Assembly Public Safety Committee, Tuesday, March 10, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Public Safety Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
Good morning, chair and members. My name is William Robinson, and I am a chief deputy district attorney at the Riverside County district attorney's office. I'm here today in strong support of a b seventeen forty one, legislation sponsored by our office to close a very serious gap in California law. Imagine waking up in the middle of the night in your own home, the place where you should feel the safest, and realizing that a stranger has broken in and is touching your body for his own sexual gratification. This is not just a hypothetical.
These are real cases that prosecutors encounter. Victims have awakened in their beds to find a stranger groping their breasts, buttocks, and other intimate areas before fleeing when the victim wakes up. These crimes are deeply traumatic violations that occur in the victim's most private and sacred place, their home. But under current California law, in many of these cases, the most serious charge available is only a misdemeanor. That is because existing statutes require proof that the offender intended to commit another felony such as rape or that the victim was unlawfully restrained.
When the evidence shows sexual touching but does not establish those additional elements, prosecutors are left with misdemeanor charges only even though the offender broke into the victim's home to commit a sexual assault. You may hear the argument that prosecutors can simply charge a penal code section two twenty violation. Penal code section two twenty is assault, intent to commit rape. But the reality is that not every sexual assault inside a home rises to the level of appeal penal code section two twenty violation. That charge requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant specifically intended to commit rape or another enumerated offense.
In many real world cases, the evidence shows that the intruder entered the home to sexually touch or grope the victim, but there is insufficient evidence to prove intent to rape. AB seventeen forty one closes that loophole with a simple and targeted fix. That bill or this
Speaker 4
bill allows felony sexual battery charges when someone breaks into another person's home and commits sexual touching inside that residence. A person's home should
Speaker 3
be their sanctuary. When someone violates that sanctuary to commit sexual assault, the law should reflect the seriousness of that conduct. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your I vote on a b seventeen forty one. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Patricia Cardenas, and I serve as the assistant director at the Riverside County District Attorney's Office for the Division of Victim Services. I've worked with victims for over thirty years and can tell you from personal and professional experience that there is nothing more painful than being victimized and then not getting justice. I'm here today speaking from the perspective of victims and survivors in support of Assembly Bill seventeen forty one authored by Assemblywoman Blanca Pacheco. I think we can all agree that our home is meant to be our sanctuary.
It is where we go to find rest, to care for our families, and to raise our children to become better adults than we are. Our homes are the foundation of our communities and the hope for our future. So when someone breaks into that space, when someone enters our home uninvited, it is one of the most profound violations a person can experience. Regardless of what happens next, the break in alone is enough to shatter a person's sense of safety. Victims often describe the moment that moment as the instant their home no longer feels like home.
Laws like a b seventeen forty one matter because they send a clear message. People deserve to be safe in their own homes. These crimes must be taken seriously, and victims deserve justice, dignity, and protection under the law. Strengthening this law increases accountability for those who commit these acts and help restores justice for those who've been victimized. AB seventeen forty one represents an important step toward a justice system that recognizes the real impact of these crimes and prioritizes the safety and healing of victims.
On behalf of survivors who may not be able to stand here today, I respectfully urge your support. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the presentation, assembly member, and both of you for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos in support of the bill. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please use the microphone To the left left of mister Weber here, please state your name, organization, and position, please. Okay. At least I got that out of the way for the first bill.
Are there opposing witnesses today? Oh, we do have one. Alright. Come on down.
Speaker 6
Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick, California District Attorneys Association in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. Do we have opposing witnesses? We do.
Alright. Once you're seated and begin speaking, you'll have a total time of five minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 4
Thank you. I will be brief. I expected a second witness, but here I am all by myself. Can you hear me now? Good morning.
My name is Leslie Caldwell Houston. I am here a volunteer on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We do appreciate the, amendment that was proposed. However, we still feel that a b seventeen forty one is unnecessary, vague, and overbroad. We are deeply concerned about victims.
I don't want any mistake on that point. But as public defenders, we represent 80 to 90% of criminal defendants in California, and therefore, we have a unique view overview of the charging of criminal offenses in our state's many and varied counties. If an assailant broke into a victim's home and sexually touches the victim, the defendant could and would be charged with a violation of, for instance, you're correct, penal code section two twenty, assaulting another with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, which is punishable by two, four, or six years in prison. I myself have been practicing criminal defense for indigent people for forty years. In public defender offices, I represented countless defendants charged with currently available crimes such as penal code section two twenty.
In the same or similar circumstances described by the prosecutors in favor of this bill, their their hands are simply not tied. In fact, one of my very first cases, as a felony trial lawyer was exactly this sort of situation. We did not have a loophole, and my client, unfortunately for him, fortunately for the victim, was convicted. Further, we oppose the bill as it is vague on temporal and definitional grounds, such as creating a potential felony requiring sex registration even if the person entered the inhabited dwelling dwelling without an intent to commit a sexual battery and the sexual battery occurred hours or days later. Moreover, there is no legal definition of guest.
If a friend is invited to someone's home and invites another person, is that other person now a guest? There are too many problems with this bill along with the fact that it is not necessary, and we urge a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much for your testimony. We're gonna take a momentary pause in this particular hearing. I see that quorum has arrived. Madam secretary, please conduct the role.
Speaker 1
A quorum is present. Thank you all for that. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos in opposition to the bill. You know the drill.
Speaker 11
Smelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.
Speaker 12
Liz Blum Gutierrez with HOLE Consulting on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight in opposition.
Speaker 13
Shivani Nashar on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition also registering opposition for Californians United for responsible budget.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. With that, we'll turn it to the committee. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee?
We have a motion. Is there a second?
Speaker 1
We have a motion and a second. I guess my one question, to you, assembly member, or your witnesses would be, what is your response to the the claim levied by the opposition that the bill, even as amended, would be overbroad or too vague? What what would be your position there?
Speaker 3
So I I referenced penal code section two twenty as as well as the opposition. That would be the charge that would be considered by prosecutors in the event someone entered the home of someone, and touched that person in a sexual manner. For example, touched their breasts or touched their buttocks or any other intimate area. However, the challenge that we have as prosecutors is that penal code section two twenty requires intent to commit rape. And in many instances, in real life prosecutions, proving intent to commit rape requires more than just touching of a sexual part.
It requires more circumstantial evidence or direct evidence, which would lead a jury or a fact finder like a judge to understand and believe that that person intended to commit rape, not just intending to commit the sexual touching itself. And so in many instances, we can't charge or if we do charge, we lose because we can't prove the intent to commit rape part of it. Other than that, the other challenge is that when you interrupt presidential dwelling, in order for us to prove a felony burglary, we have to prove that there was intimate intent to commit a felony. Well, a sexual battery, a two forty three point four subdivision e one, requires restraint and it's only a misdemeanor. In those instances, like the example I just gave you where someone enters a home and they just touch the buttocks or the breast of a person, we can't prove intent to rape necessarily.
And we also can't improve intent to commit a felony because that particular conduct in and of itself is misdemeanor conduct. And so this is the loophole that we're trying to to fix with this particular legislation. We'd like to be able to charge appropriately a felony in instances where someone violates the sanctity of someone's home and commits a sexual offense, which is atrocious and very violent of a purse of a person's personal freedom. And as miss Cardenas mentioned, also has very traumatic impacts on that person. You would think that you'd be able to charge a felony in those instances, but under current California law, many times we can't.
