Assembly Public Safety Committee, Tuesday, March 24, 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
I'm proud to accept the committee's amendments. Members, in 2020, the legislature passed a b nineteen fifty that kept most probation terms to either one year for misdemeanors or two years for felonies. However, except for narrow circumstances, that measure provided no judicial discretion for a judge to extend terms for individuals who need to complete further rehabilitation. With committee amendments, a b a b eighteen sixteen will now say that if a person on probation for a sex offense hasn't finished their required treatment program, a court may extend their probation for up to one extra year. This gives the individual more time to complete the necessary classes while remaining under the court supervision.
Since these cases involve sex offenders registration, section two ninety, the community is safer if the person actually completes their specialized treatment rather than being released into the world with unfinished business. Members at the heart of this issue is making sure those on probation receive the treatment and rehabilitation they need to become productive members of their communities post probation without artificially and rigid timelines. With that, mister chair, respectfully ask for an I vote. And with me here today to talk about this issue is Siri McLeod and Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California.
Speaker 4
Good morning, mister chair and members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California and certainly pleased to sponsor a b eighteen sixteen. We wanna acknowledge and appreciate our conversations with the committee regarding the impactful issue and the amendments taken today. While the arbitrary impacts of shortened probation terms is an important area for continued discussion, particularly around the impacts of doing so on the rehabilitative efforts and public safety, this bill addresses key aspects around individuals who have committed sex offenses. We must remember that probation is intended to help people succeed at their second chances and to meet their rehabilitative and public safety goals and protect our communities from those who are not ready.
AB nineteen fifty made this primary function of probation exceedingly difficult. AB eighteen sixteen takes an important step toward bringing back this important balance. In 2020, AB nineteen fifty set the maximum term of probation for most misdemeanor crimes at one year and the maximum term for felonies at two years. This arbitrary cap set by 18 AB nineteen fifty moved away from an evidence based model, which resulted in limiting the time to reasonably complete treatment for these offenses. Other states have already adjusted to lessons learned in California by passing legislation regarding probation term lengths that considered rehabilitative and treatment needs and risk factors by focusing on approaches that required suitability to terminate as well as approaches such as authorizing court extensions and modifications in order to meet specific rehabilitation goals that have not yet been achieved.
AB eighteen sixteen would establish an appropriate pathway for courts to extend probation beyond two years when programs have not been completed for individuals convicted of registerable sex offenses. Rehabilitation related to these criminogenic needs, particularly around sex offenses, requires targeted, structured, and closely monitored programming to address underlying risks and needs. This approach is consistent with evidence based practices, which emphasizes that supervision should end based on progress, stability, and success successful completion to best ensure sustainable community safety.
Speaker 9
Hello, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Siri McLeod. I'm a senior deputy probation officer also representing CPOC, the chief probation officers of California. I work for Plaster County Probation Department. I'd like to note that I serve on a speaker of the assembly appointed position on KSON, the California Sex Offender Management Board.
I am a supervision representative for the California chapter of ATSSA or the Association of the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse. I teach sex offender supervision to California probation officers through Serratso, the state authorized risk assessment tool for sex offenders committee, and IMR, department trainer for sex offender supervision. Studies indicate that risk of re offense among amongst adult males with a history of sexual re offending is highest within the first few years following release from custody. Reoffense rates decline as individuals age and remain offense free in the community. Therefore, timely engagement in sex offender treatment upon release, whether following the instant offense or a probation violation, is critical.
Longer periods of supervision can further enhance community safety by supporting sustained participation in treatment. The abbreviation of probationary periods following a b nineteen fifty has had a detrimental impact on treatment dosage for individuals convicted of sexual offenses. Many individuals are unable to complete KSOM certified sex offender treatment within the two year time frame. So in practice, treatment rarely begins immediately after release from custody. Additionally, consultation with a local case on certified sex offender treatment provider indicates that only a minority of individuals continue with treatment after their probation term has concluded.
In sum, AB eighteen sixteen is consistent with evidence based practices and better aligns probation terms with court ordered sex offender treatment program timelines and completion, which supports both rehabilitative goals and public safety. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Assembly member, thank you very much for your presentation today. Just to confirm, you will be accepting committee amendments? Yes. Thank you very much, and thank you to both of your witnesses for testifying in support.
Next, we go to the
Speaker 10
me too's. Good morning, mister chairman, members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 11
Max Perrier, on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, and with permission with on behalf of PORAC in support as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Nick Busty, public safety and community advocate, and I support this bill. Okay. Final call. Anyone hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay.
Next, we'll turn to opposition. Are there any witnesses here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. I do see one. We actually have a chair for you down here if you'd like here at the end of the table.
Your time doesn't begin until you begin speaking or
Speaker 1
Sit there. That's great. So once you begin speaking, you'll have two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Ilona Yanez, deputy public defender at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. We appreciate the author and the committee for working on the amended language. However, we must still respectfully oppose.
Under a b eighteen sixteen, an individual required to register under two ninety c where probation files a petition to the court and the court finds the person has not successfully completed probation and additional time is necessary for programming, the court can order the term of probation to continue for a period not exceeding one additional year. AB eighteen sixteen is unnecessary because if a person fails to comply with treatment or other conditions set by the court during the probationary period, the court may revoke a person's probation until the person's back in compliance. The period during which the probation is revoked does not count towards the termination of probation. To be clear, a b eighteen sixteen does not apply to individuals who are not in compliance. It applies to people who have been compliant with their terms of probation.
Further, the real problem with this bill is that the language is vague. Successful completion of probation is not defined in the law and can be extremely subjective. On the other hand, a violation of probation is well defined in the law. And so because successful completion is not, it leaves it, overly vague and subject to the discretion of a judge, who may not understand what it means. The bill discriminates against a population that is already heavily stigmatized in our society and will be subjected to increased scrutiny and requirements, in most cases, already for life.
Keeping people on probation longer is a significant cost to the state and was a contributing factor for the passage of a b nineteen fifty. One of the many reasons the legislature passed a b nineteen fifty, which set time limits on probation in California, is because the legislature acknowledged that the lengthier period probation periods increase the risk of reincarceration for arbitrary or technical violations. Moreover, studies demonstrate the probation services such as mental health care and substance time.
Speaker 1
I'm sorry. Thank you very much for your testimony. If you remain right there, we may have an opportunity to ask some questions of you, and you could continue your testimony then. Okay. So thank you.
Next, we'll hear the me twos in opposition to the bill. Come on down.
Speaker 14
Deputy public defender Estero Mendez representing local one forty eight in opposition.
Speaker 16
Leslie Coldwell, Houston for California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 8
Good morning, mister chair members. Micah Doktarov on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.
Speaker 20
Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.
Speaker 21
Good morning. Ken Nguyen with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? I saw our minority with leader walk in. I almost thought he got into the oppose line, and that really had me go in there for a moment.
Good to see you,
Speaker 1
Alright. With that, we'll turn it back to the Deus colleagues. As a reminder, we don't yet have a quorum, so we can't dispense with the bill. But if there's questions or comments, now would be the appropriate time. Any questions or comments from members of the committee?
I only have one assembly member Davies. Having listened to the concern from the opposition witness, about the vagueness of some of the language in the bill, I guess my question is twofold. Do you have a response to the opposition testimony? And should the bill advance out of committee, can I get a commitment from you to continue to meet with the opposition and to the extent possible try to find common ground on clarity on the statute?
Speaker 3
Yes. Absolutely. I would definitely meet across the aisle, and I do have my witness that would like to respond to her comments.
Speaker 4
If I may, through the chair. Thank you. I I would note, you know, this bill really is about ensuring continuity and completion of programs. And so it was structured in the way of of requiring the court, yeah, to make a finding based off the factors of the case. And, obviously, you know, those factors are laid out in things of rules of court and and statute.
And so, you know, certainly open to continue talking about that, but I think, you know, we're not changing any of the options available to the court around other processes. I know revocation and different things were noted. This is really just about the option to extend and that flexibility when they make a finding based on the facts of those circumstances that completion of a court ordered requirement has not yet been met, in order to, again, make sure that that we are, finalizing treatment and that they are then, completing that as they return, you know, to their communities.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. And in fairness, if the opposition witness has anything else in maybe thirty seconds or less that you think the committee should know, I'd like to hear that at this time.
Speaker 7
Yes. Absolutely. Hearing the, witness, talk about option to extend, that's unnecessary if the person is not in violation. If the person hasn't met their requirements, then they are in violation, and probation will be extended. So this question of what successful completion means is overly subjective because it's not defined in the law, And that makes it potentially arbitrary and capricious how a judge might just determine, oh, this person hasn't violated any conditions, but maybe they haven't, they didn't participate enough in class or something like that.
And that would be not successful completion in one judge's mind, but not another. And I think the problem is we wanna limit the amount of time that people spend on probation that is wasteful and save resources for those who really need to be on probation because they're in violation.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. Assemblymember Davies, although we don't yet have a quorum, if you'd like to give a close now, and then we'll keep it open for a motion later.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. I'll just briefly note for later and for staff watching, the chair appreciates assembly member Davies for working with the committee. I think there's still some conversations to be had, but to allow those to continue, I will recommend an I for today at the appropriate time. Thank you all very much for being here.
With that, I see that we have next in terms of sign in order, assembly member El Hawari. Assembly member El Hawari is here to present on item number 29. This would be assembly bill twenty five ninety three. Assembly member, your time begins when you start speaking. And as a reminder, your witnesses will each have two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 24
Good morning, mister chair and members. I am proud to present a b twenty five ninety three, a bill that ensures that when we take someone into custody, we take on the responsibility of caring for them. Right now, that responsibility is not being met. People who are incarcerated are still having their care delayed, denied, and overridden by nonmedical staff. And the consequences are preventable, worsening conditions, unnecessary suffering, and in some cases, even death.
This is why this is exactly why California's prison health care system remains under federal receivership. While the law says that care cannot be denied, the reality is that accountability is unclear, and the system continues to fail these patients. That creates a creates a system where harm can happen without consequences and where patients have nowhere to turn. And as we know, systems like this don't impact everyone equally. These failures fall hardest on vulnerable communities, including communities of color and people living with chronic conditions who rely on consistent, timely care.
AB twenty five ninety three addresses this by clearly prohibiting any staff, administrator, or supervisor from interfering with care prescribed by a licensed health care professional. This is about making sure incarcerated patients actually receive the care their doctors prescribe and that providers can do their jobs without interference. It will help prevent avoidable harm, reduce long term costs, and improve overall public health outcomes. At its core, this bill is about accountability and basic human rights because incarcerated individuals have a right to care, and no one should be standing in the way of that. AB twenty five ninety three is about making sure we meet this fundamental responsibility.
Joining me today
Speaker 24
Is doctor Jennifer Villa and the Union of American Physicians and and Dentists excuse me. President of the Union of American, Physicians and Dentists. Maybe not Close. Close is fine. Yeah.
And executive director Doug Chapetta. Oh, just and Gary okay. You know we got different people in the house. This is Gary Cooper.
Speaker 1
chairman and members, Gary Cooper representing the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. We're very proud to have supported and sponsor a b twenty five ninety three. And with that, I will turn it over to doctor Jennifer Villa who has a lot to say because she has been a doctor in a prison, and she's very well experienced in this issue, doctor Villa.
Speaker 25
So one of the primary goals, this bill will accomplish is to ensure that inmates get the specialty care that they need. When CDCR developed their medication assisted treatment program for treatment of substance use disorder, it was clear that psychiatrists were best suited to manage substance use disorder for many reasons. However, it was incorporated into primary care. Primary care providers were told that treating substance use disorder was mandatory and that they would even pursue charges of patient abandonment against providers who did not feel qualified to treat substance use disorder given the limited training. Also, there were extremely strict guidelines on how substance use disorder treatment would be implemented on a day to day basis.
This culminated in a public employment relations board unfair labor practice lawsuit for $13,900,000 which was won by the primary care providers. This is simply to illustrate that the pressure on primary care providers is real and that CDCR has demonstrated a clear disregard for primary care provider autonomy and professional judgment at times. This bill would allow PCPs to exercise the same autonomy in the practice of substance use disorder treatment as they have in other areas of medicine. The other area I think this where this bill will have a real impact on inmate health is specialty referrals. Specialty referrals must be approved by a supervisor, and they are often denied.
Inmates know that they need a specialty referral and it causes genuine distress when these referrals are denied, not to mention less than optimum care. For both of these reasons, this bill would support the health and well-being of CDCR inmates.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much, assembly member, and thank you to both of your witnesses for your testimony. We're gonna pause here just momentarily. Don't go anywhere, folks. Madam secretary, I see we have a quorum.
Can you please call the roll? Schultz. Present.
Speaker 1
We have a quorum present. So thank you both. Thank all three of you. Next, we'll hear the me too's in support of this measure. So if you'd like to be heard in support, please come down.
As a reminder, your comment should be confined to your name, your organization, and the position you're taking. Thank you. Good morning, mister chair. George Osborne for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in support.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.
Speaker 29
Aliyah Griffin with the American Federation of State Academy Municipal Employees, proud cosponsor. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, everybody. Next, we'll go to witnesses hoping to be heard in opposition. Do we have anyone here in opposition? Okay.
Seeing no affirmative response. Do you have anyone else who wants to be heard on the bill? Any position at all? Okay. Easy enough.
We'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments?
Speaker 1
Great. With a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Alright. Assembly member, would you like to give a closing comment?
Speaker 1
Very good. Thank you, assembly member. The recommendation, colleagues, is an aye. With a motion and a second, let's call the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 29 a b twenty five ninety three by assembly member El Juari, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 1
That motion is out. We'll keep it open though for those to add on later. Thank you all for being here.
Speaker 1
so Okay. Next, we have assembly member Krell. Assembly member, if, if I might oh, I apologize. Just to confirm, is assembly member Cottie Petrie Norris here? No.
Then it'll be assembly member Krell next. Assembly member, before we go to your bill, if I can just dispense with the consent calendar. That's alright? Okay. And for the record, that was wonderful, you guys.
On the consent calendar is item 14 a b nineteen twenty seven by assembly member Krell entitled bail consumer protection act. We also have item 26, assembly bill twenty five zero two by assembly member Pelerin entitled vehicles driving under the influence, driving automation. With a motion and a second, let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
Harbidean, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey? Lackie?
Nguyen? Aye. Ramos? Sharp Collins.
Speaker 1
Consent calendar is adopted. With that, Assembly Member Krell, you can begin whenever you're ready.
Speaker 35
Thank you so much. Good good morning, everyone. I bring to you today Assembly Bill fifteen thirty eight. This is a short, simple bill that prohibits any elected or appointed official from using their political power for the purposes of retribution. What we're seeing throughout this country is a backsliding on our democratic values.
We need to make sure that people are free to exercise their constitutional rights, that those rights are not suppressed, and that people in positions of authority use that authority to do the people's bidding, not to exert political retaliation. With me today to testify for this bill is Louis Russell. Louis Russell is a high school student. He's a junior at c k McClatchy High School. He helped to organize the student march.
I don't know if you guys noticed, but about 5,000 students were here at the capital, earlier this year, and he helped to organize that protest and exercise his constitutional rights. He's also a current participant, in my junior legislator program. Also with me here today is Vanessa Quijina, who represents the, California News Publishers Association. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And before your witnesses present, if I can ask the sergeants, if to the extent possible, if we can keep the door closed just to minimize external, noise so we can hear the witnesses. Thank you. Alright. With that, who will be testifying first?
