when you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Josh Schmidtman, and I'm here today in support of SB 562. I'm presenting today on behalf of the Bail Project, where I serve as Senior Policy Counsel. The Bail Project is a national organization. We're headquartered in California, and I live here as well. We offer free bail assistance and community support to thousands of low-income people every year, and our work shows that money plays an outsized, harmful, and unnecessary role in the pretrial system. For example, the Bail Project has supported more than 40,000 clients across the country who have returned to court 92% of the time without any of their own money on the line. SB 562 would fix one narrow but devastating source of financial unfairness that we have seen in the pretrial system. Imagine sitting in a jail cell knowing that you're innocent, that there's no case against you, But if you want to get home to take care of your children or to avoid being fired from your job or pay your rent, you have to pay a premium to a private company since you're unable to afford bail on your own. Ultimately, you're determined to be innocent. Charges are dismissed or they're never filed, but you've had to give away next month's rent, and it's not coming back, even though the case never materialized. SB 562 would create an opportunity so that in these limited circumstances, poor Californians might get a partial refund, saving them from further financial turmoil during what is likely the hardest moment of their life. It's important to note that SB 562 does not defeat the ability of commercial bail agents to operate in these cases. The bill accounts for the risk of potential loss to companies, allocating 20% or more of the fee paid for their overhead in taxes. And a refund would only occur after a fact-based court hearing determining a fair amount to be refunded and whether a refund is appropriate at all. And our judges are well positioned to make these determinations fairly. This bill should not require companies to change their operating process either as far greater financial risks are baked into their business model In cases where bail is forfeited for example bail bond companies are on the line for paying the full bail amount to the court In California the median bail amount is In comparison, the risk that a narrow subset of their clients won't be charged, leaving companies with income in those cases that still cover their overhead for those few weeks, that's unlikely to move the needle, especially in such a competitive industry. SB 562 would remedy a consequential financial injustice imposed on people who were innocent and unnecessarily arrested, people who received no charges and are looking to move on with their lives. I respectfully request your aye vote on this important bill. Thank you.

It's merely just an opportunity to be afforded what you have coming. I've seen firsthand what happens when people can't recover financially after an arrest. It pulls them back towards the very cycles we are all trying to help them break. SB 562 gives judges a tool to intervene when the system fails somebody and ensures bail bond companies aren't profiting from a case that was never pursued. This is about fairness. It's about dignity. And it's about making sure that the cost of an arrest doesn't become a life sentence of poverty. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Senator, for the presentation and to both of your witnesses for your testimony. Next, let's take the Me Too's. If you'd like to register a position of support, come on down. Good morning, Chair and members. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice. Proud co-sponsor and support. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support. Liz Blumgater is on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and Vera California in strong support. Good morning, Jasmine Asher representing the Greater Sacramento Urban League. We're in support. Similia Rogers on behalf of Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Shavani Nishar on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support. Candice Chung on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta in support Angelina Palzado on behalf of California Civil Liberties we support Sanjita Nahar on behalf of Initiate Justice in support Thank you Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support. Wonderful. Thank you all for registering your position with the committee. Mr. Nunez, we might need you to move over next to Senator Ashby. We have two chairs. Are there opposition witnesses here? I see two. All right, gentlemen, you can take these two seats here. Your time doesn't begin until you speak. And between the two of you, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee. Good morning, Chairman Schultz and the Public Safety Committee. My name is Topo Padilla. I've been a California licensed bail agent for 42 years. I'm here today as the immediate past president of the Golden State Bail Agents Association, the immediate past president of the professional bail agents of the United States. Both of those organizations strongly oppose this bill. As bail agents, it is our duty to ensure that people have