And so that's what we're attempting to do with this legislation, fix that loophole so that we can have the option of at least charging a felony where appropriate.
Speaker 1
Thank you. One follow-up. I'd like to just make sure that I'm tracking along. So penal code section two twenty, and I'll just read from an excerpt of it, a sub one. Any person who assaults another with intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or any violation of, and there's a few other code sections there.
So if I heard miss Caldwell Houston correctly, the concern is that perhaps prosecutors could charge that provision for breaking into someone's home and engaging in some form of sexual contact. My reading of, say, sodomy, which might be the most the the definition in there that might fit it the most, well, sodomy is defined in section two eighty six and it's very specific. Sodomy is sexual conduct consisting of contact between the penis of one person and the anus of another person. Any sexual penetration, however slight, sufficient to complete the crime of sodomy, and there's more in that section. Is that what you're getting at, that the definitions are too restrictive and therefore the conduct that you're trying to charge is not captured in the statute?
Speaker 3
That is correct. It's too restrictive. Okay. So I don't know if you want me to follow-up with more, but, yeah, that is the the the argument from the the people and from the proponents of the legislation.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from committee members? Okay. Assembly member Pacheco, you have a chance to close.
Speaker 2
Yes. Thank you, and thank you for allowing me to present, this, important bill. I wanna thank my witnesses also for being here to testify as well. And I think it's important for us all to feel safe in our homes. This is, you know, our places where, you know, we should feel the safest out of all places, and so I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. With that, colleagues, the chair does recommend an aye as amended. Appreciate the author taking the amendments. Let's take the call the roll call.
Speaker 7
For a b seventeen forty one by assembly member Pacheco, the motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 7
Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney? Harbidean? Lackey?
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure passes, but it will remain open for members to add on. Thank you all for being here today. That next takes us to item number five. This is Assembly Bill 17 o one by Assembly Member De Mayo.
Speaker 16
Good morning, mister chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate your the opportunity to present a b 17 o one relating to mass shootings at schools. There are disagreements in the political world on how to prevent mass shootings and gun violence. I don't think we're gonna resolve those disagreements. Hopefully, we will enact policies that will reduce mass shootings and gun violence.
But where we should have broad based bipartisan support and where I know Californians have overwhelming support across party lines is that we should punish mass shooters and those engaging in gun violence, particularly on school campuses, to the fullest extent of the law. Anyone who does not agree with this is on the fringe of public opinion. This week, members of the San Diego community gathered to call for action on a reform bill, a b 17 o one, that would prevent the resentencing and release of a mass shooter who terrorized our community. On 03/05/2001, Andy Williams, a 15 year old freshman at Santana High School, shot and killed two students and injured 11 others, including two school officials in a mass shooting. The trauma inflicted on the San Diego community was great.
The two students who passed away were 17 year old Randy Gordon and 14 year old Brian Zucker. Andy Williams was sentenced to fifty years to life in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of murder and 13 counts of attempted murder in adult criminal court. But to the astonishment of community members, in January, Andy Williams was granted recall for his sentence by a judge, opening the door for his early release. In current law, there are only two, ex exceptions for resentencing and recall of juveniles who have been sentenced to life without possibility of parole. The first, if they harmed a public safety official.
The second, if they tortured their victim. We have two exemptions from recall and resentencing. AB 17 o one would create a third if you engage in a shooting at a school. It's quite simple. If we're gonna protect public safety officers by saying a crime committed against them should not be eligible for recall and resentencing, shouldn't we give the same protections to our teachers?
Shouldn't we give our same protect those same protections to minor children? When mass shootings occur, particularly on, school campuses, we hear a lot from politicians, and it can get very politically divisive when it doesn't have to. But this is one instance where there should be overwhelming bipartisan support, that when someone commits this heinous this heinous act on a school campus and murders individuals, that there should be no resentencing or recall opportunity, that they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. And I urge bipartisan support for a b 17 o one.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member. Do you have any witnesses testifying in support today?
Speaker 1
Okay. We'll take the Me Toos. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time. And just as a reminder, please confine your comment to name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 1
Alright. Anyone else? Okay. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition to the bill? Okay.
It appears there are. Once you come down and begin speaking, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 15
Thank you, mister chairman and committee members. My name is Tommy De Luna, and I'm a program manager at the Exodus Project here in Sacramento, which supports people coming out of incarceration, providing resources like housing, employment, transportation, and more, all to help people not return to criminal behavior. My work makes the community safer. And every day, I think about the impact of crimes on communities. I'll never forget that I too caused harm.
At 17 years old, I committed a robbery and murder. I was selfish at the time. And as adult, I continued to live with that deep regret of the harm I caused. My sentence was life in prison without the possibility of parole. OOP has one clear message.
You are not redeemable. You're not even worthy of rehabilitation. And for young people like me, that led to despair. Many years later, California passed a law that told me I was redeemable. It said that I if I worked hard enough to turn my life around, I could have a second chance of returning to society.
Many a b 17 o one seeks to diminish that law. The truth is no matter how horrible or a crime, it cannot predict who a young person will become, and I am proof of this. I worked hard in prison, and after twenty five years, the parole commissioners determined I was eligible for parole in 2019. I earned a bachelor's degree. On top of my entry work, I also have two other jobs, and I take care of my mother as well.
I'm not unique. CDCR reports that of the 125 young people who had life without parole but were released during an eight year period, only one was convicted of a felony. The Human Rights Watch research shows that 90% of are working and paying taxes once they are released, and many work with nonprofits like me. 94% reported volunteering with charities since they're released as well. I was given a chance to redeem myself.
Please don't take that same chance away from others. I respectfully ask for your no vote on a b 17 o one.
Speaker 18
Mister chairman and committee members, thank you. I'm Marissa Harris, a professor and clinic director at Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, and I'm also the parent of a school aged child. Like everyone here, I'm terrified by the idea of a school shooting, and I understand the urge to wanna make law to prevent them. But a b 17 o one is deeply flawed, it's reactionary, and it fails to improve public safety for many reasons. Here are five reasons to vote no.
First, a b 17 o one is overly broad. It does not just apply to the rare mass planned attack we think of when we hear school shooting. It also sweeps in gun offenses that occur in school zones even when no one is injured. As written, 17 o one would punish a wide swath of young people completely unrelated to the problem of school shootings. Second, a b 17 o one will not prevent the next school shooting.
Decades of research show adolescents are not deterred by the length of a prison sentence because young people are impulsive and rarely weigh decades long consequences before acting. Relief under this law comes decades after the crime, and it's something no teenager would consider before they commit a crime. Third, neuroscience shows that younger adolescents have a diminished ability to regulate emotions, resist peer pressure, and assess consequences as compared to their older peers. In fact, as stated in the Burns Institute and Human Rights Watch report, features denied, fourteen and fifteen year olds are biologically and neurologically more similar to 12 and 13 year olds than they are to their older peers in terms of brain development and executive functioning. But the corollary to that immaturity is heightened neuroplasticity, which means a remarkable capability to change and grow.
And that science doesn't change depending on the label we attach to the crime. Research shows there is no single profile of a school shooter, and the cases often arise from the same history of childhood trauma that we see in other youth crimes. For that reason, it's illogical to close the door on judicial review for this one group of youth. Fourth, a b 17 o one is a solution in search of a problem. The existing resentencing law is a veritable gauntlet of checks and balances.