Speaker 37
Good morning, to the chair and members. My name is Lou Russell, like she said, and I'm a student activist who works with, assembly member Krell's young legislators program. And in my eyes, a b fifteen thirty eight is an essential piece of legislation. It prioritizes our constitutional rights, especially the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. And the bill creates an approach to address this gross misuse of authority that we're seeing right now by elected and appointed officials in our state and national governments.
Me and my fellow students have been organizing protests including the protest on January 30 and we had an enormous amount of people come out. But we also had people who said they supported what we wanted to do, but they didn't want to come out because they were afraid of retaliation. They were afraid they would be arrested by federal or state law enforcement officers. And we feel like that's something that can exist in a functioning democracy. And we think that a b fifteen thirty eight will help to fight back against this fear.
And we think it safeguards our constitutional rights. It sets a precedent that we hope other states will follow. And for students like me and for people who were looking to express their freedom of speech and to stand up for their beliefs, It means safety to defend those beliefs without fear of retaliation. It checks the power of public officials and it helps the public to place our trust in them. And so for these reasons and for the sake of the people of California, I ask the committee to vote aye in favor of a b fifteen thirty eight.
Thank you.
Speaker 38
Thank you very much, mister chair and members. Vanessa Kahina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California News Publishers Association here to support a b fifteen thirty eight. CNPA was founded on the mission to protect news media and to foster free press in the news profession. We thank the committee for its attention to this critical issue and the author for working to ensure journalism is protected from undue pressure in reporting stories that the public needs to hear. News media is the cornerstone of a free society.
Here in California, there have been a rising number of incidents involving the arrests of reporters and news publication employees who are simply doing their jobs. This includes publications reporting nationally who were later detained and arrested California. It's not just the high profile examples that we hear about, but also small publications and independent outlets against whom charges are brought. Indeed, Reporters Without Borders, an international group focused on preserving freedom of information, points to The United States downward slide on the press freedom index. Actions this past summer in Los Angeles also demonstrate the threats the press faces and retaliatory actions taken by authority figures.
There is not only trust by the public in their news outlets, but near officials that they elect to office. Using public office to chill speech is something against which we must take a stand. For those reasons, the California News Publishers is proud to support a b fifteen thirty eight.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much for your, presentation, assembly member, and both of you for your testimony. Young man, was this your first time testifying in the capital?
Speaker 1
Well done. You did it under two minutes. You're a pro. And then just to be, clear, assembly member, just on record, are you accepting the committee amendments?
Speaker 1
You got it. Thank you. 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 come down at this time.
Speaker 16
Good morning, mister chair and members. Kathy Van Austin, American Association of University Women, California in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. One more call. If anyone's hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come on down. Use that microphone right there. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 39
Good morning. Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorneys Association in support.
Speaker 40
Thank you, mister chair. Michael Young on behalf of the California Teachers Association also in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much, everybody. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Going once, going twice. Okay.
Are there any other me tos? Anyone wanna register a position on the bill? Okay. There's at least one.
Speaker 22
Real quick. Aubrey Rodriguez with ACO CAL action. Just wanna thank the author and her staff for working on the bill, and we look forward to reviewing the amendments.
Speaker 1
Thanks. Alright. Unless there's anyone else dying to be heard on the bill, we'll turn it back to the Questions, comments, motions, all appropriate at this time. We have a motion by assembly member Nguyen. Is there a second?
We have a second by mister Gonzales. Any other questions or comments from the dais? Okay. We'll turn it back to you, assembly member Krell, for a brief close.
Speaker 1
You're you're a pro too. That was easy. Now with all due respect, appreciate working with the author on this one. Appreciate her taking the amendments. Happy to recommend an aye for today with a motion and a second.
Let's call the roll.
Speaker 26
For item one, a b fifteen thirty eight by assembly member Carell, the motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Aye. Alaniz?
Aye. Gonzales? Gonzales, aye. Haney? Horbidian?
Lackey?
Speaker 26
Lackey, not voting. Wen? Aye. Wen? Aye.
Ramos? Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins, aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure passes, but we'll allow members to add on later. Thank you, everybody. Alright. Seeing no other author here, I do see mister Flora present, and mister Flora is here to present on item number 28.
This is assembly bill twenty five eighty four. Before you begin, assembly member, you can sit down. That's okay. As you well as your witnesses. Just wanna make a call out for the following authors if your staff is listening in.
This is an order of sign in. We have assembly member Petrie Norris, then assembly member Wilson. We have assembly member Zabur, assembly member Gabriel, assembly member Gibson. So if you're, listening in, please have them report here. Alright, mister Flora, whenever you're ready.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Tom. Thank you, colleagues and members. I first wanted to accept the committee's amendment, and I appreciate working with the committee and the chair to move this bill forward. Today, I'm presenting AB twenty five eighty four amends the civil code section 50 to reinforce civil immunity for those who lawfully defend themselves. My witness today are Mike Beltran, an MMA referee for the California State Athletic Commission, as well as Jason Mills, a a veteran of the US Army Rangers and head of Gracie Jiu Jitsu in Elk Grove.
Respectfully turn over to my witnesses.
Speaker 44
Hello. Good morning, everyone. My name is Mike Beltran. Just to give you a little bit about myself. I'm a thirty two year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department with my last six years with the DEA.
Also, United States Marine in addition to black belt and Brazilian jujitsu. And I've been fortunate enough to referee mixed martial arts, not only in the state of California and throughout the world. So as far as when it comes down to the AB twenty five eighty four bill, I take a very strong position in supporting this bill. For one, it's something that is very important to understand what self defense is for individuals such as yourselves, myself, and people who have a trained perishable skill set. What I mean by that is in addition to someone starting a fight with you or becoming an aggressor towards you, okay, it is important that we are able, not just me, but everybody in here, be able to defend themselves intelligibly so that threat doesn't become harmful to the individual.
With defending yourself and having that perishable skill set, this allows you to see a threat that's coming towards you and be able to apply what you know and the skill set that you have. For example, if someone comes up to you and confronts you, you see the threat, but you also don't want to engage. You try to deescalate a situation by talking to them, bringing it down. Sometimes folks don't understand that, and they want to engage and close the gap between you and that individual. If something happens there after that because you try to defend yourself or you allow yourself to get hit or struck, which could cause death or great bodily injury to an individual, that is not what we want.
We wanna be able to defend ourselves intelligibly to create distance, call for help, restrain an individual with that skill set we have by calling the police. Be aware of your surroundings. Maybe you have to leave and exit the situation as soon as possible so you can call law enforcement to come down and effectively do their their job. With this bill here, it it it protects you from not only engaging in a situation that you may or may not lose the situation, but you don't get sued. You don't you're you're protected.
And I think as as American patriots and as patriots here and as citizens of this great country, this state
Speaker 1
And, sir yes, sir. I'm sorry to interrupt you. You're about two and a half minutes in. I'm fine to let you use the whole four minutes. I just wanted to point out to mister Flora, it's a four minute total for witnesses.
So happy to give you the remainder of the time if that's the assembly member's prerogative.
Speaker 44
What was the Yeah. You know what? Thank you very much for for I think I you guys get my point for the most part, and I want I'm gonna pass it over to my partner here, Jason.
Speaker 45
Thank you, mister chairman. Members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for taking the time to listen to our statements. My name is Jason Mills. I am the head instructor of Grace Jiu Jitsu Elk Grove, and I'm also retired army combat veteran.
To be clear, I am not I was not a ranger, but I did support the army rangers. I'm here to today to share with you my perspective on the bill being proposed at today's hearing. I'm speaking to you in my personal capacity. I do not represent Gracie the views of Gracie Jiu Jitsu, Gracie University, or the United States Army. In my school, we teach self defense focused training to our students.
Our main goal is to give our students solutions to tactical situations. Our strategy centers on managing distance in order to main main manage the damage. To that end, we teach several pre attack indicators that of an attacker's intent to strike. Indicators such as bladed stance, bald fist, forward movement, elevated tone, and hostile speech are well established indicators of hostile intent. The they are so well known that they are taught to law enforcement officers.
Once an attack is determined to be imminent, we teach legally, ethically, and morally acceptable tactics to create distance to escape. If escape is not possible and physical force becomes necessary, we teach our students to close the distance in order to control the aggressor's balance. Our goal is twofold. Prevent our own injury of the or the injury of others and control the situations in order to keep the attacker as safe as possible. While the current law allows for the the use of self defense when attacked, it often relies on a a definition of an attack as being one that requires the attacker to physically assault a victim before the self defense actions are justified.
In other words, a first attack can often be a final attack. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating for the use of an unreasonable level of force just because someone uses foul language. I am saying that, however, that there are a confluence of factors that can indicate to a reasonable person that an assault is imminent. In that case, I feel that the law should recognize that that preventable pre preventative physical actions by a potential victim constitutes a valid self defense standard.
Speaker 1
And, sir, sorry to cut you off. That is two minutes. I know it goes awfully quick. But thank you for being here. Please stay right where you're seated.
We may have questions. Do we have anyone just to jump ahead? Anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Show of hands. Okay.
You might be okay where you're seated, sir. I'll let you know later. With that, we'll take the me too's. Those hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come down at this time and state your name, organization, and position, please. If you're hoping to be heard in support of the bill, this would be the time.
Speaker 46
Hi, everyone. Thank you for having me here. My name is Hector Fajardo. I'm a professional MMA fighter and the director of operations for the Combat U program here at Sacramento State University. I'm here in support of this bill.
I serve Sir, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1
That that's all we can take during the me too portion, but thank you, and we have registered your support of the bill.
Speaker 12
My name is Andy Foster. I'm just here as a private citizen, and and I'm here to support the bill.
Speaker 1
Wonderful. Thank you both very much. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. I'll ask one more time.
Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. I see no response. Is there anyone else who's hoping to register a position on the bill, good, bad, or indifferent? Okay.
We'll turn it back to the dais. Any questions or comments looking at you, vice chair? Alright. We have a motion and a second. Just to clarify, so member Flora, you are taking the committee amendments today?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Mister Flora, you have the chance to close.
Speaker 1
Alright. Well, thank you very much. Colleagues, this is a relatively rare instance, but the chair has no recommendation on this one. In full disclosure, I'll probably be voting I. I will be, because I have
Speaker 1
a minute. I wanted to just note that the, committee amendments, take out most of the portions of the bill except for the proposed elimination to any potential civil liability against a person who lawfully uses defensive force unless that person was the primary aggressor and subsequently suffers injury or in the instance where that person uses disproportionate force. Assembly member, I just wanna say on the record what I told you yesterday in our conversation. Should this make it to the floor unchanged, I don't know that I would vote for it. I do have concerns about eliminating civil liability.
However, that's not the purview of this committee, today. And so in the spirit of good faith and an appreciation for your working with the committee in consideration of your witnesses' time today, I will be voting aye, although, technically, the chair has no recommendation. Okay. I hear we do have an opposition. Is testimony or just a re sure.
Come on down and register your your opposition.
Speaker 29
Sheila Wilson. I'm here in opposition to this bill on behalf of La Defensea and the Justice Jobs Coalition.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Alright. Anyone else hoping to be heard? Okay. With that, we have the lack of recommendation.
We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 28 a b twenty five eighty four by assembly member Flora, the motion is due pass as amended to the judiciary committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis? Aye.
Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Haney?
Parvidian? Lackey? Wen? Aye. Wen?
Aye. Ramos? Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins? Aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure passes, and you'll be on your way to judiciary, although we'll keep it open for others to add on later. Alright. Thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate your time.
Speaker 1
And I see that we have mister punctual himself. Mister Zabur, he is here. Are you ready? I'm ready. Yes.
Alright. Mister Zabur, thank you for being here. You're the first person to answer the call for witnesses, so it is appreciated by the committee. Colleagues, this is item 21 on your agenda. This is assembly bill twenty two seventeen.
Is that correct, assembly member Zubair?
Speaker 1
Okay. Just as a reminder, you'll be able to present as soon as you begin speaking. That's when your time starts. As for your two witnesses, they'll have two minutes each to address the committee.
Speaker 48
Good morning. Thank you, mister chair, members. I'm proud to present a b twenty two seventeen sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance and Californians for Safety and Justice, which will allow the law enforcement assisted diversion programs, otherwise known as LEED, to be renamed the alternatives to rest to continue connecting California's most vulnerable residents to critical services and expand the program throughout the state of California. Too often, poverty is criminalized and individuals who are simply seeking to provide for their basic needs are incarcerated. However, incarceration does not address the root causes of crime.
In fact, it only exacerbates the underlying issues of poverty, instability, lack of access to resources, and lack of housing that contribute to crime. Established in 2017, law enforcement assisted diversion program or LEAD allows law enforcement officers to refer someone to a case manager for immediate crisis services instead of making an arrest. The program foes focuses on individuals with low level repeat offenses where the underlying issue is often homelessness, mental health needs, or substance use. These referrals are voluntary. They're made at the officer's discretion and connect people to housing, health care, mental health support, and substance use treatment when it's appropriate.
An evaluation of the lead program found that it not only reduced recidivism and lowered crime, but it also successfully connected participants to housing services and nonjudgmental individualized help. In 2017, a b twenty twenty two seventeen will rename the program as alternatives to arrest and will add petty theft, second degree burglary, and trespass to the list of offenses eligible for referral through the program. The bill will also allow local jurisdictions the flexibility to add additional offenses if agreed upon by the local law enforcement and public health leadership. We can't arrest our way out of poverty, mental health challenges, or addiction. AB twenty two seventeen recognizes the simple truth and instead expands this research backed program, which connects vulnerable individuals to housing, health care, mental health support, and substance use treatment.
Members, I ask for a vote at the appropriate time. And with me today in support of the bill, Rebecca Brown, consulting expert for the law enforcement assisted diversion support bureau, and Glenn Bachus on behalf of the Drug Policy Alliance.
Speaker 42
Good morning. Glenn Bachus for Drug Policy Alliance. The bill renews the grants program through Bureau of State and Community Corrections. The goal is to give law enforcement another tool to allow them to identify need high needs individuals, people who need social services, and connect them to case managers who can get them into housing, drug treatment, and systems of care. The other goal is to reduce recidivism, crime, and public disorder.
The grant dollars may be used for community outreach and engagement, service costs including drug treatment, housing, and case management, dedicated prosecutorial resources, and dedicated law enforcement resources, as well as data collection. This builds on experience in 90 jurisdictions across The US that demonstrate that cooperation between police officers, case managers, and others can reduce crime. A couple key stats from the successful project in Los Angeles. Comparing people who were referred by police officers to case managers to those who were not. Those who were referred by police officers to case management were 80% less likely to get a felony arrest in the next year, and they were 50% less likely to get a misdemeanor arrest in the next year.
The program in Los Angeles has proven popular with law enforcement, including LAPD and Lancaster PD. However, the county department of health reports that they're close to capacity and that without additional funding, above their county allocation, that they may need to stop taking referrals in next twelve months. This bill and accompanying budget action will allow LA to grow and allow BSCC to identify other jurisdictions that are ready to pilot and evaluate similar programs. We respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 49
Chair Schultz, vice chair Alanis, and distinguished members, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Rebecca Brown, a Contra Costa County resident with twenty five years experience designing and improving justice systems in California and nationally. I serve as consulting expert for the LEAD Support Bureau, which is the nation's leading resource for prebooking diversion, policy development training, and technical assistance. In 2016, I served on the Board of State Community Corrections executive steering committee that implemented California's SB eight forty three, the $15,000,000 pilot that seeded the successful LEED programs now operating across Los Angeles County. That history is the foundation for a b twenty two seventeen, which reflects the state's commitment to deploying public safety solutions that strengthen community well-being.