the right to bail and that we make sure that they go to court. This gives the person who has been arrested, the victims of crime, and the public the best assurance that the person will appear in court. If this bill were to pass, and this is not a scare tactic, it's a harsh reality, bail agents will start vetting people that are incarcerated to assess their guilt or innocence. And we do not want to do that, especially over recorded calls. That is not our job. We shouldn't get involved in the guilt or innocence of a person. We will assess whether or not we feel charges will be filed. And if we determine in our minds that we don't think charges will be filed, and many times charges are not filed because somebody's innocent, it's because the DAs don't have the bandwidth or the staffing to file charges on everyone. We will leave those people in jail. We do not want to do that. That is not our job. They have a right to bail. We afford them that right. I am not going to go post bonds. That it will happen. It's not a judgment thing. It will happen. We will be given 80% of the money that we collected back. 20% of those costs at a minimum are hard costs. We will be left with nothing. And we're just not going to do it. We're going to leave those people in jail. And if this bill were to pass, it's going to leave a lot of people in jail until charges are filed. These people make a decision to call us and want out of jail. And to hear about people selling things and doing all that, that is just something that is just not part of what we are looking at and what we want to do. We've helped hundreds of thousands of people save their jobs and be back with their families. It flies in the face of what we do as bail agents just to simply afford people the right to bail and not get involved with the guilt or innocence of the court. So I respectfully ask for your new vote on this case, this matter. Good morning, Chairman Schultz and Vice Chair Alan East and other members of the committee. I'm a professional bail license agent for over 30 years and also president of the California Bail Agents Association. I'm here to request your opposition or abstention from SB 562. I want to begin by talking about the topic of unfair benefits or unjust enrichment. Bail for a defendant is an option. It's not a necessity. The bail agreement is entered into with the understanding of costs They get the full service that they requested and with the understanding in every bail agreement that the premium is fully earned upon the release of custody What could possibly be an equitable mechanism for determining the unjust enrichment? Secondly, I don't think you're aware that bail premium is unlike any other lines of insurance. It is one premium, regardless of how long the case lasts, whether it's two, three, four, five, and I even have clients that have been on bail for six years, we collect a single premium that lasts a full amount of time. Where's the unjust enrichment in that case? Does this bill open the case up for ankle monitoring refunds for the counties and private providers of pretrial services across our state? Will they also be entitled to refunds if the cases are not filed? Will this also entitle attorneys that have been hired prior to arraignment and cases are not filed that have charged their clients? Will they be also required to return the fees of their clients? I would even go outside of our industry with oncologists. If a client dies within the 30-day period, would they be required to return the cost of caring for that patient? I would say not. This bill will cause a hardship for many minority and female business owners. Many of the agents in California are female. 20% does not cover agency costs to our surety, acquisition costs, overhead, marketing, and a highly competitive profession. Lights, rents, commissions paid to agents, et cetera, will not cover it. This will leave many small business owners upside down. I think many of you may be mistaken that bail bondsmen are rolling in dough. We simply are not. We're barely getting by. Often cases are not filed timely after a new arrest. Many are filed late, and misdemeanors, if you're not aware, can be up to one year. Felonies can be up to three full years. 30 seconds. Thank you. Not to mention, this bill is, is it even legal? Prop 103 sets guidelines for the Department of Insurance to prove surety premium rates, but requiring refunds to post after a bill has been posted and then require a refund would lower the premium cost below the filed rates. Does the legislation have that authority? Return of premium is most, in most counties, becomes a civil matter. Indemitors may not be the defendant themselves. Usually it's the plaintiff. It's usually, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, that's actually your time. Thank you. But thank you very much. And you might get a question and a chance to continue there, but thank you. Next, we'll take Me Too's also in opposition. If you'd like to be heard in opposition, come on down to the microphone. Please confine your comment to your name, the business organization that you're with, and the position which I presume would be opposed. Thank you in advance. Steve Payton, owner of Bill Davidson Bail Bonds, Eureka. I strongly oppose this bill. Morning, Mr. Chairman and members. Carl London here on behalf of Lexington National Insurance Corporation and the Golden State Bail Agents Association opposed to this bill. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Romero Leon. on behalf of Bell Hall and Bell Bonson. We oppose this bill. Bill and Bill Hunter, Sloat Higgins, Jensen and Association on behalf of Bail Hotline Bail Bonds. Just want to say we were neutral on the previous version of this bill with these last amendments that moved us to oppose. Rob Dick on behalf of Bail Education Association, strongly oppose. Good morning. Raymond Elliott Morones on behalf of Aladdin Bail Bonds and I oppose. I oppose. I oppose. Dave Coito with the Leiden Bell Bonds. I oppose. Good morning. Dave Coito with the Leiden Bell Bonds. I strongly oppose. Thank you. Curtis Wood with the Leiden Bell Bonds. I oppose. Good morning. Everardo Yanez with the Leiden Bell Bonds. I oppose. Thank you. Eduardo Garcia, and I oppose. My name is Billy Bowman, concerned citizen of the state of California, and I strongly oppose. Patrick McDonald, I oppose. Hi, my name is Jay Jerome, and I strongly oppose this bill. I'm Robert Wilby. I oppose the bill. Principal, it's not a good bill. Thank you. Laura Gutierrez. I oppose. Sonny Phillips, and I oppose. Morning, Chair and members. Pat Whalen, Ellison Wilson, Advocacy here for Aladdin Bail Bonds in opposition. Greg Padella, owner of Greg Padella Bail Bonds, I oppose this bill. Bradley Fowler on behalf of McMain's Bail Bonds, strongly oppose. Nathan Moore with the Dato Bail Bonds, and we strongly oppose. Matt Johnston with Espinosa Bail Bonds, I strongly oppose. Ryan Wagner on behalf of the California District Determinants Association. As the bill is currently written in text, we oppose. We are encouraged by some of the amendments, and we will continue to review them as part of our committee process. Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, we'll turn it back to the committee. Questions, comments from members? Yes, Mr. Lackey, we'll start with you. Yeah, if I could ask one of the opponents, if this bill were to become law, how would it impact domestic violence circumstances? Thank you for that question. I can wear two hats and chew bubblegum and walk at the same time. I'm also the president of Crime Victims United. One of the concerns that we have as a crime victims group is that, say, a spouse was arrested on a domestic violence case. It's usually the spouse that comes and bails them out. When they get home, the conversation is going to be, hey, do you understand if you drop your charges and you don't file charges against me, we get our money back? What is that going to do to the justice system, the criminal justice system, to protect victims? And we sincerely have concern with that as a crime victims group. So I appreciate us thinking about victims in here. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Lackey. Other questions or comments? Mr. Ramos, was that? Nope. Vice chair, go ahead. I have a lot of concerns for this bill and I think most people in this room do as well Turning the bail bondsman into a vettings company basically on guilt I could see, Mr. Nunez, you said you were arrested and you had, I'm assuming you bailed out. Well, I would assume with this law passing that they would assess your situation and then decide that they didn't want to bail you out. And then you'd have to stay there longer until the judge allowed you to come out. is how I would see that in me being a bailiff for a long time. I would see that a lot going on with that. I also kind of think about this as we were talking about bail bond companies profiting from this. It makes me think of our insurance companies for our cars. So if I don't get in an accident for a year, do I get to get my money back? That's how they make their money, right? They take the risk on that, and so I see the bail bondsmen doing the same thing. I don't know what the right answer would be for this. I don't know if this is the route we need to go, but I do see us turning this into a bad situation for those that are arrested because I know they want to get out with their families. I know they want to get back to their jobs. But now I see this not being able to give the bail bondsmen that opportunity to bail them out because now they're going to be at more risk with their companies, with their small businesses, with their livelihood, because now we're pushing this on them to where they're only going to get 20% of that. And I don't see that being survivable. And with us talking about affordability everywhere, I don't see how that also plays into this as well. So I won't be supporting this, but that's all I had to say. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair. Mr. Harvidian, please. I want to thank the author and the chair. I know this has been, it's a two-year bill and there's been a lot of conversations. And usually the sign of a good bill is where everyone's kind of upset and no one really likes the outcome. And that's the situation I think we have here. I mean, I don't think anyone really loves the outcome where we came, but these are tough issues. And I think that this committee and the author have wrestled with this a long time, and there's still a process to go through after this. And I think that a lot of us up here really respect and honor when a deal has been made and when an author takes amendments that have been proposed by a committee chair after long and difficult conversations. And because of that, I think that I will honor that deal with moving this bill and voting eye on it and looking forward to seeing what happens through a probes and before we get to the floor. But just appreciate the author, appreciate her taking on this tough issue and appreciate our chair for having many conversations about it. So I will move the bill. Okay, we have a motion by Harabideon and a second by Hart. We'll continue discussion if there is any questions or comments anyone would like to make. Okay. The only thing I would ask, Senator, in your close, if there's anything that was raised by opposition witnesses that you'd like to respond to, you don't have to, but anything else that you'd like the committee to consider, we're happy to hear it, and the floor is yours. Well, thank you very much, and I appreciate the comments of everyone on the dais, particularly, of course, Assemblymember Harbidian, for acknowledging the length of time that we've worked on this and the level of commitment. I'm not the first legislator to walk into this building and try to take on bail. That's very clear, and we have a long way to go. There are people out there doing great work. I've been friends with Topo for many, many years and value him in this community. The long line of bail bondsmen that came up and opposed are almost all from Sacramento, which is my district, right? So I'm aware. I'm aware of what they do. When I was a young person still in law school I worked at the public defender office and I worked in the arraignment court and I dealt with bail every day lots and lots of times per day And I met many, many young Estebans who were in a tough situation. Now, normally, by the time I saw them in arraignment, that was their first chance to be in front of a judge and get out if they hadn't already done so. But make no mistake, in this state and in this country, the way that we access justice is unequal and rooted in how much money people have. That is not the fault of the bail industry, but that is absolutely true. I have also learned in my first time, my first go-round as a senator, that change in this building sometimes is incremental. but it is progress nonetheless. I will forever, forever be grateful to be sitting at this table between these two gentlemen, the work that they do, the lives that they have lived, and the line of incredible individuals and organizations that came forward and urged you to issue an I vote that every day are fighting to access justice for everyone in the state of California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Well, thank you very much, Senator. And thank you to everyone who participated today and registered a position with the committee. I will be recommending an aye on this three points that I'd like to make. First of all, while it didn't come up in conversation today, I have had extensive conversations with the author. And I would like to note that the language that was in the struck provision of section two of the original bill which talked about ensuring that the bail agent could at least recoup basic costs for administrative reimbursement premium tax paid I understand that to be the author's intent and I fully support that and expect that as conversations go on between the parties that that will if not already clear and I feel that it is but if not already clear will continue to be refined in the final language of the bill and I want to credit the author of being consistent on that position from day one. The second thing I would note is that I do appreciate many of the concerns raised by the opposition witnesses and others who appeared today. What I would simply note is that this bill does not contemplate an automatic return of funds. I just like to read this portion of the bill because I think it's important. The court must find it to be both necessary and supported by factual findings. Ergo, a person who feels that they have been wronged must come to court and demonstrate in which way the bail agent in this manner has been unjustly enriched. Specifically, the statute says if the court finds that one party unfairly benefits or receives something of value at another party's expense and the interest of justice requires them, then in that case, a portion up to but not to exceed 80 percent can be returned. I think it is an arguably high bar, but a fair bar. And I think that certainly it creates an avenue where if that proffer of evidence can be made and that demonstration can be made, it empowers the court to consider the interests of justice and return a portion of the funds to prevent unjust enrichment. Last thing I would just say is as a matter of bail in the state of California, we can't consider this conversation in isolation. We also have to remember that the court has been quite clear that bail should be set in an amount that the defendant can afford. Bail is