It's not a get out of jail free card. To be resentenced, a judge has to determine your eligibility for recall, which requires demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation, And then the court conducts a rigorous individualized assessment, and then only then can you actually be resentenced. The the small most people who apply for resentencing go back to prison and await their parole hearing, but the small number who are resentenced remain under court supervision. And even for the even smaller group who are eligible for release, there are safeguards in place to ensure that if they are a danger to public safety, that they stay in custody long past juvenile court jurisdiction. Finally, this exact issue is being considered by our supreme court right now.
This committee should not enact new laws while the court is actively working to settle this area of law. For those reasons, I respectfully urge you to reject a b 17 o one.
Speaker 1
Thank you both for your testimony. Now we'll hear from the me too's. If you'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill, come down. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 12
Liz Blum Gutierrez with Whole Consulting on behalf of LA County Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight in opposition.
Speaker 19
Good morning. Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Opposed?
Speaker 20
Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice and opposition.
Speaker 13
Shivani Nashar with initiate justice and strong opposition, also registering opposition for Californians United for responsible budget.
Speaker 22
Good morning, mister chair and members. Mike Adaktorov on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.
Speaker 4
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 11
Smelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.
Speaker 1
Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the committee. Questions or comments from committee members, mister Lackey.
Speaker 9
Yeah. First of all, let me, thank the author for addressing a very important and tragic set of circumstances. As we often discuss in this committee and and try to evaluate justice based on fairness and based on the acts committed. And here, this is a very narrow barrel, very very narrow, very specific. And let's talk about what what you're addressing.
Someone who actually enters a public school and takes the life of students who are there to learn, who feel secure, who feel like they're protected, and the loss of life is permanent. Let's be reminded of the permanency suffered not only by the victim themselves, but their families, their friends, and all those impacted by this act of evil. There's no other way to describe it. It's darn right evil to walk into a school and usually planned out, by the way, carefully planned, considered, calculated, and starts robbing people of the most precious gift we all have, and that's life. Now all you're saying is that after a court of law has determined that this party is completely guilty of this offense, that we hold to the sentence.
We're not trying to add. We're not trying to enhance the penalty associated with this ridiculous act. And congratulations, young man, for your accomplishments, and this doesn't apply to you. Right? You didn't go into a school, I'm I'm assuming, and do I mean, you you you described a completely different offense.
We're not talking about that. We are not talking about those kind of circumstances. We are talking about a very specific act, and how anybody could dismiss or reduce or excuse this kind of behavior is beyond my comprehension in all truth. Why wouldn't we want to hold the finding from a judge? That's all we're asking for, that we not reduce or minimize the actions of such a very incredibly hard to understand event.
I hope that you'll consider me as a coauthor for this very worthy discussion. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member Lackey. Are there other questions or comments from committee members? Okay. Seeing mister vice chair, do you have some? Nope.
Okay. I just have one question. I'll start with the opposition. In your testimony, you made a comment that you felt that the the bill as currently drafted was too broad. Could you elaborate on what specifically you mean by that comment?
Speaker 18
Absolutely. The bill would cover not just school property, school buildings, even parking lots, but also school zones. So if you're thinking about how many school zones you drove through to get here today, that covers a huge amount of of space. School zones are, you know, within a 500 foot radius, sometimes a thousand foot radius of a school. And in a county like Los Angeles alone, there are 80 school districts, over 2,000, I think, k through 12 schools.
And so this would capture not just the very, very rare plat planned mass attack that mister Lackley was talking about, but also it would capture any kind of gun incident even where no one is hurt in a school zone. And that that could be thousands of kids swept in to this law that have nothing to do with school shootings in that way.
Speaker 1
Let me follow-up with a hypothetical. And for the discussion, I'm looking at the proposed bill by Assembly Member De Mayo. This would be as proposed to be added to the penal code subsection 14 subdivision a. I believe what you're referring to is the provision that says within a school zone, that's the fourth line down, within a school zone is defined in section 626.9. The question I would have is this.
If a a pair of individuals resided within a thousand feet of a school, I believe that would put them within the school zone as defined by state laws. Is that right?
Speaker 1
So if there were a domestic altercation where there was a discharge of a firearm and someone was injured, not killed, the point I'm trying to make is that under this bill is proposed to be amended, they too would be prohibited from recalling the resentencing. No. Well, mister DeMaio, I have the floor, and that was my question to the witness. You'll have your chance to close, sir. Please respect the quorum.
Are there any other questions or comments? Yes. Doctor Sharp Collins.
Speaker 23
I just had a, a question. When when they are going through the adjudication process, I just want clarification, for these cases, are they majority of them tried as adults, or is it only the decisions being made by the judge?
Speaker 1
Why don't we pose that first to the witnesses or to the proponent of the bill if they have any response? I'm happy to add on later. But do either mister DeMeyer or the witnesses have a response to doctor Sharp Collins?
Speaker 18
people contemplated in this bill are juveniles. So people under the age of 18 who were sentenced in adult court and convicted and sentenced in adult court to long sentences.
Speaker 23
Alright. I was just trying to go back because I remember my bill twelve seventy nine. I'm looking at this as well, for people who are convicted of, crimes under the age of 18 and looking at the mental development of of folks and so forth. But I want to thank you for sharing your story, and being here today because I am a strong believer that people do change.
Speaker 23
I mean, you being here, and serving your overall community and also testifying and let people know that people deserve a right, to have a quality of life. It's very important to hear it from you. So I want to thank you for that. I just wanted to get that point of clarification, because I know too often some decisions are made strictly by the judge, and then here we are coming back to these conversations again. So
Speaker 1
Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins. Are there other questions or comments from committee members, or is there a motion? This would be an appropriate time for a
Speaker 1
K. We have a motion by Alenise, a second by Lackey. Any further discussion from the dais? Okay. Assembly member De Mayo, your opportunity to close, please.
Speaker 16
Thank you. I think it's important to deal with facts and not misrepresent what's in a bill. Of the five points that were made by the opposition, four of them can easily be dispensed with with this argument. We already allow, for the sentence to be fully enforced if an individual tortures their victim or the crime is committed against a law enforcement officer, a public safety officer. You can bring up arguments of, well, you know, they were having a bad day.
Their emotional development If we're going to protect law enforcement, if we are going to make torture one of the exemptions from resentencing, then we should stand up for our teachers. We should stand up for these kids. That's what this bill does. Secondly, the opposition says it's overly broad, and they come with this canard, this this misrepresentation that somehow someone might commit a misdemeanor. And they would, you know, wouldn't be able to get some sort of leniency.
No. Section two a, quote, the defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder. That is not a light crime. And when you get sentenced to life without parole, these are not small offenses. So let's not misrepresent what's in this bill.
You can disagree. You can say, yes. Law enforcement deserves protection, but not our teachers and our kids. You can make that argument. I don't agree with it.
But at least you'd be honest with the voters. You'd be honest with the constituents, and you'd honest with the victims in San Diego County. But do not lie to them. This is about murder, felony murder, and it's also about treating our teachers and these children with the same protection that we are gonna give law enforcement. This is not a partisan issue.