What LEAD does is bay based on the lead the well established LEAD model, the bill gives law enforcement a practical alternative for people repeatedly arrested due to chronic mental illness, substance use disorder, or poverty, Redirecting them
Speaker 1
I apologize to interrupt your testimony. Could you pull the microphone just a little closer so folks at home can hear? Thank you.
Speaker 49
I'm rarely asked to talk louder. Based on the well established lead model, this bill gives law enforcement a practical alternative for people repeatedly arrested due to chronic mental illness, substance use disorder, or poverty, redirecting them into coordinated community based health and social services instead of the costly cycle of arrest, prosecution, and rearrest. In each community, the model works through collective local governance. Law enforcement, prosecutors, public agencies, service providers, and neighborhood leaders jointly build and steward this non punitive system of ongoing multiagency case coordination. Launched in 2011 and now operating in more than 90 jurisdictions, LEAD has proven effective across varied political and local contexts.
Individual, independent evaluations show that it has reduced recidivism, increases legal income, and improves individual outcomes. Four features is up define the lead model, population, case management, voluntary, and shared governance, and this builds on California's own proven track record, and I urge a yes vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much for the presentation, assembly member, and thank you both for your testimony. Now we'll hear the Me Toos in support of the bill.
Speaker 50
Good morning. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice proud cosponsor in support.
Speaker 14
Deputy public defender Esther Mendez on behalf of Local one forty eight, the LA Public Defender Union in support.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.
Speaker 28
Conrad Crump with Disability Rights California on behalf of the millions of Californians with disabilities in support.
Speaker 17
Katerina Saiele on behalf of CommunityWorks in support. Shivani Nashar on behalf
Speaker 20
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.
Speaker 51
Danny Munoz on behalf of legal services for prisoners with children and All of Us for None, strong support.
Speaker 20
Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. Seeing no responses, is there anyone hoping to register a position on the bill, neutral or otherwise?
Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee?
Speaker 1
bill, second. K. With a motion and a second, any other discussion? Alright. We're doing business today.
Assembly member Zabur, you have a chance to close. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much for bringing the bill forward. Assembly member would be happy to jump on as a coauthor at the appropriate time. With that, I do recommend an aye, and let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 21 a b twenty two seventeen by assembly members of Bird, the motion is due passed through the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzales? Aye. Haney? Harbetian? Blackie?
Wen?
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure is on call. Just waiting for members, but I think you should be fine. Thank you very much. Alright.
Thank you. Colleagues, I'd like to go back very quickly. We heard but did not take a motion on item number nine a b eighteen sixteen by assembly member Davies. Is there a motion at this time? Okay.
Is there a second? No. No. Okay. We we have a motion and a second.
Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item nine a b eighteen sixteen by assembly member Davies, the motion was due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Gonzalez?
Haney? Harbetian. Blackie. Wen.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure remains on call. Alright. We are currently waiting on authors. I'm gonna, ask one of our colleagues to present in a moment.
But, again, if you're staffed for Petrie Norris, Wilson, Gabriel, or Gibson, please come down to Room 126 at your earliest convenience. With that, we have and assembly member Stephanie is apparently on her way. But with that, we have the one and only assembly member Mark Gonzalez, who represents the largest territory I've ever heard. I hope he'll bake that into his opening comments. With that, mister Gonzalez, you have the floor whenever you're ready.
Speaker 1
Do we have a motion? Dang. Alright. Doctor Sharp Collins came to play. We have a motion.
Is there a second? And a second? Alright. Mister Gonzalez, this is just fun time for you.
Speaker 52
I know. Well, thank you, mister chair and members. First, I wanna thank the committee, the staff for their work on this bill, and to let you know that I will be accepting the committee's amendments. I'm proud to present a b nineteen forty one, a bill designated confront a very real epidemic sweeping across our state, organized copper theft. A b nineteen forty one will do two things.
One, strengthen enforcement against repeat offenders by creating a new category organized metal theft, giving prosecutors enhanced tools and tackled coordinated or repeated crimes much like our retail theft laws. Number two, it establishes a statewide data sharing system to give law enforcement clears sightlines into these organized operations so patterns can be seen and stopped before more damage is done. The scale of this crisis is staggering. Copper prices are at historic highs, thieves are taking advantage, stripping our communities of safety, lighting, and essential services. These thefts hit where it hurts most, critical public infrastructure, telecommunication lines, electrical, water utilities, traffic, and street lights.
Even fiber optic cables, contain no copper at all, are targeted by these desperate strip of anything of value. One stolen wire, one missing connection can ripple through a community. 911 lines cut, electricity gone, water disrupted, streets left in the darkness. This is not a victimless crime. It leaves Abuelita shivering in the dark without heat or the risk of heat stroke with no AC, halts buses and trains, blacks out phone service in rural towns, and leaves entire neighborhoods exposed.
Cities from San Jose to Santa Monica, Richmond to Fresno to Burbank, Los Angeles itself are bearing the brunt. A striking example in my own district, the iconic 6th Street Bridge, our ribbon of light rebuilt in 2022, now lies dark. Thieves towed nearly seven miles or 38,000 feet of copper wiring. Its street value, $11,000. The cost to repair the damage, $2,500,000, a bill taxpayers must shoulder.
Three years later, the bridge remains unlit, vulnerable to the same crime again. In Los Angeles alone, streetlight outage requests have more than doubled since 2021, reaching approximately 45,000 in 2024. Each case can take up to six months to even repair. Last year, I authored a b four seven six to address this crisis requiring drunk dealers to attract sellers more closely and expanding protections for public infrastructure. A b nineteen forty one builds on that foundation, strengthening enforcement, protecting our essential services, and ensuring that our communities are not left in the dark literally and figuratively.
This bill is more about copper. It's about light in our streets, safety in our neighborhoods, and the promise that essential services will be there when we need them the most. This morning to testify in support is Amanda Guadarama with Cal Broadband and Richmond City Council member and member of the League of Cities, Cesar Zepeda.
Speaker 53
Thank you. Good morning, mister chair and members. Amanda Guldruma on behalf of California Broadband and Video Association. We are a cosponsor for AB, nineteen forty one. The broadband and telecommunications industry provide the critical infrastructure that ensures access to 911 and emergency alert systems and is a vital link to the daily lives of Californians.
The rising market value of copper has created a powerful incentive for criminal theft and vandalism targeting communications and other infrastructure in California. In the indiscriminate search for copper, bad actors sabotage modern communications facilities that may contain little or no copper, including fiber optic transmission lines, underground vaults, and wireless communications towers. These attacks can cause widespread outages, disrupt emergency communications, and jeopardize public safety. As the assembly member stated, AB nineteen forty one builds on previous efforts to tackle copper theft by establishing a new tool of organized metal theft, allowing prosecutors to pro to bring enhanced charges for coordinated thefts. The bill also supports improved information sharing among law enforcement agencies, public agencies, and private entities such as the telecommunications companies through a statewide database to help identify patterns, connect cases, and dismantle theft rings.
These incidents of theft and vandalism have become increasingly common and cause unnecessary service disruptions and threaten California consumers and businesses. AB nineteen forty one gives California added added tools needed to stop coordinated theft rings that cut off nine one one access, disrupt essential services, and endanger communities, and thus we urge an eye vote on this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 55
Good morning. Mister chair and council and committee members, my name is Cesar Zepeda, council member in the city of Richmond, and I am here representing the League of Cities California who is a proud sponsor of AB nineteen forty one. As you may know, metal theft has become a costly issue for cities across California and the nation, severely impacting critical infrastructure components such as street lights, fire hydrants, manhole covers, electric vehicle charging stations, and the backflow prevention devices. Thieves often target these public assets due to the high value of precious metals, specifically copper, leaving behind significant damage that endangers public safety and imposes burdensome repair costs on local governments and businesses. In June 2024, copper cable thefts disrupted nine one one services in parts of West Contra Costa County, including Pinal, Hercules, and San Pablo.
The outages disrupt disrupted emergency communications for about a week, and then two men were arrested in June. The financial burden of repair and replacing solar infrastructure and components currently falls on taxpayers, utility providers, and municipalities draining resources that could otherwise be used for essential services. AB nineteen forty one would prohibit organized metal theft, which is defined as acting in concert with two or more persons to receive, purchase, or possess those metal materials that have been stolen. This bill would also provide that a violation of this prohibition could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would also protect vital public infrastructure from ongoing damage by allowing prosecutors to bring enhanced charges for coordinated or repeated thefts.
In closing, on behalf of Cal Cities, we are in strong support of a b nineteen forty one and urge the committee to pass this important legislature. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Right. Thank you very much, assembly member, for your presentation and both of you for your testimony. Assembly member, wanna go
Speaker 1
turn. Can you remind me? I believe this is a a a big issue in your district. Can you remind me what is your district?
Speaker 52
Fourth District in the state. 70% of my district speaks another language other than English. 85% of my district are renters. The area that I represent is Piguin And MacArthur Park, Koreatown, East Hollywood, Little Bangladesh, historic Filipino town, Chinatown, Lincoln Heights, historic state Park, Pasito De Veda, Union Station, Downtown Los Angeles, Arts District, Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights, City Of Vernon, City Of Commerce, and City Of Montebello. That
Speaker 1
too. You know, you you find odd things to make you happy in this job. I don't know why that does. Alright. With that, we'll go to the Me Toos.
Speaker 21
Impressive. Good morning, mister chair and members. Michelle Robalcaba representing the county of Yolo in support.
Speaker 56
Good morning. Kierra Ross on behalf of the city of Burbank Water and Power Agency in support. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Max Perry, behalf of the California Police Chief Association and with permission on behalf of the San Francisco Police Officers Association in support. Thanks.
Speaker 22
Nick Romo on behalf of the city of San Jose, make Matt Mahang in support.
Speaker 46
Good morning, mister chair and members of Ed Frankel here on behalf of, the California Electric Transportation Coalition and Calcom in support.
Speaker 5
Good morning, chair, members. Yolanda Benson, a proud sponsor of, s s AB nineteen forty one, US Telecom, the Broadband Association.
Speaker 57
Thank you, mister chair. Jonathan Arambel on behalf of CTIA, the trade association for the wireless industry, also in support.
Speaker 1
Ashanti Smith with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group in support. Michael Pumtel with the California Transit Association representing 85 trans and rural agencies in the state in support. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Good morning. Nicole Curran on behalf of the office of Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass in support.
Speaker 28
Chair members, Nate Solov on behalf of Frontier Communications in support. Appreciate the whole hard work by the members, staff,
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, members Corey Sazel on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much, everyone. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Show of hands, anyone hoping to testify in opposition? Okay.
Great. Come on down. We have two seats right here with a microphone. Once you begin speaking, you'll have if it's just you, you'll have two minutes to address oh, we have two witnesses. Okay.
So you'll each have two minutes to address the committee. Your time doesn't start until you begin speaking.
Speaker 17
Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Catarina Saiele, and I'm here on behalf of Community Works in respectful opposition to a b nineteen forty one, though I'm looking forward to reviewing the amendments. As a mother of a young child, I think about safety every day. But let's be clear. This bill is not about safety.
It's about expanding punishment in a system that already overpolices and overpenalizes black and brown communities. Creating a new crime for organized metal theft and increasing penalties will not prevent harm. It will only deepen the existing racial disparities that have come to define our legal system. We already have laws that address theft. What this bill does is layer on harsher consequences that we know do not work.
Decades of research show that increasing punishment does not deter crime. At Community Works, we see every day what real safety looks like. Through our diversion programs, people take responsibility for the harm they caused, engage in months of reflection on its impact on both individuals and the broader community, and participate in restorative conferences with survivors and community members. They make accountability statements and agree to a concrete plan to repair the harm. This process works.
Participants in our programs are far less likely to reoffend than those processed through the traditional carceral system. That is what safety looks like. Accountability without incarceration, repair without destruction, and investment instead of punishment. This bill moves us in the opposite direction. It doubles down on a system that has never delivered safety equitably.
If we are serious about safety, we should be scaling the solutions that actually work. Community based diversion programs, social safety nets, food, housing, health care, and education, not expanding criminalization. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on a b nineteen forty one. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Good morning, chair Schultz and members of the committee. My name is Sheila Wilson. I am the policy and advocacy adviser at La Defensea and here in opposition to a b nineteen forty one, which as you know, would unnecessarily create a new crime of organized metal theft. We're deeply concerned about the similarity of this proposed statute to the recent retail theft statute as we've already seen how that one is leading to further criminalization of black and brown communities. While we understand the author's intent to address recent copper thefts across the state, We believe that the answer is not further criminalization of our communities.
In fact, local officials are already identifying innovative non carceral solutions to copper metal theft. Los Angeles City Council member, Unisys Hernandez, has invested half $1,000,000 from her discretionary fund to install solar powered lights in Lincoln Heights in Cypress Park. These will keep neighborhoods safe and lit even during power outages and ultimately prevent copper wire theft. This is not an isolated move as these lights are being installed throughout Los Angeles. For these reasons, we urge you to vote no on this bill.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos also in opposition to the bill. Please come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 51
Thank you. Danny Munoz from Legal Services for Presidents for Children, strong opposition.
Speaker 8
Micah Doktarov on behalf of Smart Justice California. We've opposed unless amended and appreciate the conversation we've had with author's office and look forward to continuing it.
Speaker 60
Ariana Montes on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition, we're reviewing the amendments.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much for your testimony. And before we go on, I just wanna thank both of you for testifying today. I do listen to everything that's said in this room. I just wanna apologize if I'm ever speaking to a member of staff.
It's usually to coordinate the administrative issue. But with that said, I appreciate all the testimony we've heard today. Mister Gonzalez, I do have a pair of questions to lead us off. I was wondering I had
Speaker 1
to come visit your district, and you had a chance to sort of walk me through, at least partially, the inspiration for your bill. I'm wondering if you can share a bit about what you're seeing in your district, what inspired you to bring the bill forward, number one. The second question will be, we did hear from the opposition witnesses some testimony about major concerns that they have with the bill. I'm wondering if you have a response to their concerns.
Speaker 52
Look. I I think the conversation about black and brown communities that are losing streetlights, same communities that are losing nine one access, same communities that are losing power, same communities that are losing AC. I challenge you to join me in my district as we walk through the fifth poorest district in the state. The areas that the member asked me to mention, affluent West Side areas don't necessarily have this issue, and if they do, they get repaired like that. Council district one, millions of dollars are barely going into putting these solar lights.
The problem has been occurring every single year prior to COVID. People are cashing on that, and we've been working for people to do that. The definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Nothing is getting done. The more that we can increase these solar lights, the less value that this does have, but it's impacting our community.
It's not fair that black and brown communities can continue to remain in the dark, there's no solutions for those areas. I'll turn it over to my witnesses if they wanna add anything since they are here today, but I do appreciate the the ability to answer that because we are addressing this issue. And trust me, black and brown communities are frustrated the most at this. But we've gotta do something about it. But I'll let her do wanna add on?
Speaker 55
I can just add, the city of Richmond is also installing solar lights, but they're very, very costly. And we have to then move money away from pavement and other public safety measures to try to catch up to keep our city in out of the dark and into the lighting literally. So while it's solar, I love it, and it's a great step. It also doesn't fix when they cut the lines for nine one one. We don't have solar for that.
It doesn't fix when the red lights go out. We don't have solar for that just yet. So it's it is a good step in the right direction, but I think that there's so many other pieces there. And how do we keep our community safe is the ultimate outcome. City of Richmond is 60% Latino, and none of us wanna be in
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. I'd like to turn it to my colleagues. Are there questions or comments from other members of the committee? All two of you?