not a tool to keep people incarcerated because we don like them It is a constitutional guarantee And we just want to close with saying that while we may not see eye to eye on this I understand and appreciate the many conversations I had with those in opposition I understand and take you at your word that you want to provide that service and that access to people that are sitting in custody pre I do not doubt your intention whatsoever And yes the bill as it moves forward today there will be more conversations You are working with an author who I know wants to land the plane the right way. I have no question of her integrity or her conviction on this matter. I encourage the conversations to continue and I and committee staff will remain available and happy to engage to the extent that that's helpful. So with that, I recommend an aye. We need a motion. Oh, sorry, we have the motion in second. My apologies. Let's call the roll. For item 3, SB 562 by Senator Ashby, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Alanis, no. Hart? Hart, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Harbidion? Aye. Harbidion, aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Wen? Ramos? No. Ramos not voting, Sharp Collins. Okay, that measure remains on call. Thank you everybody. That concludes the presentation of today's items. If your staff and you're listening and your member is not here, I'm looking for assembly member Wynn, please send and Sharp Collins, who I know is en route, please come to room 126 so we can cast our votes and go home. Wait, do we need to go over anything? Is anyone missing any votes? All right, while we wait for absent members, we're gonna go through the items to let anyone add on to any votes they've missed, so you're welcome to leave once we do that. Madam Secretary, from the top, please. For consent item, Paine? Paine, aye. Harbideon? Harbideon, aye. When? For item one, AB 2796 by the Assembly Public Safety Committee, the motion was due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. This item has been adopted on consent. For item two, SB 498 by Senator Becker, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee and is currently on call. Haney. Haney, aye. Harbideon? Aye. Harbideon, aye. Wen? Aye. Wen, aye. Sharp-Collins. The measure passes. Okay, that bill is out. Item three was just heard. Item three, SB 562 by Senator Ashby. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee and is currently on call. When? When not voting. Sharp Collins. The item is still on call. For item four, SB 691 by Senator Wahab, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee and is currently on call. Haney. Haney, aye. Harbidion? Aye. Harbidion, aye. Wen? Wen, aye. Sharp-Collins. That bill is out. For item five, SB 891 by Senator Cervantes, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. This item has been adopted on consent. For item six, SB 941 by Senator Padilla, the motion is due pass and is currently on call. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Haney. Haney, aye. Harbideon. Harbideon, aye. Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Wen. Aye. Wen, aye. That bill is out. For item 7, SB 953 by Senator Mielello, the motion is due passed through the Transportation Committee. Haney. Aye. Haney, aye. Harbideon. Harbideon, aye. Wen. Aye. Wen, aye. That bill is out. Item 8, SB 1004, has been pulled by the author. Item 9, SB 1012, by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, the motion is due passed to the Labor and Employment Committee. This item has been adopted on consent. For Item 10, SB 1143, by Senator Caballero, the motion is due passed, and this item has been adopted on consent. For Item 11, SB 1208, the item has been pulled by the author. For item 12, SB 1306 by Senator Cortese, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Harbidian? Aye. Harbidian, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Wen? Wen, aye. That bill is out. Item 13, SB 1338 has been pulled by the author. And item 14, SB 1401 has been pulled by the author. All right. Thank you. Let's go back to the top. I see Dr. Sharp-Collins is back with us, and any missing votes? And Assemblymember Wynn is present too. For consent items, Wynn? Aye. Wynn, aye. Item one has been adopted on consent. Item two, SB 498 by Senator Becker. Sharp-Collins? Aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. For item three, SB 562 by Senator Ashby, when? When not voting, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins, aye. That bill is out For item four SB 691 by Senator Wahab Sharpe Sharpe aye Item five, SB 891 has been adopted on consent. Item six, SB 941 by Senator Padilla has been dispensed with. Item seven, SB 953 by Senator Mielo has been dispensed with. Item eight, SB 1004 has been pulled by the author. Item 9, SB 1012, has been adopted on consent. Item 10, SB 1143, has been adopted on consent. Item 11, SB 1208, has been pulled by the author. Item 12, SB 1306, has been dispensed with. Item 13, SB 1338, has been pulled by the author. And item 14, SB 1401, has been pulled by the author. All right, that concludes our business today. We stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 23rd. Thank you. Thank you.