This is an 90% issue. If this committee can't act on this bill, then the notion that there's any sort of effort to protect our children would be questioned by many in this state. And I don't want us to be at that point because this should not be a partisan issue. With that, I urge, that this committee advance the bill, for full consideration on the floor.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much, assembly member De Mayo, and I appreciate you, your passion and and waiting to have that opportunity to respond. I agree with you that heinous acts deserve severe consequences. School shootings are terrible crimes, and I'm deeply saddened that in particular your community right now is continuing to deal with the aftermath of this tragedy and a lot of angst and concern about what's gonna happen with what I understand to be a pending case going to appeal now. I also understand that minors are not adults, that their brains haven't fully developed, and that their personality traits are less fixed. This is probably what I'm about to say is the most important part of my entire justification for my my recommendation today.
Both the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have clearly articulated on multiple occasions that even for the most serious of offenses, punishing minors the same as adults without providing them an opportunity to demonstrate growth and rehabilitation violates the eighth amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The recall and resentencing law in California was enacted to allow juveniles who have been sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of parole, we refer to that as LWOP, to petition the court after having served a minimum of fifteen years to show that they are remorseful and that they have changed for the better. The other, probably very important part that I hope you'll take away from my comment today is this, it is not an automatic release. The court may deny the petition or if it determines that resentencing is appropriate, and I would argue that's a pretty high burden in many instances, it may resentence the person to a life sentence without the sorry, with the possibility of parole. And if resentenced, the person would still have to wait for their minimum eligibility parole date and appear at a parole hearing where the board of parole hearings would decide whether parole is appropriate.
Mister DeMaio, I commend you for your passion. I think that you have an you have identified an issue worthy of further conversation. However, I think that your proposal is too broad. It is arguably unconstitutional. And with that, I recommend a no today.
Speaker 7
For a b 17 o one by assembly member De Mayo, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 1
That measure remains on call, assembly member. Thank you all for your appearance today. I will note that if your staff for one of the member's offices and your member's not here on the dais, please inform them to make their way down. We have two more authors in the room, and we're quickly closing to the end of our agenda. Next up, we have item number 11.
This is by assembly member Wicks, and this is assembly bill seventeen forty three. Assembly member, thank you so much for your patience. You'll have five minutes whenever you're ready.
Speaker 25
Great. Thank you. Well, good morning, mister chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present a b seventeen forty three today. This bill allows local governments, state agencies, and institutions of higher education in California to request firearm trace data from the state department of justice for research and public policy purposes.
Firearm trace data is exactly what it sounds like, data points tracing the flow of a firearm from its legal construction or, importation to a federally licensed firearm dealer and then to the firearms original purchaser. The California DOJ's automated firearm system contains a database with trace information on all gun crimes recovered in California. That data is a powerful tool that can link suspects to crimes, identify trackers, and uncover patterns in the sources of guns that cause harm in our communities. AB seventeen forty three expands the number of trusted partners that are able to use this tool as our communities continue to confront gun violence in California. Under the existing law, the DOJ can share trace data with localities as part of an investigation in real time, and previous legislation already allows data sharing with the California Firearm, Violence Research Center at UC Davis.
With a b seventeen forty three, more California universities, colleges, and community colleges will be able to do rigorous research to understand gun violence trends, and governments will be able to make smarter decisions about public safety policies that are tailored to the local, regional, or state level. The privacy and cybersecurity guardrails currently in place for those existing instances of data sharing would be extended under this bill. This is sensitive information that must be treated accordingly. California has already invested significant resources into gathering this information at the state level, and allowing our public partners to use it for research and policy purposes will amplify the impact the data can have. Although California has made great strides in reducing gun violence, there's more work to be done.
It takes collaboration across every level of government and with our research partners to keep moving the needle forward. With me here to testify in support of the bill is Rebecca Marcus representing Brady, the bill sponsor, and I respectfully ask for an I vote when the time comes up.
Speaker 26
Good morning, chair and members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady campaign in support of a b seventeen forty three. Every gun recovered in California's streets starts somewhere, and the overwhelming majority have their origins in the legal marketplace. Understanding how guns, particularly low those that have been diverted from legal legal commerce to the underground market, make their way to crime scenes is essential to crafting evidence based and life saving solutions to America's gun violence epidemic. Trace data is key to the story.
In 2000, ATF conducted their last public nationwide analysis on crime gun tracing. The analysis showed that about five percent of gun dealers are responsible for about 90% of recovered crime guns. In 2003, the Tea Heart Amendment was added to the annual federal appropriations bill. And because of ATF's interpretation of the amendment, policymakers, academics, the general public no longer have any visibility into how crime guns flood into their communities or which gun dealers supply them. California is in a unique situation.
As the assembly member stated, Cal DOJ's automated firearm system currently contains a database with information on all crime guns recovered in California. Since this data is obtained and maintained by Cal DOJ, it is outside the restrictions set by the federal government. The bill is simple. It explicitly gives DOJ the authority to share this key data to localities and academic institutions upon request. This data can reveal patterns of gun violence often seemingly unrelated, identify potential traffickers, and provide a better understanding of the region's market for illegal weapons.
Local leaders can use these insights to create evidence based policies such as increased oversight of local gun dealers or direct community violence intervention and public health resources to the areas most affected. California has invested in a system that ensures it has access to this vital data, and it is important that all levels of government can utilize it to keep their constituents safe. I respectfully request an I vote on this important measure. I've also been asked to voice support of a b seventeen forty three for my client, the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as for my colleagues at Everytown and Moms Demand Action. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you both very much. Now we'll go to the Me Toos. Come on down.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition to the bill? Yes. I see one person.
Great. So, sir, once you come down and begin speaking, you'll have a total of five minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 17
Good morning, chair and members. Thank you. My name is Adam Wilson. I'm here on behalf of Gun Owners of California, Gunners of America, and also authorized to speak on behalf of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. We are in opposition to a b seventeen forty three.
I think we all share the goal of reducing violent crime and stopping illegal illegal firearm trafficking, but the policies we adopt should actually help achieve that goal. Firearm trace data identifies the first lawful retail sale of a firearm. It does not always show a firearm lit how a firearm later changed hands, whether it was stolen, trafficked, or illegally resold. Even ATF cautions that trace data should not be used to determine wrongdoing by a firearm dealer. We would like to know, since trace data only identifies the first lawful retail sale and does not establish wrongdoing by a dealer, how does expanding access to that data help identify illegal firearm trafficking rather than risk creating a misleading conclusion about a lawful firearm dealer who has done nothing wrong?
There are also practical concerns. California DOJ already faces significant backlogs administering existing firearm regulations and oversight responsibilities. This bill would require the DOJ to compile and distribute trace data to cities, counties, and universities, including customized formats for research and policy use. That adds administrative workload for an agency already struggling to perform core functions. Most importantly, if a dealer is actually breaking the law, DOJ and ATF already have inspection and investigative tools to identify and prosecute the misconduct.
If the legislator wants to reduce crime and illegal trafficking, resources would better be directed towards enforcement and investigations, not expanding data sharing requirements. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. We'll next take the Me Toos. Anyone else hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill? Okay. We'll now turn it back to the Deus.
Are there any questions or comments from committee members?
Speaker 8
the author, given the existing workload and backlogs of the Department of Justice, has there been any analysis of the administrative burden created by requirements? Oh, I guess I just sound loud to myself. Has there been any analysis of the administrative burden created by requiring DOJ to compile and distribute customized trace data sets to cities, counties, and universities?
Speaker 25
Happy to have my, witness, answer that, but just from my perspective, a lot of that happens in the appropriations committee where there'll be a assigned to that. So we will be doing that analysis in the next committee should this bill move forward.