Three of you. I'm sorry, mister Gonzalez. I assume you don't have a question.
Speaker 1
Okay. Fair enough. Alright. Mister Gonzalez, there being no other question, if you'd like to give a brief closing, the floor is yours.
Speaker 52
Sure. Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to the members of the opposition. I mean, we this is why we have these bills. We have these discussions. And, I I do wanna have these conversations offline, have you come to my district and see what's happening there.
This bill sends a message. If you rip apart our neighborhoods for scrap, if you trade our safety for a quick dollar, if you leave our families in the dark, there will be consequences. Because this isn't just copper. It's a streetlight that never turns on. It's a 91 call that doesn't go through.
It's a grandmother sitting in the dark waiting for the power to come back on. It's a small business force to close early. We cannot accept this as normal and business as usual. AB nineteen forty one is how we draw the line, how we protect what keeps our communities running safe and seen. So let's turn the lights back on.
Let's stand up for our neighborhoods. I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Gonzalez. Colleagues, chair is recommending an I. Appreciate the author taking the amendments, which I do think improved the bill. With that, do we have a motion?
Speaker 1
Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Oh, boy. She gave me the stare. I'm not gonna forget that one.
Alright. With the motion and the second, let's call the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 15, a b nineteen forty one by assembly member Mark Gonzalez, the motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Mark Gonzalez? Aye.
Mark Gonzalez? Aye. Haney? Harvidian? Lackie?
Wen?
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure is on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you all very much for being here. Alright. Mister Gibson, thank you so much for coming down.
Colleagues, we're next gonna turn to item number 25 on your agenda. This is bill number Damn. Twenty four ninety nine by assembly member Gibson. Assembly member, you can begin speaking whenever you're ready. Do you have witnesses in support today?
Okay. They're on their way. Great. They'll each have two minutes to address the committee. The floor is yours.
Speaker 28
Thank you very much. Wanna say good morning, mister chairman and members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill twenty four ninety nine. Assembly Bill twenty four ninety nine requires the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation to strengthen protections for incarcerated individuals and workers. I wanna underscore workers who are living and laboring inside of our state, correctional facilities.
Let me be clear. No one, and I repeat, no one regardless of their circumstances should be should be subjected to dangerous inhumane conditions. Yet across California, our prisons are increasingly exposed to extreme weather conditions that put lives at risk because of aging infrastructures and inadequate ventilation systems. Indoors temperatures in these facilities regardless I mean, regular regular exceeding to 90 degree heats, there are not just uncomfortable conditions. They are dangerous especially for individuals with existing health conditions.
These are conditions that would violate workplace safety laws virtually in any other settings, and yet they persist behind prison walls. Prison prison walls. They persist behind prison walls where accountabilities is too often out of sight and out of mind. Under California's laws, incarcerated individuals are recognized as workers, but in practice, they are not afforded the same level of protections they would be otherwise demanding by state workers or in other places. This gap is real, but we have the authority and the responsibility to close that gap right here and right now.
In 2024, Adrian Bulworth died from extreme heat exhaustion inside of a Central Californian women facility. She was less than one year away from being released from prison. Her death is not just a statistic. It's a it's a tragic tragedy and is a warning, a warning that we have failed her and others, and we need to make sure that this never happens to anyone in our state facilities ever again in the state of California, and that's why assembly bill twenty four ninety nine is important. Assembly Bill twenty four ninety nine is about accountability.
It is about dignity, and it is about assuring that our correctional facility and systems reflect the values that we come to uphold in the state of California. And we can do better, and we must do better, and we must do better now. And that's why I'm standing behind and authoring Assembly Bill twenty four ninety nine With me to to stand in support of Assembly Bill twenty four ninety nine is Lawrence Cox, the regional advocate and organizer for association for illegal services for prisoners with children who will speak and support. And also, we have the daughter of Adrian who will self introduce the daughter of Adrian who will talk about her mother. So, mister Cox?
Speaker 27
Thank you, mister Gibson. Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Lawrence. I am the regional advocacy and organizing associate for LSPC in All of Us or None. I speak from my professional capacity, but I also speak from lived experience.
As someone who has spent close to two decades incarcerated, I know what extreme heat and cold behind prison walls feels like because I survived it. I have worked and lived in facilities where the air did not cool you, it punished you. When it was a 100 degrees outside, in any given working area or living quarters, it was at least 10 to 15 degrees hotter. Relief was rare and often nonexistent. I can remember soaking sheets in water and wrapping them around my body just to cool from the heat.
I remember heat rashes, skin damage, compounding, and unfamiliar mental health episodes of panic and anxiety, and the psychological pressure of feeling trapped. I remember the fear that came with the disasters and emergency conditions, the threat of wildlife wildfire, excuse me, blazes with immediate proximity, smoke rushing through cracks and ventilation shafts, the confusion, the neglect, the terrifying reality of being locked behind those walls while staff evacuated themselves. That's not safety. That's actual abandonment. In multiple offices of the inspector general's audits, it was found that temperature in the prisons could not consistently be maintained with CDCR's own 68 to 89 degree guidelines and that staff did not consistently complete required heat logs.
Also, that CDCR was unable to evacuate incarcerated people and staff at most prisons within the first seventy two hours of an emergency, and they also lack specific external evacuation plans. AB twenty four ninety nine does not demand reckless spending or immediate system system wide retrofits. It is a practical bill focused on material protections, transparency, monitoring, mitigation, and procedures. It recognizes that the legislative analyst on the street court has
Speaker 1
Sir, I'm so sorry to interrupt you. That is two minutes, and I just wanna save two minutes for the other witness as well. Thank you. But thank you for your testimony.
Speaker 62
Hello, chair and members. My name is Tyresha Reed. My mother is Adrian Bowyer. On July 6, my mother died while she was incarcerated at the Chowchilla Women's Prison. It wasn't because of natural causes.
It was because of heat related, incidences. My mother leaves left behind four kids, 12 grandkids who she loved dearly,
Speaker 62
lot of other family members as well. My mother was not just an inmate, she was a human. She was a human that deserved the basic adequate necessities that any one of us would have deserved and needed as well. Just because someone is incarcerated does not mean that they shouldn't have heat or air or the basic necessities. Even the animals at the zoo have at least that, and I feel like this bill would support that a 100%.
My mother was also very young, and she could have been here today. She could have witnessed her grandkids growing up. She was so close to coming home. We've spent days talking to her every single day. My children and my siblings' children cry every single day because their nana was supposed to come home and she didn't, and this could have been preventable.
So I'm asking you guys to see this as a chance to prevent what we went through and experienced from happening to other families and other children whose loved ones are coming home. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Assembly member, thank you very much for bringing the bill forward, and thank you both for your testimony today. I say this often, but I mean it every time. To talk about what you have both been through, all those separate experiences, I can't imagine it gets any easier every time you tell that story. Really appreciate you being here today so that the committee can hear your perspective. Thank you.
Alright. Can we take the Me Toos also in support of the bill?
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.
Speaker 31
In the memory of Adrian Wolwer and Faye McCabe, Tiambrisilva, California Coalition of Women Prisoners in support.
Speaker 51
Yanny Munoz on the, behalf of Legal Services, Prisoners with Children, Santa Clara County Wage, Theft Coalition, WorkSafe, legal aid at work, community legal services in East Palo Alto, strongly support.
Speaker 20
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.
Speaker 7
Bernie Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, I support.
Speaker 13
Danica Rodarma on behalf of the GRIP Training Institute in strong support.
Speaker 18
Hi. My name is Caitlin Tutt. I'm a student from UCLA, and I'm in support of this bill.
Speaker 19
My name is Kayla Chen. I'm a student at UCLA, and I'm in support of this bill.
Speaker 66
My name is Coco DeAngelo. I'm a student at UCLA, and I support this bill.
Speaker 67
Hi. My name is Ava Johnson. I'm from UCLA, and I'm in support of this bill.
Speaker 29
Hi. My name is Emily Zhu. I'm from UCLA. I'm in I'm in support of this bill.
Speaker 33
Marco Duncan at Legal Service Apprentice for Children. I'm in support of this bill.
Speaker 56
I'm Cassandra Gorman with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support of this bill.
Speaker 19
Saskia Perks on behalf of California Civil Liberties advocacy and support.
Speaker 29
Sheila Wilson on behalf of the Justice Jobs Coalition and La Defensea in support.
Speaker 60
Ariana Montes with on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice in support.
Speaker 62
Neani Miles, I support. Sierra Warren, she Adrian was my mother-in-law, I support.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much for your testimony today here in our state's capital. Thank you to all of the loved ones who came to voice their support for the bill, and thank you to all of our students from UCLA. It's great to see young people involved and advocating so early. Alright. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill?
Okay. I don't see any response there. Anyone else hoping to register an opinion on the bill one way or the other? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.
Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? Doctor Sharp Collins.
Speaker 15
so much for bringing forth this this piece of legislation, and thank you to the family and those that are here to to provide testimony. I always talk about putting a face to this, and, I I do truly feel for you. I wasn't gonna speak on this, but, you guys are here, and this says a lot. This bill, for me, is about quality of life. This is something that I've heard about, I've seen, I've taken tours of different facilities, and I have to admit I'm not okay with the current infrastructure.
These prisons have been built well before, you know, some of this well before all this climate change stuff is happening. But it makes me think about all of us in this room. How do we feel when we walk outside and it's a hundred and two hundred and two, you know, it's a 104? We are quick to try to find some air condition, a fan, or some place, but then they don't have that opportunity. And that's not fair to them at all.
I understand that you're in prison. There's things that have happened, but you still deserve your quality of life. There's so many people who have diabetes. It could be lupus, fibromyalgia, vertigo, and etcetera. And extreme heat increases the symptoms from vertigo.
And so and through all of that, that makes you have an impact on your mental health, your mental instability. There it does cause some you know, for you to hallucinate. It calls for a lot of other things that actually happens, and it also impacts the cleanliness of the facility. So I'm knowing that this really increases the the notion of feeling abandoned and, you know, because you're suffering from extreme heat exhaustion. I I just hate that we're at this point where we have to bring up a bill to get this done.
We shouldn't have to have a bill to get this done. And we have to remind people it it to me, it's sad that we have to remind this part of it just to even try to get it done is to remind people that it's not just about your prisoners. You have workers, thousands of workers that are there that are also going through the same thing. You have your nurses, your janitors, you have your officers, and all of that. But we shouldn't have to put them in the equation to make sure that we're taking care of the people that are currently in our system.
We shouldn't have to use that to justify to do what what we know is right. So I am 100% behind this bill. I would like to be added as a coauthor to this bill. We need to make sure that we are taking care of our own. We're locking people up.
We're putting them in there, but we need to take care of them and also protect them as well. They deserve to have a quality of life just like everybody else. That's just how I feel. So I thank you bringing it forth, and I'm truly sorry for your loss. And thank you for always coming and sharing your story.
Speaker 52
Just to echo my colleague, wanna just thank the author, thank the family for being here today, taking time out of your day to share your story. I too was able to tour a facility where they didn't even have any trees. And, obviously, we know that needing trees to be able to, you know, suck up that sun and that energy, and and these are people to miss Sharp Collins' point who are trying to rehabilitate themselves, trying to get back into society. And that's what we are preaching about here today is to get people back into society, but they can't do that if they're feeling sick. They can't read.
They don't feel good. I mean, we don't tolerate that in other arenas, and, you know, we wanna get people to get back out there. And we are supposed to be a party of second chances, and we are supposed to be delivering that here in the state capital. And I just wanna thank the author again for bringing this forward and thank my colleague, Sharp Collins from San Diego, for also, echoing this. And thank you again, mister Gibson, for, just being the the justice advocate that you are on behalf of California.
Speaker 1
Alright. We have a motion and a second. Thank you both. Before we get to your close, mister Gibson, I have one question. All too often in this job, we focus on the policy, and the policy is the at the heart of what we do.
But it's also important to understand the reason that the bill's here and the story behind it. So, ma'am, I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit about your mother. What was she like?
Speaker 62
My mom was the neighborhood mom for all of our friends. We had a really good life growing up. She was also, like, the backbone of our family. My grandmother passed away at a young age, and my mom stepped up, and she raised her siblings, her nieces and nephews. A lot of the cousins in her generation, she helped raise them and take care of them as well.
If anybody in the neighborhood didn't have food, she was there to cook for them, you know, make sure that they were okay giving people rides to and from school. She was really the backbone of our family. Genuinely, she was I hate to say it like this, but it's the only way I can describe it because it's her. She was a bookworm. She loved to read.
She was very smart and educated. And even though she was in prison, she didn't let that stop her from getting continuing her education. She got multiple degrees while she was in prison. A lot of the members that were in prison with her have reached out and said she was like a mother to them and helped get their education and helped get them on the right track. So even though she was in prison, she still continued her journey of caring and helping take care of others.
She just had a all around good heart.
Speaker 62
She was everything. My best friend, my right hand, my protector, my peace. She was genuinely my everything. Mister chair,
Speaker 15
If we can yield for thirty seconds to have a moment of silence, and if we can please ask her family to stand, is that is that okay with you?
Speaker 1
I'll indulge it. Would you like to do that right now? Yes, please. K. Yes, please.
Do a moment of silence right now.
Speaker 15
And her family members, if you don't mind standing so we can acknowledge you. Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins. Thank you to the family. And I just wanted to before I give mister Gibson a chance to close, you're you're welcome to sit if you'd like. I appreciate you answering those difficult questions because it's important that that's how she be she be remembered. And now it's a matter of state record
Speaker 1
As to what this bill is really about. So thank you for sharing the story of your mother with all of us so that that can be officially part of the state of California's record on who she wants. Mister Gibson, you have the floor for your close.
Speaker 28
Wanna say thank you very much to the chair and also to the committee and to all those who came out and gave their eye and their support for Assembly Bill twenty four ninety nine and to my witnesses and to the family for supporting this important piece of legislation. The village came out today in support, and we appreciate the village. We appreciate everyone speaking in support. This is about not only those inmates that are there in our state correctional facilities, but it's about the workers as well. This bill is about raising the visibility that we must do something.
California is better than this. I had an opportunity last year to go to Alabama and to and visit some areas in Alabama. But in that pilgrimage, we saw Alabama state prison system. California is much better than that. I was horrified to see the prison system in Alabama and the inmates, what they went through, and said, not on my watch.
And when this bill came forward and I heard the stories of what's taking place in our prison system in terms of the ventilation, I grabbed the opportunity to carry and jockey this bill to talk about and raise the visibility and to talk about why this bill is important to making sure, that during the hot months, in these facilities that we have to do better, that we need we must, have ventilation system. And then when I heard about, Adrian, to making and to hear that she passed away due to the ventilation and the heat exhaustion and how hot it would get in a facility in California to say no more should anyone, have to suffer, like she suffered in our facility. This is important not only to the workers, but also to those who are incarcerated in our facilities. This is moving in the right direction. I believe that the dead can speak from the grave, and she's speaking loud and clear.
And she's saying that we must do something, and we must do something now. I respectfully ask for a strong I vote in the memory of not only her, but those who've come before her as well. Respectfully ask for a strong I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member Gibson, for carrying the bill and championing the cause. You have an emphatic eye recommendation from the chair. Thank you. It goes without saying I would like to be added on as a coauthor should it pass out of committee. And I I simply wanna close with saying thank you again to the family for sharing the memory of Adrianne and how she should be remembered.
And what I would close with in response to your testimony and yours as well, sir, is that all too often in this line of work, we talk about crime and punishment consequences for activity, and the underlying assumption and all of that is that you somehow lose your humanity when you're in custody, it's fundamentally wrong. Mister Gibson, to your point, it is unfortunate that we are here under these circumstances having to run a bill to address this issue. But if there's any good that can come of this, as hard as that is to stomach, as hard as it is to fathom, I hope that this conversation today sheds light on the fact that those who are in the care and custody of the state of California deserve humane treatment. They deserve basic living conditions, and to do anything other is to truly engage in cruel and unusual punishment of those in our custody. So with that, I thank you all for being here today.
And in Adrienne's memory and in her name, I do recommend strongly in the strongest possible terms an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 26
For item 25 a b twenty four ninety nine by assembly member Gibson, the motion is due passed for the Labor and Employment Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzalez? Aye. Haney? Harbidean? Lackie?
Speaker 1
Alright, everyone. I see that we have assembly member Stephanie here. Thank you for being here, member. Colleagues, this is item number 12 on our agenda, assembly bill eighteen seventy seven. Assembly member, you will, have an opportunity to present the bill, and your witnesses will have two minutes each to address the committee.
Your their time does not begin until they start speaking. And with that, ma'am, the floor is all yours.
Speaker 68
Thank you, mister chair. I would like to start by thanking you and your committee staff and all the stakeholders for their feedback and collaboration. And with that, I would, accept the amendments that have been offered. So thank you so much for that. AB eighteen seventy seven really started a while back when I authored what is known as prop d, which became the mayor's office of victim rights in the city and county of San Francisco.
And that was meant to make sure that victims had a place to go free of law enforcement so that they were seen and heard and protected. That also involved doing a survey of the victims and finding out what do they need to feel protected in the city and county of San Francisco. And one of the things that continue to come up is that protective orders feel like just a piece of paper, that they don't do what they're intended to do, which is to protect victims from further harm. There's no barrier of protection that comes with just this piece of paper. No DA, no police officer goes home at night with the victim when they have a criminal protective order.
They're not standing by your door. They're not there with you when you're running errands. You have this piece of paper, and the words must carry weight. And they must mean something for this criminal protective order or stay away order to have meaning and to have victims feel protected. When they don't, abusers are emboldened and survivors are left wondering if the system is capable of protecting them at all.
We know that there are repeated violations of criminal protective orders and stay away orders. We know that half of them aren't followed, over half of them. We know that there are egregious, egregious violations of restraining orders. And we know that these are indicators of further harm, of escalating risk, often resulting in the death of the survive of the victim and sometimes the death of children as well. We know what happens when restraining orders, protective orders are repeatedly violated over and over and over again.
AB eighteen seventy seven is an attempt to show that these orders do have meaning by strengthening enforcement of criminal protective and stay away orders. Right now, a violation of a protective or stay away order under existing law is chargeable only as a misdemeanor regardless of whether there are felony charges pending or if there are repeated violations of that order. This means that abusers simply get a slap on the wrist many times in, again, the most egregious of cases. If there is a criminal protective order in place as a result of a felony DV charge and that person violates that order often repeatedly or causes injury even, only a misdemeanor can be charged. This system leaves victims feeling very vulnerable, setting up scenarios where they're the only consequences are after further harm or violence to the victim.
So this piece of paper means nothing if it can't be enforced in a way that has meaning. AB eighteen seventy seven would allow prosecutors to have the discretion to charge the discretion to charge a violation of a criminal stay away order or protective order as a felony if one, the underlying conduct for the initial order was charged as a felony, if there are repeat violations of that order, and if there is a repeat conviction for a violation that occurs within one year. Prosecutors, like I said, will retain discretion to to charge a violation as a misdemeanor if they choose, which is known as a wobbler. I know you're aware of that. Based on recent events, and I can't stress this enough, it's more critical than ever that we believe and support survivors, equipping them with every tool in the toolbox to ensure their protection against their abusers.
So many times, women don't feel like they can speak up. They don't feel like they're they will be protected, and that needs to change. I have the honor today to have with me two incredible women who I have so much respect for. We have Ivy Lee, director of the San Francisco mayor's office for victim rights, and doctor Pamela Tate with black women revolt against domestic violence. I'll turn it over to them.
Speaker 66
Thank you. Good morning, chair Schultz, committee members. My name is Ivy Lee. I am the director of the San Francisco mayor's office for victims' rights. We serve as an independent agency that is there to support victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder and child abuse, as well as human trafficking.
Through direct casework, we worked in partnership with victim service providers throughout the city, as well as with law enforcement, city departments, and the courts to identify a problem that was a pattern throughout the city. At least one criminal protective order every week in throughout 2024 in San Francisco alone was charged by the DA. When we think about the criminal protective order violations that are not ever reported or not presented to the DA and followed by a prosecution, that number escalates exponentially. One of the most egregious case examples is with a client that I actually supported. She had a criminal protective order.
She was stalked by a former someone that she used to date. He violated the criminal protective order three times, twice by going to her workplace. And then the third time, when he couldn't find her, he went to her child's school, chased her around the school, physically assaulted her. This is all caught on school cameras. Only after that third violation was there ever action taken to actually charge him with physical assault.
The protective order violations were never charged. When we spoke with members of law enforcement and stakeholders, what we what they identified to us was that this is just a misdemeanor. The violation is just a misdemeanor. With understaffed police forces, with understaffed resources, they need to triage. And so because of the misdemeanor limitation on prosecutors, that was a that was one inevitable result.
Speaker 36
can hear me. Greetings, chair Schultz and members of the Assembly and Safety Committee.
Speaker 36
push it back. Sorry. My name is doctor Pamela Tade, and I am the executive director of Black Women Revolt Against Domestic Violence in San Francisco. I urge you to support a b eighteen seventy seven just as I do. I wanna share the story of a survivor who did everything that we asked her to do when she had endured abuse at the hands of her partner.
She had been beaten and threatened with a gun. She called for help, we responded. He was arrested. A temporary restraining order was issued, and she believed, like most survivors do, that that would protect her. But after he was released during pretrial, he ignored that restraining order, and I'm going to be graphic, so trigger warning here.
He tracked her down and stalked her. He threatened her again with a gun, and this time he strangled her almost to death. This is in the city and county of San Francisco. That survivor did everything that she was supposed to do. However, the system failed her.
Protective orders are a few tools that survivors actually have that they
Speaker 36
utilize to protect themselves from further harm and to protect their families. But when violations are treated like a slap on the wrist or as a misdemeanor, it's often the survivor who is sitting around like a sitting duck waiting for harm to continue to come to her door. A b eighteen seventy seven matters and it matters because it recognizes what survivors already know. Repeated violations of protective orders are not minor. They are acts of continued terrorism.
If this bill had been a law, the prosecutors would have already had the means to treat this threat as a violation, and it would have been very serious. Her abuser would have been reprimanded excuse me, remanded to jail during pretrial, and and she would have been safe as with her children. I respectfully urge you all, strongly urge you all to support this bill. And thank you to assembly member Stephanie and her team as well as mayor Laurie for working on this. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member, and thank you both for your testimony today. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos in support of the bill. Come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 40
Clifton Wilson on behalf of mayor mayor Daniel Lurie, city and county of San Francisco, proud sponsor of the bill and in support, and thank you for the committee for all the work. Thank you.
Speaker 61
Hi. Good morning. Bobby Lopez on behalf of the following organizations in support, San Francisco Safe House, San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium, Safe and Sound, Open Door Legal, and Community Forward. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Good morning. Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorneys Association in support.
Speaker 11
Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, and on behalf of PORAC as well with their permission and support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Going once, going twice. Okay.
Would anyone else like to register a position on the bill? Alright. We have one taker.
Speaker 22
Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLACAL Action. I just want we're still reviewing the amendments and just wanna state for the record, we uniformly oppose that any bill that increases criminal penalties on existing crimes as it undermines a great deal of evidence to deter crime. But happy to review the amendments and thank the committee for working with the author. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. And just for the record, because we didn't have any opposition witness, gave him a little extra time there. So now that that's noted, we'll turn it back to Deus. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee?
Second. K. Motion by Wynn, second by Lackey. Any other discussion from the Deus? Okay.
Assembly member Stephanie, would you like to close?
Speaker 68
Yes. Thank you, chair Schultz. I have to say one of the things that drives me most constantly in my head is how do we protect women and children from abusers, and that's born out of three things. It's born out of watching my mother suffer at the hands of my stepfather for forty one years. It's born out of working with victims and survivors when I was a prosecutor at the Contra Costa County DA's office and working in a gun violence prevention movement and knowing that The United States is the most dangerous developed country in the world for women when it comes to gun violence.
Knowing about the visceral fear that victims and survivors go through in this process when they're trying to escape their abuser truly haunts me and truly drives me to try to do anything I can to erase that fear and keep them safe. And I think a b eighteen seventy seven is a step in the right direction, and I can't thank these incredible women enough and mayor Daniel Murray and everyone who has helped us get to this place where we're able to put a bill forward that I think that can make a mini meaningful difference. AB eighteen seventy seven is a message with follow through that a survivor's safety is a priority, and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much, assembly member. I wanna again appreciate testimony of both of your witnesses and making the trip and being here today. Your passion and your expertise, assembly member, shines through every time you present a bill in this space. So with that, happy to recommend an I. Appreciate the author taking the committee amendments.
We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 12 a b eighteen seventy seven by assembly member Stephanie, the motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzales? Aye. Haney? Harbidean? Lackie?
Aye. Lackie? Aye. Nguyen? Aye.
Ramos?
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure is out. We'll keep it open for others to add on, of course, but thank you all for being here. And next, I see we have assembly member Wilson. Assembly member, before you get started, I just wanna say, for staff listening in, who I have on my list, who I don't see here yet, so maybe they can show up during your presentation.
We have assembly member Petrie Norris on item 10. We have assembly member Gabriel on item 24, and we have a host of authors who have not yet signed in. So if you'd like to make your way down to Room 126, it's a fun time. Assembly member Wilson, the floor is all yours. And as a reminder, your witnesses will have two minutes each to address the committee.
Time doesn't begin until you start speaking. The floor is all yours, assembly member.
Speaker 69
Thank you so much. Good morning, mister chair and members. I am pleased to present my second transportation safety bill, a b eighteen seventy four. Today, when someone is convicted of a dangerous driving offense, a court will suspend their license. But under current law, suspension can be served while the individual is incarcerated and already lacking access to a vehicle.
The result? Dangerous drivers can serve all or part of their license suspension while incarcerated, allowing them to be back behind the wheel the very same day they're released. That is not accountability. The purpose of the license suspension is not symbolic. It is a critical public safety tool.
According to the license to kill reports from Cal Matters last year, nearly forty percent of the drivers charged with vehicular manslaughter since 2019 have a valid license. And since 2019, roughly 400 drivers accused of causing a fatal crash went on to receive another ticket, get into another collision, or boat after the date they allegedly killed someone on the road. That should be a concern to every single one of us because it means preventable risks are still on the road. California has a responsibility to ensure that anyone allowed back on the road does not pause pose an ongoing risk to others. AB eighteen seventy four ensures that people convicted of serious driving offenses cannot concurrently serve their license suspension while actively incarcerated and without access to a vehicle.
This is targeted on the most serious and dangerous driving offenses such as vehicular manslaughter, repeat reckless, and hit and run hit and run driving, and fleeing law enforcement causing death or severe injury. I really appreciate the committee's work and the chair and the committee staff's work on on helping us navigate the language to ensure that our, legislative intent match the language that you see before you. And we believe that by aligning license suspensions with the time when someone is back on our roads, we create real accountability, strengthen deterrent, and most importantly, reduce the risk of repeated harm. AB eighteen seventy four is supported by a coalition of public safety advocates, including California Police Chiefs Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. And we continue to engage in meaningful conversation with the opposition.
I'd like to now introduce my two witnesses, Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, and Justin Fanslaw on behalf of Safe California Roads Coalition.
Speaker 70
Yep. Morning, chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in strong support of the bill. I thought the author did a great job articulating exactly what the policy is achieving here. And so I'll just add, you know, for over a decade, I've represented Cal Chiefs before this body, worked on DUI bills over that time, have met with the families, have participated in the press conferences, and heard their stories.
It continues to break my heart every time I have to listen to a family talk about their loved one who had died from an injury caused by a repeat offender, somebody who had time and time again been given opportunities to rehabilitate, to be reformed, and yet our laws were not strong enough or did not do the job to ensure that the behavior was corrected. They were allowed to continue to operate on the roads dangerously, whether it's reckless driving or DUI. I think about my kids, my family, and how I would feel and how devastated it would be to know that somebody had a chance, and we had a chance as a as a state to intervene, and we didn't do the job that we we could have done. I think this bill is incredibly important, thinking back to all those stories, ensuring that there's some actual accountability for the reckless driving, for the driving behavior that has to get corrected. If it's running if the the license suspension runs concurrently, it really is meaningless.
And so adding some meaning back into that provision is incredibly important for all the families, for all the police chiefs, and all the officers out there who have to respond to these incidents. We are in very strong support and urge your I vote.
Speaker 71
Good morning, mister chair. Justin Vanzal on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. First of all, I'd like to thank you mister chair and the chair of transportation. This bill, along with your bill and the previous hearing and the number of other bills we're gonna hear today, are all a result of the sort of eye opening CalMatters report that we saw last year. And I'm extremely grateful, like mister Feldman, that we're taking serious actions this year.
Simply stated, if a suspension or revocation is issued, it's worthless if it's then not applied to when a person could be driving. Sitting in jail, you cannot drive. If we're gonna have some leniency, then perhaps we should be talking about the length of that suspension. But offering a suspension and then allowing it to be served while in custody is pointless and does not help to protect the public. Very happy to be here in support today.
We'll have many of those testimonies that mister Feldman talked about, in a few other bills today that are, heart wrenching. And quite honestly, we've heard them for too many years. And so I'm very glad again that hopefully this year will be the last time that we have to hear these. Thank you. Assembly
Speaker 1
member, thank you very much for all of your work on this issue. And I believe you said it, but just to confirm, you are taking the committee amendments?
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I know we'd get it done. And, of course, thank you to both of your witnesses for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me too's. Others hoping to be heard in support of the bill, come on down.
Name, if you're with an organization, let us know that, and your position of support, please.
Speaker 72
Mister chair members, Jolina Voris, on behalf of the League of California cities, in support. David Martinez with Streets For All, in support.
Speaker 58
Colin Campbell, a bereaved father and member of the National Board of Directors for Mothers Against Drunk Driving in support.
Speaker 65
Gia Chen on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals in support if amended. We have a letter coming in soon. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Well, mister chair, Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. We have oh, possibly two, looks like.
Okay. Come on down. These two chairs are for you. Your time doesn't begin until you start speaking, and you'll each have two minutes to address the committee whenever you're ready.
Speaker 21
Good morning, chair Schultz and committee members. My name is Hyun Nguyen, campaigns and policy manager with the legal services for prisoners with children in opposition of a b eighteen forty or a t a v 71874. Sorry. If passed, this bill would prolong license suspension for people exiting prison, causing license suspensions to begin once a person is released after they've served their time. LSPC is an organization with over four decades of experience championing the human rights of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people and their families.
This is to say hundreds of formerly incarcerated people and their families have walked through our doors in hopes of rebuilding their lives from the impacts of incarceration. Access to driver's license is a fundamental need for Californians returning home from incarceration. People returning home need reliable transportation to secure jobs and maintain employment, meet supervision requirements, get access to medical and health care, and further their education, and rebuild relationships with their loved ones. By creating unnecessary additional barriers to this fundamental need, a b eighteen forty seven would set a dangerous disconnect. It would force individuals who are striving to comply with the law into a position where they are set up to fail.