Speaker 26
I don't believe a formal cost analysis has been done, but we have been having conversations with the Department of Justice back into the fall about how to make this we they actually think this is a speaking off the, you know, off the record, they're not sitting here that this could create a more streamlined way to do things. Right now, when localities ask that question, there is a lot of review and this actually creates a system puts a system into place. But the trace data is actually compiled already by the Department of Justice. They put out an annual report, and so they already have these data sets.
Speaker 8
Thank you. And and one other the opposition had brought some points up as well on how how is the trace data, which only identifies the first lawful sale of a firearm, how could it be used to determine that a firearm dealer did anything wrong?
Speaker 25
I I think it's a good question. What we're really looking to have the data for is to understand if there are particular dealers where there's a high volume of guns being purchased there that are, causing a crime. And if that is the case, you know, could there be additional audits either by the state DOJ or other work from local law enforcement? Only if we have the data can we understand those trends, and then we can actually take action on that.
Speaker 8
Thank you. For the opposition, did you have anything to respond on that?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, mister vice chair. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Assembly member Wickes, you have a chance to close if you'd like.
Speaker 1
Great. Is there a motion? We have a k. We have a motion by Gonzalez, a second by Ramos. I do recommend an I.
I just wanna say I really appreciated the conversation today between the proponents in opposition, and I have no doubt that those conversations will continue. Assembly member, I know you're very collaborative in your approach. So with that, recommend an aye. Let's take the role.
Speaker 7
For a b seventeen forty three by assembly member Wickes, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 7
Alaniz not voting. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney?
Harbetian? Lackey? No. Lackie, no. Nguyen?
Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins I.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure remains on call. Thank you, assembly member. And mister Wilson. Right?
Okay. Thanks for your testimony today. Appreciate it. Colleagues, just a quick programming note. We only have two items left on the agenda.
Next up will be assembly member Stephanie. She can come down and right. And then start getting ready. I just wanna note that if, staff is watching for assembly members Harbideon, Wynn, or Haney, please get them here as soon as possible. And if staff is watching from an assembly member Burner, she's the only item on after this bill, please get her here, as quickly as possible or else I will put her over to the next hearing.
Assembly member Stephanie, the floor is yours.
Speaker 27
Thank you, mister chair. And today, I would like to present a b seventeen sixteen, which would support college students who experience sexual violence to receive tuition reimbursement from the California Victim Compensation Board, also known as CalVCB, after facing academic setbacks. I think I it I think it's understandable that when one counters encounters sexual assault and violence, one has consequences such as not being able to do very well in school. And victims understandably tend to do poor academically, sometimes failing classes or even being placed on academic probation. These students may end up in a position where they must withdraw from classes, repeat coursework, or even delay graduation, costs that can push them out of school entirely, especially if they lack financial support.
And under current law, crime victims, may receive reimbursement from CalVCB for medical expenses, including counseling and mental health treatments. So by adding tuition as a reimbursable expense, the state can provide meaningful relief that helps students remain enrolled and continue their education. Not only does a b seventeen sixteen affirm our commitment to a more holistic and survivor centered justice system, but it also affirms to our students that they should not have to choose between healing from violence and staying in school. With me today as witnesses, is Jacqueline Lehra with the Center for Advocacy Resources and the Education Unit at UC Davis and Jessica Duong with the University of California, office of the president.
Speaker 29
Good morning, mister chair and members. Jessica Duong with the University of California. We are the sponsor of a b seventeen sixteen, sexual harassment, sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and stalking are unfortunate realities of the college landscape. At UC, our campuses implement a variety of preventative measures, including annual mandatory sexual violence and sexual harassment awareness prevention and education training, bystander intervention workshops, safety escort programs, and have care centers that offer free and confidential support to our students. While there are resources to support survivors of sexual assault and and violence, students often understandably do worse academically.
Two studies found that students who face sexual violence were more likely to have lower GPAs or to not graduate. Students who continue their education will need to retake classes and may not have budgeted for extra terms, which increases their financial burden. Research found that the estimated lifetime cost of rape was over 122,000 per survivor. By creating eligibility for tuition reimbursement from the California Victims Compensation Fund, a b seventeen sixteen will allow students to apply for tuition reimbursement and continue their education with less financial repercussions and hopefully be on a path to healing and getting their goals back on track. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good morning, mister chair and committee. My name is Jacqueline Lira, and I'm the assistant director for the UC Davis Center for Advocacy Resources and Education program commonly known as CARE. I've been an advocate for nineteen years, and one of the reoccurring themes that I have seen in the educational financial impact to victims who have experienced sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking. Thus, I'm here to offer my full support for a b seventeen sixteen. The idea for this bill came from seeing the look of defeat in far too many students who had experienced harm and where their education had then become collateral damage.
I'll often hear them say, well, I need to stay for another quarter. Now I need to sign up for summer school. My graduation plan has been delayed. And often, they are doing this in a tone of absolute defeat, resignation, because it's just one more thing that their experience now has them dealing with. When a student survivor has to drop a class, retake a term, or extend their tenure, This is time and money.
In the aftermath of their experience, one of the many things they have to contend with is evaluating their academic and financial options, and the weight of these decisions leads to additional stress, fear, guilt, and shame. Furthermore, there are survivors who simply end their educational pursuits. They just don't come back to school, and that is an absolute loss. The current support structures allow for both short term and long term options. When students connect with services, campus based advocates will often help, identify options for the the survivors and make the right decision for them.
And these options may include extensions on assignments, tests, late drops for classes after the deadline, or assisting a student in taking leave or withdrawing from school altogether. Even with these supportive measures, I will watch students struggle through an entire term trying to focus, trying to make it to class, trying to be the student they were before their experience and still fail all their classes. In these situations, I've supported them in seeking retroactive withdrawals, will help them wipe the grades, but the money is still gone. My time in this profession has provided me with so much knowledge and strategy around how to best help my community as well as given me a glimpse into what is lacking in the various systems and programs. I determined this to be a lack in the systems and is an opportunity to do better.
There's a clear need to create a potential avenue for survivors to help restore some of the loss they've experienced, and I've supported students through the existing support structures and have watched them go on to do amazing things. Some of my survivors have become teachers, lawyers, therapists, educators, just to name a few. But I've also watched them struggle with the decision about how their education was impacted and what it meant for them to stay longer and what it meant to them to repeat terms. For all of the successes I've witnessed, there are many who weren't able to continue the school. And it is my hope that a b seventeen sixteen will create a critical support pathway that will allow more survivors to complete their education successfully and fulfill the potential that our community will undeniably benefit from.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the presentation and both of you for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Toos. Come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 6
Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DA's Association, Riverside County District Attorney's Office in support.
Speaker 30
Good morning. I'm Maggie White with the California State University chancellor's office. We weren't able to get a letter in on time, but we are in support of this bill. Thank you very much.
Speaker 31
Morning, mister chair members. Ryan Schumer on behalf of the California Coalition of School Safety Professionals and the other law enforcement groups in the analysis, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you all very much. Are there any witnesses here to testify in opposition? Seeing none, is there anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill and register a position? Seeing none, we'll oh, there is one.
Alright. Come on down.
Speaker 12
Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of, LA County Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight in opposition. Respectful.
Speaker 4
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. One more call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We will turn it back to the dais.