The likely consequences is not enhanced public safety, but the exact opposite, refeeding individuals back into the criminal legal system for an inability to meet basic life demands, not for any new threat of public safety. Eliminating barriers to lawful driving for formerly incarcerated people is an important public safety tool. Access to employ employment is a crucial factor in reducing recidivism rates, and having a driver's license is a major barrier to work. Numerous studies have found that there's a direct correlation between driving and employment. A task force to the governor of New Jersey cited found that license suspensions, forty two percent of people lost their jobs as a result to the suspensions.
Of those who had lost their jobs, forty five percent could not find another job. This is a fact of the most pronounced for seniors, low income people, and those who are able to find new employment.
Speaker 1
And I'm sorry. That is two minutes, but don't go anywhere. There might be an opportunity for you to add more in answering questions. Okay. Alright.
Our next witness, you also have two minutes.
Speaker 29
Thank you. Good morning again, chair Schultz and members of the committee. Again, my name is Sheila Wilson, and I am the policy and advocacy advisor at La Defensea. We're here in opposition to a b 1874, which, as you know, would prolong driver's license suspensions for those exiting prison. My colleague here has really touched on many of my points as well.
But as you know, a driver's license is critical to successful community reentry, particularly since robust public transit is sparse to nonexistent in much of our state. People exiting incarceration already face significant barriers to reentry. In recent years, our state has worked towards reducing many of these barriers. An example might include the Ban the Box legislation, not identical, but a similar effort to make it easier for these folks to come back and return to us. We believe that this bill is a step backwards.
We encourage this legislature to explore less punitive solutions such as evidence based and publicly funded treatment and diversion programs. And ultimately, we really empathize with the motivations behind this bill but are quite concerned about the long term impact on reentry for these folks. So for these reasons, we urge you to vote no on this bill and I thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. We'll hear the me too's in opposition to the bill. Come on down.
Speaker 56
I'm Cassandra Gorman with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and I oppose this bill.
Speaker 18
Hi. My name is Caitlin Tse. I'm a student from UCLA, and I oppose this bill.
Speaker 20
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.
Speaker 39
I'm sorry. Garrett Hamilton from the California District Attorney's Association were in support of this. I did not get up here in time.
Speaker 14
Deputy public defender Estermeldes on behalf of Local one forty eight, the LA Public Defenders Union in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Before we go on, anyone else are hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to Deus.
Mister Lackey.
Speaker 12
Yeah. I just want to thank the author for for her insight in trying to correct something that is very, logical. I mean, it's not a penalty if you're not able to operate a motor vehicle. Secondly, what I will say is that we should be doing everything, and I mean everything we can to prevent this tragedy associated with this problem of driving under the influence. This is clearly a preventive measure to try to keep people from operating a motor vehicle and committing another offense.
Society, we we there's a reason why the CalMatters article was so impactful because it's a very big problem that happens every day and happens so tragically. So if we're not doing everything we can to prevent this thing, then we're we're not doing our job. So thank you for this act of prevention, and it clearly has my support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, assembly member. Are there other oh, yes. Doctor Sharp Collins.
Speaker 15
So thank you. Thank you so much for taking the amendments to the bill. With those amendments, I will be able to move forward today supporting the bill. However, I'm wondering because I I share in the same concerns as our opposition as well. So I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about the potential the unintended quant the consequences of of the impact it will have on folks that are coming back into society, meaning they have to get to work, probation officers, and so forth.
But also has anyone contemplated public transportation vouchers or other ways to ensure that they can get to where they have to be basically removing a barrier. So if their license is revoked when they when they get released, knowing that it will be suspended at that time, is there a program or something to where that they can still get something to be able to get to probation officers' work or whichever else so we can stop adding barriers but eliminating a barrier. So I just see one or two.
Speaker 69
Absolutely. And I just wanna clarify. I know, thank you for your testimony both and been aligned with you on certain areas. And in this one, we just happen to not be in alignment today, but I know you guys spoke more broadly. And just being sure that it's clear, as a part of the public testimony that this bill is narrowly focused on individuals convicted of serious and dangerous driving offenses, including DUIs and vehicle manslaughter, whereas a part of their, punishment or what judgment is a a mandatory three year license revocation.
And so we're asking this to be consecutive I'm sorry. Yeah. Consecutive and not concurrent. And what I would say is that there are many programs two things. First, there are many programs that is a part of the rehabilitative process post incarceration that provide rights to places, to see your probation officer, to take to get to places, as well as voucher programs for public transit.
Because just because you get out of prison doesn't mean that you have a mode of transportation. Like, you can have a license all day long and not afford a car. Right? And so those people are disadvantaged as well. And so and the second thing is when you have that type of suspension or revocation, you actually can petition with the judge to get what is called a restricted license where you are only allowed to go to and from work.
My bill doesn't impact that. You still can go and ask for that. So let's say at the end you have a vehicle and you want to be able to use it for whatever reason to get to work to not have that impact to you, you can go to the judge for that. So we're very clear on trying to make sure that when the our original intent, not our, like, us today, but the legislature when they created this mandatory sentences, they meant for people to experience what it's like to not drive, to have the privilege. Because remember, driving is a privilege.
I as a young single mother, I had a driver's license a lot of times and did not have a car and had to use public transportation and had to use friends. But I will tell you now, there's quite a bit more options. And if you're choosing to drink and drive in particular, then you should you don't deserve that privilege. You need to you need to experience what so many poor people experience by not having a car. You need to experience what that feels like, and maybe that will change your behavior the next time because time after time, as we've talked about hearing from victims' families, it's not their first time.
It's their second and third time driving while under the influence or reckless driving where they're killing someone. And so it's about making sure that people know going in advance that they can have this punishment, experiencing the punishment, and deciding that was really hard to go three years without a license. Maybe the next time I get into my vehicle, when I get that privilege back, I don't drink and drive. I don't text and drive and cause someone to be killed, things of that nature.
Speaker 15
I wanted to thank you for that response because being with you yesterday in transportation, I wanted to make sure that we had the same comments here, you know, to reflect the record as it was done yesterday. And I know that mister Lackey brought that up yesterday as well, so I just wanted to make sure that, you know, that it was being reflected here also. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Doctor Sharp Collins, would anyone else like to go with a question or comment or a motion?
Speaker 1
K. Motion by Wynn, second by Lackey. Alright. Seeing no further discussion from the dais, Assembly Member Wilson, would you like to close?
Speaker 69
I would, and I'd like to, share a story if you give me a little better. So on October 2639, Deandre Connolly was leaving his girlfriend's house and riding his motorcycle home to head to work, but he never made it. A driver traveling a 119 miles per hour struck Deandre, killing him as he bled out on the scene. And instead of stopping to help, the driver fled the scene. He later returned intoxicated and falsely claimed that his vehicle had been stolen.
The loss of Deandre's life was devastating on its own. DeAndre was my best friend's little brother, so he was like my little brother. But what follow compounded the injustice. This driver knew the consequences of driving while intoxicated. His own father had previously killed someone while driving under the influence, and the driver himself was already on probation for driving while intoxicated.
This was not ignorance. This was a pattern of dangerous, callous behavior that ended a young man's life. The judge, recognizing the severity of this senseless and tragic act, imposed the maximum possible sentence. Yet because of our our system currently works with good credits with credits, good behavior reductions, diversion programs, the driver will serve five years. He's already transitioned through a diversion program and into a rehabilitative center.
When he is released on August 2027, he will be legally allowed to drive on day one. That is what this is about today. He should experience the cost of DeAndre's life and have this privilege removed because we know driving is a privilege, not a right. And when someone demonstrates such reckless disregard for human life, the consequences must be real, meaningful, and lasting, and our laws must reflect that. DeAndre Connolly deserved to live, and our system must do better to honor lives lost and prevent tragedies like this from happening again.
With that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member Wilson. Colleagues, I do recommend, and I appreciate the author working so diligently, not only through the committee process, but even in the interim as we had conversations about what more we can do as a state. I appreciate all the points that have been made, and I know you to be an incredibly thoughtful and collaborative author. There might not be points of common ground, but I know that if there are any to be found, I have full confidence that you'll continue to engage in those conversations and Absolutely. Strive to find it.
So with that, I recommend an aye. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 11 a b eighteen seventy four by assembly member Wilson, the motion is due passed as amended to the Transportation Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Gonzales? Aye. Haney? Harbidean? Lackie?
Aye. Lackie? Aye. Nguyen? Aye.
Ramos? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Sharp Collins?
Aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure passes. Thank you, everybody. We are still waiting on authors, so I'm gonna do something unconventional in a moment. But before I do, if you are staff listening in and you hear your author's name, please have them come to Room 126.
We are waiting on well, mister Lackey will go in the afternoon. We have no contact yet from assembly member Sanchez on her bills. Our vice chair should be returning and can hopefully present on his soon. We need contact from assembly member Bauer Cahan. We need contact from assembly member Jackson, assembly member assembly member Patterson.
And I will note that assembly member Gabriel has checked in as well as, assembly member Petrie Norris. We need both of them here as well. Colleagues, just to keep us moving and to make an efficient use of time, with your permission, I'll present my bill out of order. I like to go last, but rather than everyone sit quietly, we can keep rolling. I'd like to hand the gavel without the vice chair present over to our most senior member, assembly member Ramos, to lead us, through this presentation.
Speaker 47
Thank you so much. Moving on to item 27 a b twenty five eighty two from chairman Shultz. Please begin when you're ready.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, mister chair. I take comfort in knowing that you're there to run the show. I am pleased to present, assembly bill twenty five eighty two today on my behalf as well as that of my joint author, assembly member Maggie Krell, which builds on California's efforts to combat trafficking and commercial sex exploitation by expanding the use of diversion for prostitution charges. I will note that in the discussion of assembly bill three seventy nine last year, this was a component of the bill that we had always intended to add back in, and so this is cleanup legislation to address that unfinished work from last year. Many individuals who are charged with prostitution have been victimized by sex traffickers or buyers.
Research consistently shows that this victimization and subsequent vulnerability to arrest disproportionately harms women of color and low income individuals. Survivors face extreme barriers to exiting prostitution or escaping trafficking, such as repeated instances of physical and sexual violence, isolation from support networks, and high rates of mental health issues such as PTSD. When survivors are arrested for prostitution, diversion programs can be pivotal in redirecting them out of criminal proceedings and addressing their unique circumstances. AB 2,582 would specifically require diversion to be offered to individuals who have received either a first or second charge of committing prostitution with the intent of receiving compensation. Diversion programs have been well documented as an effective tool for interrupting cycles of violence and recidivism for this population.
This bill, I just wanna highlight a couple things here, will, number one, only apply to those charged with receiving compensation, not to solicitors of prostitution. And number two, it will only require diversion to be offered when it's already available in that jurisdiction. By ensuring access to diversion where it already exists, AV 2,582 supports a survivor centered response that prioritizes long term recovery and more effectively addresses recidivism. The last thing I will note before I introduce my witness is I understand that there is continuing opposition to this measure. I will, without being asked, state on the record that we look forward to continuing to engage in good faith with the opposition to address their concerns to the extent possible should it pass out of committee.
Testifying with me today in support of the bill, I have Ignacio Hernandez, legislative advocate for the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.
Speaker 32
Thank you, mister chair members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of CACJ, Statewide Association of Criminal Offense Attorneys in private practice and also working in public defender offices. I wanna thank the author for the bill. As criminal defense attorneys, we have a number of obligations, both legally and ethically, of course, to represent our clients, present a strong defense, and protect their constitutional rights. The other thing as professionals and as, you know, individuals who care about the system, we also care about the clients and their lives, and we don't want them to keep coming back into the criminal justice system.
Our criminal justice system is not always set up in a way to reduce recidivism, and it does not always function to help individuals redirect their lives and address some of the problems that afflict them that led them to end up in criminal court. This bill will create a more efficient approach to referring someone to diversion. Diversion programs are designed to take a more holistic approach and understand the circumstances that have led someone to come to criminal court. Diversion programs can help really change their lives and save their lives. So we've seen it time and time again.
So this bill, requiring diversion, a referral to diversion in these cases in particular, we're going to help a lot of people. The potential is there. As the author stated, I know that there's some opposition, and of course we can do better on our diversion programs and make them more effective, and we're certainly certainly participating in any discussions going forward. But this is really an opportunity to take an approach to understand why someone is in criminal court and ensure that that we can start to address some of the issues that led them there and prevent them from coming back, especially if they have been victims, in their own right. For those reasons, we're in support of the bill.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell, Houston, excuse me, for the California Public Defenders Association in support.
Speaker 10
Good morning, mister chairman members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, regrettably in opposition to a b twenty five eighty two. As we know, existing law already allows a judge on superior court in which a misdemeanor is being prosecuted to at the judge's discretion. And over the objection of the prosecuting attorney, I would note, offer diversion to a defendant. In other words, the persons to whom this bill applies are already permitted to be offered diversion.
The judge may offer diversion under existing laws, I said, even if the prosecutor objects. The bill's supporting materials correctly note that, quote, many individuals who are charged with prostitution in California have been victimized by sex traffickers and buyers, unquote. But this statement also implies that there are persons who engage in prostitution who are not trafficking victims. And as such, we believe it's inappropriate to mandate diversion if even if a program is available in every instance of a person's first or second misdemeanor solicitation charge based on the notion that some who engage in prostitution are trafficking victims. It may be many.
It may be most, but there are some who are not. And and candidly, if if the person is a victim, you don't need diversion to not prosecute them. They're part of an investigation or trying to get them help. This is sort of, you know, like, there's gonna be a charge, then we divert them from this charge. When we deal with this another way, if the person is truly a victim, we feel that the state should not mandate a response to every case, what may be an appropriate response in only certain individual cases.
And because misdemeanor diversion exists and because judges are permitted to offer that diversion to all persons covered by this bill, we would ask for a no vote.
Speaker 47
Thank you so much for your testimony. Those in opposition? Seeing none coming back to the dais. Any comments, questions from members?
Speaker 15
Thank you. Mine is pretty pretty, pretty brief. As we continue to talk about diversion, I'd I I too have a bill that's coming up dealing with diversion. But to address the recidivism conversation, I'm wondering if you've thought about adding a workforce component to this, for diversion, which which can provide the alternative, you know, options for employment. Too often our pro our diversions don't include that.
So I know one of my bills is doing that, and I'm just wondering if that's something to consider.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, assembly member. It's not something that I had previously considered, but I think it's a very worthwhile discussion. If it passes out a committee today, we'd love to chat with you about that and explore the possibility of adding that in.
Speaker 15
Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to see if we can do that. We're talking about trying to make sure people are not, you know, going back into the system. But if we provide them with supports and services and and some type of workforce opportunity, then
Speaker 47
been a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second? To the author, did you accept, if any, amendments from the committee?
Speaker 1
I don't know if there were. If there were, I did. And I make the commitment to keep working on the bill moving forward.
Speaker 47
Thank you so much. The chair does have an eye reco on this bill. Please call the roll. Oh, I think he closed.
Speaker 1
The only thing I would add is I'm incredibly jealous of the jacket of the opposition witness, so I may need to figure out where he gets those jackets. That looks awfully snazzy.
Speaker 26
For item 27 a b twenty five eighty two by assembly member Schultz, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? Aye. Alanis? Alanis? Aye.
Gonzales? Aye. Aye. Haney? Parvidian?
Blackie?
Speaker 1
Thank you, everyone. Thank you, mister Ramos, for chairing a committee. Gosh. I've never felt so and I need to be prepared as when I'm addressing you, mister chair. Okay.
Next, we have assembly member and vice chair Alanis. He is just getting his witness ready. Colleagues, this is gonna be item number 16 on your agenda. This is assembly bill two zero zero four. Vice chair, whenever you're ready, you can begin.
And I do see that we have Assembly Member Petrie Norris that will take her bill next. Give her a moment to get settled if you're ready, mister Alanis.
Speaker 1
Okay. While we're sorting this out, assembly member Petrie Norris, are you ready to go when you're when you're called up? Okay. Well, if the vice chair needs a minute, we might go with you. We'll see.
Speaker 1
Okay. Very good. Vice chair, come on up. Colleagues, change of plans. We're gonna go to item number 10 on your agenda.
This is assembly bill eighteen thirty. We have assembly member Petrie Norris with us. And assembly member, just a reminder, you after you make your presentation, your witnesses have two minutes each to address the committee. The floor is yours whenever you're ready.
Speaker 2
Good morning. Good morning, mister chair and committee members. It's an honor to join you today to present Assembly Bill eighteen thirty. And I wanna thank, mister chair, you and your committee staff for your work on this measure. Committee members will recognize this bill as it is the same bill that we passed out of this committee last year as a b three sixty six.
And it is a measure that we are continuing to work on, and I am confident, again, with the partnership of many folks on this committee that this year we are going to be able to get this important bill over the finish line. We, have talked a lot in the last two years about the fact that drunk driving continues to be a deadly epidemic across the country and that here in California, tragically, California is the epicenter of this crisis. Eight of the 10 states in the country that have the highest per capita death rates are here in California. Thousands and thousands of families have lost loved ones. Thousands of lives have been shattered by this truly, truly preventable crisis.
The good news is that we know that there is something that we can do about it, and a b eighteen thirty is an opportunity for us to save lives before the car even starts. This bill is actually very simple. This bill will require that anyone in California who is convicted of a drunk driving offense is required to install an ignition interlock device, a breathalyzer. Current California law has that as a requirement if someone is convicted of multiple offenses. Across the country, we have seen 35 states implement requirements that are similar to those in a b eighteen thirty.
In all of those states, we've seen accidents because of drunk driving go down. We've seen fatalities because of drunk driving go down. So we know that IIDs work. We know that this is an important gap for us to close as we work to keep our roads safe and protect Californians and California families. So I'm really honored to be joined today by my witness, Colin Campbell, and also by Justin Fanslaw.
I think we'll begin, mister Campbell, with you. Thank you for being here.
Speaker 58
Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, chair, members. My name is Colin Campbell. I'm a member of a national board of directors of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and I'm back here again in front of all of you because we didn't get that bill passed last year, and another 1,300 families were destroyed in that past twelve months just like mine was destroyed.
On 06/12/2019, I was driving my family to Joshua Tree and my 17 year old daughter Ruby, who had a merit scholarship to study at the Chicago Art Institute, and my 14 year old son, Hart, sweet, handsome Hart, who's gonna date girls and play video games all summer long, we were hit by a drunk driver going 90 miles an hour. I was knocked unconscious. When I came to I looked in the back seat, looked at Ruby and Hart. Their eyes were wide open, and their pupils were pitch black, and they were both dead. Their neck snapped.
Both my beautiful children were gone in an instant. The woman who killed my children was a multiple DUI offender like so many others. Right? Her license was revoked, but she was determined to drink and drive that night. Nothing would have stopped her except a bill like $18.30.
Why wasn't there a neglect device in that woman's car? The people who oppose this bill feel that they're defending the poor because a few dollars a week is too much a financial burden. But I've been to prison. I've talked to DUI offenders. I've spoken to women who've killed their own sisters and mothers who've killed their own children while drunken driven while driving drunk.
I've spoken to the woman who killed Ruby and Hart. And believe me, those people would pay any price to have their car not start that night. Any price. Thank you for listening.
Speaker 71
Good morning again. Justin Vanzal on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition. The testimony really stands for itself. The one thing I wanted to point out was due to the good work of this committee and the author last year, the bill financial assistance program or the program available to folks that need help has was expanded. That means if you're a person at 125% of poverty, meaning you make somewhere between 20,000 around $20,000 a year or a family of $40,000 a year, your cost average cost in California per month would be around $3.60.
It's been nine years since I've had a drink. That's far below the cost of one drink per month. The opposition continues to say that this bill costs too much and makes it hard for the people that kill innocent people to get back into society. I would argue that $3.60 a month is far below the cost of a life. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member, for presenting the bill. Gentlemen, thank you both for your testimony today. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos also in support of the bill. Come on down at this time.
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 72
Martinez with Streets Fraud in support. Proud of the author for fighting for this policy. Thank you.
Speaker 70
Chair members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 73
Terry McHale with the California Association of Highway Patrol in support.
Speaker 30
Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association and the other ones in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Now we'll see if there's any opposition witnesses here. Do we have anyone? Okay.
We do. You both can come on down. These two chairs are for you. And once you begin speaking, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 13
Good morning, chair and members. Danica Rodarmo on behalf of Debt Free Justice California with an oppose unless amended position, we appreciate the conversations we've had so far with the author's office and really are committed to continuing those. I'm probably gonna go over my two minutes time, but my colleague knows that and has agreed to cede some of his time to me. And I just wanna say we absolutely all want the same thing for what happened to Colin and to Ruby and to Hart to never happen to anybody again. Our opposition is absolutely not about the goals of this effort.
It is about our belief that there are potentially still some unintended consequences with the way that the language is currently drafted that may also ultimately undermine some of the goals of keeping California's streets safer. Because a b eighteen thirty seeks to expand the use of IIDs to first time DUI offenders, that will dramatically expand their use in the state of California to at least 50,000 people or more per year, which is a sweeping proposal. And I absolutely understand that the perspective that even if one life is saved, it is worth it. But I I also hope that we can agree that if we're proposing measures that have such a large impact on so many people's lives, that it's really important that we get them right and that interventions can only be successful when they are truly accessible. And that requires that we remove as many barriers as possible.
And the truth is there are still a lot of barriers to the use of IIDs in the state of California. Appreciate the provisions in the bill that seek to address some of the barriers that we have named in opposition over the years, but I think we still have some work to do to further reduce barriers. The IID system in California is currently very fragmented, expensive, and difficult for many people to navigate. And while they're you know, appreciate the increase in the fee reduction program, it will still mean that many Californians aren't truly able to afford it. And when these barriers are unaddressed, the concern is that the IID stops functioning as a safety tool and instead becomes a barrier to legal driving, to employment, and stability.
And perhaps most concerningly, when people can't access or maintain IIDs, they are less likely to use them at all. And so if we're serious about prevention, we have to design systems that people can easily comply with. I also understand that these concerns sound really miniscule when we're talking about it compared to lives. But I really believe if we want these to be effective, we have to really commit to what it takes to craft policies that can be effectively implemented in practice. And so we offer that perspective and that spirit.
Thank you.
Speaker 22
Chairman members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a ledge advocate with ACLU Cal Action. I wanna start by thanking the witness for sharing that story. It's very, takes a lot of courage to be that vulnerable in public. And we'd also share the commitment for safer roads, along with the author.
However, we just must make sure that we accomplish this goal by pursuing evidence based fatality reduction measures that are implemented equitably. And as currently drafted, this bill does fall short of that. But we're more than happy to remove our opposition if the author will maintain discretion for first time DUI offenders as well alleviate financial barriers for IIDs in people's cars. So at the ACLU, we believe expanded access to appropriately tailored IIDs without financial barriers and meaningful due process and privacy protections as it's one of the most effective approaches to DUI prevention, where there are clear indicators of elevated risk guided by judicial judicial discretion and informed criteria. So research shows that DUI recidivism rates for first time conviction convictions are incredibly low with a one year recidivism rate of only three point seven percent.
I do wanna quickly read from the analysis here because it does show the unintended consequences.
Speaker 1
I apologize. That is time, but you might just get a question about what the analysis says. I'm glad someone reads it other than me. Of course, the committee reads it. Okay.
With that, let's take the me too's also in opposition to the bill.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition that we do look forward to working with the author.
Speaker 14
Deputy public defender Esther Mendez on behalf of the LA Public Defender Union in opposition.
Speaker 18
Shivani Nashar on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful opposition, and I'm sorry for your loss.
Speaker 20
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.
Speaker 33
Marco Duncan, legal services up for prison for children. I respectfully oppose.
Speaker 19
Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in respectful opposition.
Speaker 29
Sheila Wilson on behalf of Vladivinson, the Justice Jobs Coalition in respectful opposition.
Speaker 1
Apologies, mister chair. Tim Chang with the Auto Club Southern California in support of the bill also asked to convey the support of AAA of Northern California. Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have any questions or comments from the dais?
Mister Lackey?
Speaker 12
Yeah. I'm a very strong supporter of your bill. Very, very thankful that you're bringing it forward again. And let's hope that we can make it happen this time. But I do have a suggested amendment that I'd like you to consider to add the violation of vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated to the mandatory ignition interlock device requirement.
And that's all I have.
Speaker 2
Thank you, assembly member Lackey. Appreciate your support and coauthorship.
Speaker 1
Thank you, sir. Are there other questions or comments from committee members? I had just a couple quick ones. First of all, mister Campbell, nice to see you again. It's been nice to see you on your journey.
Could you just as I as I handled with the earlier bill, I think it's important that we all seize this opportunity to remember some of the people that inspired the legislation. Could you tell us just a little bit about Art and Ruby?
Speaker 58
Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. Yeah. Ruby was this amazingly gifted artist.
I have her art tattooed on my on my wrists here. This these are koi wolves. So they're wolves that are like koi fish, really, because of patterns. She just made that up. She's so cool.
She was a proud lesbian warrior for social justice. That's how I describe her. And Hart was a clown. He was the funniest guy in the room, loudest, most obnoxious, and most off color. But he was the most beloved in his crowd.
He was a real they're both leaders. Both leaders. And he was an actor. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Of course. Thank you for being here today. You certainly carry them with you, and I know they're here with us today as well. My next question is to the opposition. Was there anything of note that you felt the committee should consider from the analysis that was prepared on the bill?
This is my giving Yeah. Right.
Speaker 22
It's been a long day. I I did wanna just, like, kinda point to the unintended consequences in the analysis where the it does talk about IEDs being effective, reducing DUI recidivism for offenders, but that it can also increase the risk of crashes due to the retesting that can also contribute to distracted driving as reported in The New York Times. And this is why it's really important to kinda maintain discretion when you talk about these first time DUI offenders, especially with such a low recidivism rate around three point seven percent. So mandating it just one like, across every case isn't really, the most appropriate. So we should maintain discretion as it is a case by case basis.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. My last question was back to the author. Having heard some of the testimony from opposition witnesses, just wondering if you or your witnesses had any brief response.
Speaker 2
Just very briefly, I will start by, I guess acknowledging and highlighting the point that our opposition witness made that I think the I think you you said the concerns sound minuscule compared to what is at stake and what's out on the line. I could not agree more with that sentiment, and I think that summarizes the opposition quite eloquently.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the dais? Alright. I believe we still need a motion.
Speaker 1
K. Motion by Aloni, second by Lackey. Without anything further from the dais, assembly member, we'll turn it back to you for a close.
Speaker 2
Thank you. And I wanna begin also by thanking you, Colin, for once again being here, for sharing your story, for letting us get to know Ruby and Hart a little bit, and for your advocacy to protect children and families across the state of California. And I wanna thank you, mister chair, for pausing us for a minute and for focusing us on Ruby and on heart. Because sometimes we get lost in the conversation around the statistics, and the statistics are alarming. But this is not just statistics.
These are our daughters and our sons who are dying. It's our moms and our dads that are dying. It's our neighbors and it's our friends. And this is a truly preventable tragedy. This does not need to continue to happen.
AB eighteen thirty is common sense. AB eighteen thirty will make our roads safer. AB eighteen thirty will save lives. Thank you again for your support, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member. I'll just briefly say, yes, I I appreciate your witness and a prior witness sharing a little bit about some of the folks that we've lost. This is a people focused business. I can tell you that chairing this committee, it is emotionally draining to deal with the issues, but it's important that we don't lose our humanity in the process of trying to find good legislative solutions. So, mister Campbell, thanks for your for sharing today.
I also want to note that I I do I have heard and I continue to hear some of the concerns of the opposition. And while I know there's they're not yet in support of this bill, and perhaps they're never will they'll that point will never be reached, I do think the bill has been substantially improved. I appreciate the author working with us to include those affordability measures, some reporting back measures to the legislature. All of those make it a heavier lift arguably, but I know that you, assembly member, have been committed to ensuring that we have a final solution that is is equitable and imbalanced as possible. So I appreciate your your collaboration there.
With that, colleagues, I do recommend an aye with the motion and second. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 10 a b eighteen thirty by assembly member Petrie Norris, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Aye. Alaniz?
Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales? Aye.
Haney? Harbidean?
Speaker 26
Harbidean, aye. Lackey, aye. Lackie, aye. Wen? Ramos?
Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, aye.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Quick programming note, everyone. We have three more bills we're gonna take before the lunch hour. We have a bill from assembly member Gabriel who's here. I believe, assembly member Bauer Cahan is also here. And then we are gonna hear the vice chair's bill.
That will be it before the lunch break. So if you're not one of these three individuals, your bill will be after lunch. Other programming note, I apologize. We're gonna be in the small room next door in 127. So maybe use the restroom and grab your drink before you go in because it's hard to get in and out there.
Alright. With that, next in terms of sign in order is assembly member Gabriel presenting on a b twenty three seventy eight followed by assembly member Bauer Cahan. Take it. Leave it for the budget chair to to jump ahead. Quick reminder for your witnesses.
Your witnesses get two minutes each to address the committee. Their time starts once they begin speaking. Mister Gabriel, at your convenience, the floor is yours.
Speaker 1
yeah. I'm listening. Just waiting. Yeah. Are you ready, mister Gideon?
Am. Okay. Okay. The floor is yours.
Speaker 74
Alright. Thank you very much, mister chair and colleagues. I am pleased today to present AB twenty three seventy eight, which was established in office of community violence intervention to administer and guide the CalVID program. As I'm sure you're aware, the CalVID program is California's flagship community based violence prevention program and a proven method for producing gun reducing gun violence. Last year, California had its lowest gun homicide rate in recorded history, which was driven by significant reductions in the violence rate among populations targeted by the program.
But there's still room for improvement. While the Board of State and Community Corrections currently administers the CALVIP program, there is no dedicated senior level director to guide the program. This bill would address this issue by establishing the Office of Community Violence Intervention within the BSCC to be led by a full time director with direct experience in community violence intervention. Under the director's leadership, the office would be able to more effectively administer the program, coordinate with the Department of Justice's Office of Gun Violence Prevention, engage in long term strategic planning, share best practices, evaluate grant implementation, and provide technical support and assistance to applicants and grantees. And so doing this bill will strengthen and improve the CalVIP program, enabling it to build on its successes and better fulfill its life saving mission.
When implemented, this bill will save lives, maximize the impact of public funds, and ensure that California remains a national leader in common sense gun violence prevention. With me today to testify in support of the bill are two outstanding witnesses, Mike McLively, policy the director from the Gifford Center for Violence Intervention, and Sam Vaughn, the director of the Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety. Thank you and respectfully request an I vote.