Are there questions or comments or motions from members of the committee? We have a motion. Is there is? We have a second, a third, and a fourth. Any other questions or comments?
No. Assembly member Stephanie, would you like to give a brief close?
Speaker 27
I would. And, actually, I do want to address, the opposition. Although the reasons were not given for the opposition, after reading the letter, I felt like it cannot go, unanswered. And I am shocked by the assertion in the opposition letter that this is too attenuated to actually give reimbursement for tuition. The actual line is the reimbursement for tuition, however, is too attenuated for the board to determine whether a person's decision not to continue in college or another education institution is due to a sexual assault.
And for me, this smacks of not believing victims or even having contempt for them. Sexual assault is associated with serious psychological and physical effects such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety disorder. These can cause difficulty concentrating, sleep problems, panic attacks, and missed classes or assignments as our witnesses have so brilliantly displayed today. These effects make it very hard for a student to perform academically, and it's not attenuated at all. This is classic victim blaming, even questioning whether or not the victim was already a bad student to begin with, stating that the board is without access to the student's academic history, why not just ask what the victim was wearing?
This line of reasoning has the same underlying contempt at its core. What kind of academic history or grades would a victim have to have to deserve compensation for being raped? Would a c plus student indicate to the board that maybe she was already struggling and just using the assault as an excuse as is the tone of the letter? Or would the straight a student be compensated because she would appear to be more believable to the board? I don't see how you read this letter any differently.
To say I am incensed by this argument is an understatement. It's 2026, folks. It's time we start believing women. It's time we start believing victims. I urge an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. Colleagues, I do recommend an I. And with that, we have a motion and a second, so we'll conduct the roll.
Speaker 7
For a b seventeen sixteen by assembly member Stefani, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 7
Lackey, aye. Wen? Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye.
Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins I.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure passes. Thank you, assembly member. And before we bring up assembly member Burner, I will just note that, we are still waiting on assembly members Haney, Harbidean, and Wynn. This is our final item.
So if they could please make their way to Room 126, I would appreciate it and probably drink less coffee being all stressed out. With that, assembly member Berner, you have the floor. You have five minutes as do do you have any witnesses, with you in support today? You do. So you'll have five minutes as will they.
Speaker 28
Good morning, mister chair and members. AB sixteen sixty seven would add fentanyl to the list of drugs on the existing serious felony list, making it a serious felony to furnish fentanyl to a minor. Fentanyl is wreaking havoc on our communities. It is up to 50 per times more potent than heroin and a 100 times more potent than morphine. Despite this, fentanyl is not on the serious felonies list, a list which currently includes heroin, cocaine, PCP, and meth as being a serious felony to deal these dangerous drugs to minors.
This bill would ensure that the list properly includes this recently proliferating and deadly drug, fentanyl. We should be protecting our children from this deadly drug, and I respectfully ask for an I vote. I have here with me Jorge Del Portillo with the San Diego District's Attorney's Office and the sponsors of the bill and Chris Didier.
Speaker 32
Thank you very much, mister chair mister vice chair. Can you hear me okay? Thank you. Thank you very much, mister chair, mister vice chair, and committee members. My name is Chris Didier, and this is my son, Zach.
Zach died tragically at age 17 from fentanyl poisoning only two days after Christmas. In high school, Zach was incredibly successful. A straight a student, a respected athlete, active in scouts, and community service. He held the lead role of his high school musical. After Zach died, we opened acceptance letters into five UCs, including UCLA.
What asked for our confusion is there were no red flags of substance abuse. First responders never found products or paraphernalia. Zach and friends were simply sold a fake pill from the deceptive influence of a dealer. Two months before Zach died, the dealer was sentenced to five years probation and other drug charges with no jail time. 6067 can help, so allow me to qualify.
In January 2020, Philadelphia Public Health and National Institute of Health interviewed 45 incarcerated dealers of which all knew about fentanyl and referred to fentanyl as something that they, quote, could kill you, end quote. In January 24, New England Journal of Medicine study showed twenty two students ages 14 to 18 die every week from drugs, a classroom of students dying every week. In October 24, Yahoo News reported fentanyl test strips used by dealers to advertise, quote, clean pills, end quote, implying the awareness of fentanyl. In November 25, PubMed Central study included claims from a dealer, I knew that they weren't real pills from doctor, characterizing the knowledge of fentanyl. These dealers illegally possess those pills not knowing where they actually came from.
They're not doctors. They're not pharmacists. They are wrongfully claiming these are harmless legitimate pills. Our children are all unrepeatable miracles. Still, someone died twelve minutes ago from illicit fentanyl.
So my question to you is, what does it take to hold a dealer accountable who profits on the lives of our children, your children. Thank you for your time. I urge you for your iVote, and I very much look forward to your questions.
Speaker 33
morning. My name is Jorge Delbertillo. I am the assistant chief of the major narcotics division of the San Diego County district attorney's office. I've been a prosecutor for twenty years, and more than half of that time has been working in narcotics. Fentanyl selling it to a kid should be a serious felony, period, and including analogs.
This doesn't create a new strike because the strike law has been frozen. So it just simply declares it a serious felony to sell these poisons to children. This amendment actually has the unintended consequence of making it less risky for a fentanyl dealer than a heroin dealer to sell to children. What do I mean? If a heroin dealer sells to a child, they are facing a serious felony prior.
But if they were fortunate enough for that heroin only to be fentanyl, they are not facing that consequence. So how can it be that selling heroin is treated harsher than selling fentanyl? The number one way children die from fentanyl is from pills, pills that it doesn't look like anything else. You can't smell fentanyl. You can't detect that it's there.
They're ordering Percocet, Oxy, Xanax, and it has these deadly substances. So this amendment, unfortunately, benefits the fentanyl dealer by allowing them to escape accountability and claim they don't know.
Speaker 1
Just to be extraordinarily clear and to avoid any confusion of the committee members.
Speaker 33
One one final thing. I I did notice in the analysis, there was a small error on page seven. It says, according to the Department of Justice that, you know, laws and policies to deter crime, that's not according to the Department of Justice. When you look at that source, it's actually an essay published on the Department of Justice, so I just wanted to flag that. I wanted to say that in San Diego County, we've had multiple cases where a drug dealer sells one substance but accidentally sells another.
And the number one way that kids are receiving this drug is through the Internet, through social media, and it's usually in a pill form. So I urge you to vote aye. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Now that we're all clear. Me too. Is anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill?
Speaker 31
Mister chair, Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and the other law enforcement associations in the analysis in support. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Ivy Fitzpatrick, California District Attorneys Association, Riverside County District Attorney's Office in support.
Speaker 31
Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon. I'm here in support on behalf of sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County.
Speaker 34
Regina Chavez with the Empower and Resilience Project and also, more importantly, an angel mother in support of this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Elisa Brooks Novak, my son Ryan Brooks, and I support this bill, a b sixteen sixty seven.
Speaker 1
Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. Next, we'll be taking up opposition witnesses. Just wanna take this moment to say thank you, sir. And to the other witnesses who came forward to share your your very painful personal stories, your connection to this issue, It's appreciated.
I can't imagine it gets any easier over time to talk about those issues, but appreciate you being here in our state capital today so we can hear it from you. Alright. We do have two opposition witnesses. Gentlemen, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee. Your time begins when you start speaking.
Speaker 14
Thank you, chair, members of the committee. Greg Gardner, behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance. DPA respectfully opposes this bill. We all want our loved ones, our communities, and particularly young people to be safe and healthy. And the losses described here previously today are truly tragic, and we feel tremendous sympathy for the parents who have lost ones, loved ones, and others who have lost loved ones in the community.
We want overdose deaths to be eliminated. We want those who use drugs, especially young people, to have access to easily obtainable person centered care, substance use disorder treatment, mental health services, and evidence based overdose prevention services, health centered approaches to drugs. But extensive research has found that lengthening sentences and increasing arrests do not protect health, prevent substance use, or reduce the availability or of drugs or overdose deaths. Longer sentences do not have the intended deterrence effect. Literally decades of increasing sentences has not prevented the use or distribution of illicit substance.
As mentioned previously, the sentencing enhancement that would be added by the incident bill is already applied to other controlled substances. It has been for over forty years. Heroin, cocaine, fencyclidine, methamphetamine, and those enhancements have proven ineffective for decades in reducing the distribution of those substances. Instead, enhanced penalties have been associated with negative health harms, such as increased HIV risk behaviors and lower utilization of prevention services. Because people who sell or share drugs are often themselves, people who use drugs and often experiencing substance use disorders, legislation such as this further drives people needing SUD treatment away from systems of care.
Because this would effectively prohibit plea bargaining in more cases, it would expand incarceration instead of allowing the negotiation of treatment alternatives and increase the risk of overdose deaths. The added years of incarceration facilitated by this bill come at huge expense and do not address the measures that could keep people safer, expanding peer outreach programs, evidence based overdose prevention education, naloxone access, and expanding access to medication treatment, especially for young people because it increases harm rather than invest in health. We respectfully urge you to oppose this bill.
Speaker 10
Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I, am a alleged advocate ACLU CalAction. I wanna start by acknowledging, the witness today for sharing your story. Thank you. And, by acknowledging the great risk posed by this substance and immense amount of harm has caused so many communities around the country.
However, I would be remiss to not underscore how this harm is unquestionably exacerbated by the war on drugs. California's experiment with tough on crime policies has more than demonstrated its inability to prevent crimes and has resulted in a costly mass incarceration machine that drains taxpayer money without solving the root causes of crime. Sentencing enhancements, as this bill proposes, does absolutely nothing to deter crime, which is supported by a great deal of evidence. And I know it was mentioned last week in committee in this committee room that there may be other motives to impose criminal longer criminal penalties other than deterring crime. And if that's the case, I'd like to understand, not only as a alleged advocate to ACLU, but as a California keen on what our state representatives are doing in Sacramento, what exactly are these other motives?
Beyond the ineffectiveness of enhancements, another glaring issue is the legislature explicitly violating the doctrine of separation of powers. Mandatory sentencing enhancements take away discretion from a judge who is responsible for exercising their best judgment on a case by case basis. When the legislature decides to mandate a sentence, it is therefore exercising its power over the judicial branch and a clear obstruction of what we intended with our separation of powers doctrine. To quote former California governor and US Supreme Court chief justice Earl Warren, the best available evidence indicates that the words of constitution were intended as a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply trial by legislature. But this legislature does not heed the advice of our former governor, which is evident with our penal code having more than 100 unique sentencing enhancements that are routinely applied applied in nearly every criminal case.
We need to move away from these failed carceral solutions, respect the separation of powers, and treat this issue that this bill aims to solve as the health problem it is. For these reasons, we urge your no vote on a B1667. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll hear the me too's. If you'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill, please come down. Please confine your comment to name, organization, and the position you're taking.
Thank you.
Speaker 19
Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, respectfully opposed.
Speaker 12
Liz Bom Guterres on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight in respectful opposition.
Speaker 21
Dominique Ng, sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in respectful opposition.
Speaker 1
Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.
Speaker 13
Shivani Nashar on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful opposition, also registering opposition for Californians United for a responsible budget.
Speaker 4
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.
Speaker 20
Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in respectful opposition.
Speaker 22
Micah Doktarov on behalf of Smart Justice California. We've taken an oppose unless amended position, asking for the bill to be amended to add a knowledge requirement. We appreciate the conversations that we've had with the author's office, and we look forward to further conversations. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you all. Is there anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. I'll turn it back to Deus. Are there questions or comments from any members of the committee?
Mister Lackey.
Speaker 9
I'm almost speechless for some of the accusations by some of the defense comments, and I'll just try to dismiss them. But I will tell you, first of all, thank you for addressing this issue and my sympathies to the families. I've seen you here before, and it's hard for me to understand opposition to this truthfully. I mean, when when you think about
Speaker 9
carelessness of what's done and the way that these people died, how can you not want to ascribe a consequence that is serious? Because there's nothing more serious than a death. And I I think to dismiss and to forgive has its place, but also assigning accountability to the dangers may not be proven to be a preventive measure, but it certainly is an accountability measure that I think we're uncomfortable wrestling with as a committee. And I find that that's really not our role as a committee other than to make sure that a judge has the option to do the right thing. The judge is the one that describes penalties, and we gotta give them the latitude to be serious with those penalties and not limit their ability to assign circumstances that fit a penalty that fits with the crime.
Especially repeat offenders in this this arena, they've proven they don't care. They've proven it. Why wouldn't we wanna take action against that? And that's what this bill allows. I would ask to be a coauthor, and, it will get my hearty support.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member Lackey. Other questions or comments from members of the committee? Mister vice chair.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chair. Curious, Doug. You said that, lengthening sentence do not have an intimate deterrence, but yet you also said it would increase harm. I'm curious what what harm is going to increase with this bill. I'm sorry.
Was that your first name, Doug? My name? No. No. What's your name, Doug?
What was your first name?
Speaker 14
Thank you, mister chair. We know from decades of experience that increasing length of incarceration actually increases risks. It increases risks of overdose death. Every time a person is incarcerated, it increases overdose death significantly.
Speaker 8
So you're talking about the person who committed the crime, not the victim?
Speaker 14
Abs well, you you know, I think to be clear, one day a person may be a a furnisher, and another day they may be a recipient of a substance. I think we know very clearly that in, in the sharing of substances, in the furnishing of substances, there's a lot of different forms that this takes. There are individuals who are receiving one day a substance or sharing with friends and colleagues, or just receiving a small remuneration for a substance. That's a vast amount of, the furnishing that occurs in the markets. And this creates a penalty that actually create prohibits pro plea bargaining for people who are themselves experiencing substance use disorder as I mentioned.
So there are significant harms here because it is driving more people underground. It's driving more people into dangerous situations who themselves may be at greater risk for lengthy sentences. But as I think is elucidated in the literature, harsh sentences do not have the intended deterrence effect. And and that's what I think is largely missed by this this type of approach, and we need to stop extending this type of approach that we've been trying for thirty years and start, investing more in other types of approaches that are more effective.
Speaker 8
Gotcha. I I hear that excuse all the time about the lengthening sentences, and so it's kinda getting old up here. But I was curious about your increasing harm and increasing overdose deaths, and I was just curious on so was that come back? Was there, like, somebody who did a study on that, or is this from personal experience?
Speaker 14
Yes. There are actually extensive studies, and we're happy to provide those to to your office, that periods of detention and even lengthy detention increase overdose risk by as much as, it was. Some studies showed twenty six, percent. Some show much greater percent, in terms of the overdose risk. And and that is partially because, substance use disorder does not change during periods of incarceration, periods of detention.
Speaker 8
Again, you're you're talking about those that are been arrested for this, not those that are outside that are victims who we're trying to protect right now. Right? I'm talking about the victims. So what you're telling me right now is that his son and their children that came up, the angel mothers, that their kids, taking the drug, were gonna then now sell it to other people according to what you told me earlier.
Speaker 14
Assembly member, what we know from talking from talking with parents of individuals that have been both who have experienced losses and who have experienced children who have been incarcerated, they tell us that some days their child may be the recipient of a substance, and some days their child may be the one who is sharing it with another child.
Speaker 8
Okay. So what you're referring to is, like, cocaine, methamphetamines, other drugs other than fentanyl. We're talking about fentanyl is little bit different. Actually, I'm gonna shift over to you, sir. How do you feel about that with the accusations made that your son would be selling this after he took it?
Speaker 1
I'm gonna just pause right there before the witness answered, and I and I would just encourage all of my colleagues to ask questions. It's perfectly fine to have a difference of opinion, but let's not paraphrase or put words in the mouths of any witnesses today.
Speaker 8
Alright. Well, then I will ask it because this stuff is getting tiresome. Sir, your son, do you feel that he would be selling this drug after he took it? Unfortunately, I know he died, and I know who we're talking about are people who are who are dying after this. So I don't know how they could sell it afterwards, but if you would not mind asking or answering that question, please.
Speaker 32
you for that question, vice chair. It's impossible to know for certain exactly what my son would have done if after surviving a first experience with any kind of drug. But knowing his history, I believe at the cellular level, he would never wanna imply impart any harm to anyone else. And sadly, a lot of children that I know of other grieving families, literally thousands, have a similar story where they unintentionally I call it the new age or the emergence of a new category of victim. This isn't a struggle of a long term addiction story.
This is different. I call it an acute story where it's a one off, unfair scenario where it's more like a landscape instead of a slippery slope of addiction. It's a minefield. One tiptoe down that path one time and it lights out. And and in many cases, it's it's truly a tragedy that should not have happened.
It kinda reminds me of what happened in Chicago in 1982 with the extra strength Tylenol poisonings. The first victim was a lady named Catherine. She was only 12. She was taking extra strength Tylenol to manage cramps and she ingested potassium cyanide unknowingly and that's when someone was tampering with Tylenol bottles. And after a serious study, we've invented this thing called a tamper proof seal.
That lady did not have an addiction problem. She wasn't looking to sell drugs or anything. She just was taking pain medicine that thought would help her when in fact she died from something that took her life. So I don't see this as a problem where someone could come across a drug and then later become a dealer themselves.
Speaker 8
Thank you. And I fully agree with that. And, again, thank you to the angel mothers and angel fathers out there continuing to fight. I appreciate it. And I'd also like to be added as a coauthor if I could, please.
And I would like to move the bill, mister chair.
Speaker 1
Okay. We have a motion and a second. Thank you, vice chair. Are there other comments or questions from members of the committee? Seeing none.
Alright. Assembly member Berner with a motion in hand. This is your opportunity to close.
Speaker 28
Yes. Thank you. I'd like to recenter the bill on what the bill does do, and it puts fentanyl at
Speaker 37
the same level as cocaine, heroin, meth, and PCP as a serious felony. Respectfully ask for your Ivo.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member Burner. Colleagues, I'll be very brief. I wasn't planning to say anything, but there were a couple things that came up in the discussion today that I'd like to briefly respond to. To our representative from the ACLU, I can't speak for any other legislator, but to answer your question directly, I think there's multiple goals of our criminal justice system. Rehabilitation is certainly one as is deterrence as is community safety.
And what I mean by that is there are some people that have committed crimes and are so dangerous that until they're rehabilitated, they need to be separated from society. And I don't think one goal is more important than the other. They're all part of what we're trying to achieve in our justice system, and that's the balance we try to strike as a committee. So I appreciate the question. I just shared at least one legislative perspective on that.
Assembly member Berner, I would just thank you for your bringing the bill forward. I I know you quite well. You're a very caring and thoughtful and passionate advocate on the issue. I will be voting aye today. However, because it did come up, I would like to mention that I think that the amendments that we did discuss are absolutely essential to public safety.
I have to disagree with one of your witnesses' comments on it. I'm fine to move it forward today, but I will be looking to see that added in through appropriations and certainly as it hits the floor. And I know you to be an author that will at least engage in the conversation and work with the opposition. And the last thing I'll say is based on some comments from the dais, it's perfectly fine to have a reasonable difference of opinion. I think we should really not question each other's motivations.
That is how democracy debies that's how democracy dies and debate ends. It's okay to disagree. It's not okay okay to question others' motivations, in my humble opinion. With that, there's a motion and a second. Call the roll.
Speaker 7
For a b sixteen sixty seven by assembly member Borner, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz? Ramos? Aye. Sharp Collins?
Aye. Collins? Aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure passes. Thank you all for being here. Colleagues, we're not yet done. We have a proposed consent calendar.
I'm gonna read the consent calendar. We have four items on consent calendar. Item number two, assembly bill fifteen forty nine by assembly member Krell entitled alternative domestic violence program. I will note that has an urgency provision. Item number four, assembly bill sixteen eighty one by our very own assembly member Ramos entitled victims and witnesses rights.
We have this item number seven, assembly bill seventeen twenty three by assembly member Ellis entitled driver's licenses revocation. And lastly, we have item number nine, assembly bill seventeen thirty seven by our very own assembly member Lackey entitled post release community supervision. Is there a motion?
Speaker 7
For consent item, Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye.
Alanis, aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney?
Aye. Haney, aye. Harbidean? Aye. Harbidean, aye.
Lackey, Lackie, Aye. Gwen? Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Sharpe Collins, aye.
Speaker 1
Alright. Consent calendar is adopted. And colleagues, for final order of business, we'll go back through everything to let those who've arrived late add on, and then we'll be done for the day.
Speaker 7
For item one, a b fifteen thirty eight, that was pulled by the author. For item two, a b fifteen forty nine, that was on consent. For item three, sixteen sixty seven, that has just been dispensed with. For item four, sixteen eighty one, that was on consent. For item five, a b 17 o one, this measure was on call by assembly member DeMio.
The motion was due passed to the appropriations committee. Haney? Haney, no. Harbideon?
Speaker 7
Harbideon, no. When? Not voting. When not voting. Ramos?
Ramos, no. That measure fails.
Speaker 7
For item six seventeen sixteen by Assembly Member Schiffany, the motion was due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney, I. Harbidean?
Speaker 7
For item seven a b seventeen twenty three, the item was on consent. For item eight seventeen twenty seven, that item was pulled by the author. For item nine seventeen thirty seven, the item was on consent. For item ten seventeen forty one, by assembly member Pacheco, the motion was due passed to the appropriations committee. Haney.
Haney, I. Harbidean?
Speaker 7
For item 11 a b seventeen forty three by assemblymember Wicks, this motion was on call. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Haney. Aye. Haney, I.
Harbidean.
Speaker 7
Harbidean, I. When? It's item 11 a b seventeen forty three. When I That measure passes.
Speaker 1
That measure passes. Colleagues, that completes today's business. I will note that next week, we will be getting at 08:30AM. We have an early start time next week, and we anticipate having an early start time from here on out. We have a very busy docket.
With that, thank you all for being here, and we stand adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.