Speaker 75
Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Mike McLively. I'm the policy director of the Gifford Center for Violence Intervention, and I'm also one of the founders of the CalVIP coalition, which represents dozens of organizations, hundreds of individuals around the state that are working to intervene and interrupt cycles of violence in California. For years, our our coalition has been pushing the legislature to invest more in CalVIP, the California violence intervention prevention program, and you all have answered the call. Most notably, in 2021, increasing funding for the program by $200,000,000, and then in 2023, becoming the first state in the country to create an excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition that is currently providing funding for CalVIP.
In the years since that investment was made, CalVIP has helped deliver historic results to California communities. As you heard assembly member Gabriel say, we are seeing record reductions in homicide at a statewide level and incredible results at a city level too. In Modesto last year and in East Palo Alto, there were zero homicides for the entire calendar year. Zero homicides. And in Richmond, as you'll hear from director Vaughan in just a moment, only five homicides, the fewest number ever recorded in Richmond's history.
These are San Francisco, Los Angeles, Oakland, all CalVIP supported cities, all seeing decades low levels of homicides and shootings. So we are seeing incredible results that CalVIP is helping to deliver. And what these cities have in common is that they have expanded out their capacity to intervene with those who are at the highest risk of being involved with shootings, using credible messengers to deliver tailored services that help prevent violence for those individuals. This bill twenty three seventy eight will help take build on that success and take it to the next level by creating an office of community violence intervention at the BSCC. This is a simple but powerful idea to bring subject matter expertise to the BSCC and expand its mission to not just deliver grants to our communities, but to support the entire field as it continues to grow.
Assembly bill sec seven sixty two, which is passed in 2023, directs the BSCC to support the entire field.
Speaker 75
I will okay. Thank you so much. I'll just say wrap up by saying, supporting our CVI workforce is excellent public policy. We are seeing the results. We wanna continue to build on them.
Thank you for your time. We urge you guys to vote.
Speaker 33
Here we go. Nice and quick. Good morning. My name is Sam Vaughn. I work with the city of Richmond's office of neighborhood safety.
I've held the lead role in that department for the last four years. And for thirteen years prior to that, I held every role that the organization had to offer from part time staff to program manager. The city of Richmond has had steady decline in gun violence over the last sixteen years. And last year, as Mike said, we recorded our lowest amount of homicides since we've kept records, which was five. 89% reduction since its inception in 2007.
We have had multiple evaluations connected to our work as well as a study published in the American Journal of Public Health. Our work has been tried and proven as May
Speaker 12
interrupt you? Will you move your mic closer, please? I can't hear you.
Speaker 33
Our work has been tried and proven as an effective strategy. The city of Richmond has received CalVIP funding for four of the five cohorts and and CalGrip prior to that. CalVIP has been extremely important to the work that the ONS does because as the city's general fund provides resources for our operations, without CalVIP, much of what we have done would not have been possible. CalVIP is evolving from just a funding source to supporting this emerging field of CVI across the state. And as we've seen at the local level, including in Richmond, it is important.
It's truly important to have leaders in government who understand the field and who have actually done the work. What this bill will create is to bring expertise directly to BSCC. This will allow BSCC to have the capacity to interface with the field in a knowledgeable and effective way, similar to what Biden did when he put Eddie Bocanegra to the DOG to oversee its c CVI work. This would be our local version of that national process. The state has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in CVI work, and we need to keep building infrastructures as well as making sure that the field of CVI keeps its fidelity.
CVI becomes the fix all for all. That would diminish the work. Having someone who is an expert sitting in BSCC would be a guardrail to keep that from happening. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much for your presentation, assembly member. Thank you both for your testimony. Now for the me tos.
Speaker 76
Cassandra Whetstone, volunteer with NORCAL gun violence prevention and support and also support from Movement for Life gun violence reduction program here in Sacramento County.
Speaker 77
Mary Dupaugh, gun violence survivor volunteer with NORCAL gun violence prevention in support.
Speaker 20
Eric Henderson, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.
Speaker 1
Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Next, we'll go to opposition witnesses. Do we have any opposition witnesses here? Okay, mister budget chair.
Scared off the opposition witnesses. Do we have any other me too's? Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? No? We'll bring it back to the dais.
Questions, comments, motions?
Speaker 1
We got a motion, by Alenise, a second by doctor Garth Collins. Mister Lackey, you have the floor.
Speaker 1
Mister Lackey, I apologize. I think we might have some opposition witnesses. Do you mind if we do that first, mister Lackey? Okay. Go right ahead.
Speaker 43
Adam Wilson on behalf of GOC, Gunners of California and Gunners of America in opposition.
Speaker 78
Thank you, mister chair. Clay Kimberling with the National Rifles Association. Respectful opposition.
Speaker 12
Yeah. As as I was just saying, I don't mean to be cynical, but and I am for preventing gun violence in any way, shape, or form. But creating another bureaucracy helped me just understand how this bureaucracy will make an impact because I wanna believe it. So please try to convince me so I can support reduced gun violence because that's what I wanna do.
Speaker 74
I I will do my best, and I know you're very sincere about that, Assembly Member Lackey. I think what this does is it's not creating a new bureaucracy. It's just making sure that we have a leader in place that is rooted in an understanding of how to most effectively administer these funds, that is rooted in an understanding of how to achieve those reductions in gun violence, how to save lives. We have, with prior legislation, already have BSCC administering this program. So this program exists.
Dollars are flowing through it. They're going out into communities. They're going to people like director Vaughan who are doing unbelievable work to save lives, to protect people in communities, to bring gun violence down. You've heard about the unbelievable results that this program has demonstrated. But what we have identified as a very small shortcoming of that is that we need a director in BSCC who is able to coordinate with other parts of government, whether it's with the DOJ, with local governments, with tribal governments, and make sure that we just have that expertise in place at the very top.
So this is actually a very small bill. It's a modest bill, but it's just about making sure that we have someone who has the right expertise to make sure that we're doing the most that we can with the dollars that are flowing through that program.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Assemblyman Lackey. Any other questions or comments from committee members? Okay. Mister Gabriel, would you like to close?
Speaker 74
Very much appreciate the time. Grateful to the Calviv Coalition for their incredible work across the state. You guys have saved countless lives. And with that, I would respectfully request a I vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Colleagues, chair recommends a strong eye on this one with the motion and second in hand. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 24 a b twenty three seventy eight by assembly member Gabriel, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis? Aye.
Gonzales, aye. Haney? Barbadian? Aye. Barbadian, aye.
Lackey? Aye. Lackey? Lackkey? When?
Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? I.
Sharp Collins, I.
Speaker 1
Hey. That measure passes. Mister Gabriel, you got him on board. Good job. That was a good answer.
You might just have a future in this line of board.
Speaker 1
Appreciate it. Thank you, everybody. Assembly member Bauercan, thank you so much for your patience. You are you are next on the carousel.
Speaker 6
a strong eye reco and an eye for mister Lackey. Okay. Hi, everyone. It's fun to be back. I used to sit here.
Maybe it was only mister Lackey and I at the time. So thank you, mister chair and members of the committee. I'm proud to present a b twenty forty seven along with my sponsors, Everytown for Gun Safety. As many of you know, I started my political activism in part in Moms Demand Action helping to work in our own community to end gun violence. So this this bill is really near and dear to my heart because it builds on that work in what I think is an incredibly common sense way.
So AB twenty forty seven builds on prior legislation to address the newest firearm threat, which is three d printed weapons. This legislature has done an immense amount of work to try to reduce the number of three d printed weapons in our state, and we just honestly need to do more. Since January, there have been several three d printed gun busts and recoveries in California, including San Jose, San Bernardino, and Santa Rosa. And we cannot stand by while these firearms continue to flow into our communities. As I was walking into this committee hearing, actually, I was speaking to one of our own law enforcement officers in the building, and she mentioned to me that they're seriously concerned about these because they're not detectable in our screenings as people enter the building.
So these guns are dangerous for a multitude of reasons, that being just one of them. Obviously, they're not part of our permit system, our tracking system, all the ways that we try to reduce gun violence and make sure guns are in the hands of responsible gun owners alone. So we're committed to continuing to work with stakeholders on this bill to make sure it doesn't have unintended consequences. It is moving to, privacy committee next where we deal with the tech issues, and make sure that this is really doable and implementable law. With that, I'll turn it over to my witness, Crystal Lopolito, director of policy and advocacy for Everytown, and Daniel Smith, a student volunteer with Student Demand Action right here in Sacramento.
Speaker 79
Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Crystal Lopalito, and I serve as a policy advocacy director for Every Town for Gun Safety. Together with Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, we are the largest gun violence prevention organization in the nation. We're proud sponsors of AB twenty forty seven and grateful to Assembly Member Bauer Kayon for bringing the bill forward. AB twenty forty seven is an exciting technological solution to the dangerous problem of firearms made with household three d printers.
It's the common sense next step in California's fight against ghost guns. The three d printed gun crisis is not a far away or a future problem. It's happening here in California right now. In just the six month span between September 2025 to February 2026, we've tracked numerous instances of three d firearm manufacturing operations uncovered by law enforcement agencies all around the state. As we sit here today, at this moment, there may be a three d printer somewhere in California making a functional ghost gun for someone who is not legally allowed to purchase or possess guns because they're underage or have previously been convicted of violent crimes or gun trafficking.
This threatens everything members of this committee have done over the last many decades to strengthen California gun laws to protect our communities. California lawmakers can't sit idly by while teenagers, extremists, and people with violent criminal histories can easily print guns at in their basements and bedrooms. To be clear, there's so much positive creativity and innovation happening as three d printing becomes more accessible and affordable. This bill won't stifle or threaten that. Technology now exists to block the printing of files that have been specifically identified as firearm design files.
Ensuring that technology is equipped on all printers sold to retail consumers in our state is a new and preventative way to effectuate California's existing laws, which already prohibit three d printing guns and unlicensed firearms manufacturing. Thank you. We ask for your I vote.
Speaker 54
Dear chair, vice chair, and members of the committee, my name is Daniel Smith, I'm a student at Sacramento State, constituent of District 10, and speaking on behalf of Students Demand Action today. AB twenty forty seven, the Firearm Printing Prevention Act serves as a way to prevent people who aren't allowed to have firearms from obtaining untraceable ones. As of now, anyone with a three d printer can pay for a file, buy a filament, and successfully print a gun in the same day. And because this can be done entirely at home, it's a way of sorry. It's a way to bypass California's already very strong gun legislation.
As a student, three d printers are provided at us to no personal cost to our schools and to our public libraries. And as an individual, I can buy my own three d printer for less than $250 off of Amazon or any other major retailer. And I can have it shipped here within the same day, same week. There's no rush. There's no question for how accessible getting a three d printer is for the average citizen, and with that comes the risk for foul play.
California has a huge influence on the rest of the nation, and so when we act, the side effects are of it are felt everywhere. Tackling this problem here locally could save sorry. Tackling the problem locally could save lives for people across the nation. This bill requires the manufacturers of all three d printers sold in California to equip their printers with technology that scans files to check for similarities to known firearm prints. And if it comes back as a match, the printer will not print that file.
By stopping the ghost from from being printed in the first place, it helps prevent illegal and unregistered guns from being in our streets and in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Please pass this bill to keep our communities safe, and thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you for presenting the bill, and thank you both for your testimony here today. Now we'll hear from the Me Toos in support of the bill. Come on down. Please state your name.
If you're with an organization, let us know that, and, of course, your position.
Speaker 70
Yep. Chair members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in strong support. Thank the author for tackling this difficult but important issue.
Speaker 65
Good morning. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady campaign and great Brady California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Kevin Guzman on behalf of the California Medical Association in support.
Speaker 77
Mary Dupla, I am a gun violence survivor and a volunteer for NorCal gun violence prevention. Someone's talking in my ear. So Oh. That's why.
Speaker 76
Cassandra Whetstone, volunteer with non NORCAL gun violence prevention in support.
Speaker 70
David Bond with Everytown for Gun Safety, proud to be in support and proud to be a sponsor.
Speaker 16
Elizabeth Carpenter, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in strong support.
Speaker 36
Claire Senchner, gun violence survivor and volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.
Speaker 19
Aaron Mullen Brosnan, volunteer, Moms Demand Action here in support. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much, everybody. Next, we'll take opposition testimony. Are there any anyone here in the room hoping to testify in opposition?
Yes. Okay. So come on down. So for purposes of our testimony, you both can sit here in these seats. You'll have two minutes each to oppose.
To those in the back who also wanna be heard, you'll have a chance after this testimony to register your position of oppose. Alright? Whoever would like to begin, you each have two minutes.
Speaker 22
Chairman members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a alleged advocate with ACLU CalAction. I wanna start that we have two primary concerns with this bill. The first is that this proposal creates a redundant criminal penalty. It is already unlawful to three d print a firearm without the proper license.
Over the last several decades, our criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. We must avoid creating redundant criminal penalties when the misbehavior we're trying to prevent is already criminalized. Beyond this redundancy, this bill poses grave risk to many users of three d printers and their right to privacy. This new required software contains troubling similarities to efforts by governments and corporations to either break end to end encryption or include content scanning technology in people's electronic devices. At the ACLU, we have warned of the dangers of this technology that this technology brings and how it may be exploited to conduct far reaching surveillance.
Mandating an algorithm that scans for the possible printing of a ghost gun pose a similar risk. Once this, proposed scanning algorithm is in place, it could be abused by governments or corporations to prevent socially or politically sensitive three d printed designs infringing on our civil liberties. This type of software creates a permanent backdoor into what an individual chooses to three d print in the privacy of their own home. And once this new infrastructure exists, it is a simple software update away from tracking political dissents or preventing three d printed designs that may cut into the profit margin of a powerful corporation. We remain skeptical of any software that contains a client side scanning system that is purportedly only designed to capture specific files as this software invades the privacy of its users with three d printers who will, by necessity, have everything they print scanned and approved by an opaque government algorithm.
For these for these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on a b twenty forty seven. Thank you.
Speaker 78
Thank you, mister chair. My name is Clay Kimberling. I'm the California state director for the National Rifles Association. I'm also authorized to speak on behalf of gun gun owners of California today in respectful opposition to Assembly Bill twenty forty seven on behalf of our tens of thousands of members across California. On the outset, the NRA has long and consistently opposed efforts to ban or restrict three d manufacturing technology as it relates to the lawful exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
AB 2,047 goes well beyond what California law already restricts, taking a fundamentally different approach conditioning the sale of general purpose manufacturing tools on government approved blocking software. That is a significant and unprecedented policy step and one with serious constitutional implications. On the second amendment, the Supreme Court's Berwind decision is clear. Firearm regulations must be rooted in this nation's historical traditions. There is no historical analog for mandating government controlled technology inside private manufacturing equipment as a precondition for exercising a constitutional right.
The First Amendment questions are equally important and remain genuinely unsettled. State controlled filtering software that monitors and restricts digital files puts the government in the role of gatekeeping protected expression. Additionally, the the detection standards AB twenty forty seven relies on are not required to achieve complete accuracy, creating a serious risk of overbreadth restricting lawful and potentially unrelated content. Legislation on technology that may be developed in the future raises serious concerns as statutory requirements outpace real world capabilities, And anyone with actual unlawful intent can easily modify or circumvent software based restrictions, meaning this bill would not stop criminals but burden law abiding Californians. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the committee reject a b twenty forty seven.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear the me too. So if you'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill, you can come forward at this time. As a reminder, per committee rules, just confine your comment to your name, the organization you're with, and your position, which I would anticipate as opposed. Whenever you're ready.
Adam Wilson on behalf
Speaker 40
I'm Flint Hamblin, mechanical engineer in Silicon Valley, and I strongly oppose.
Speaker 1
Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Mister Lackey, I saw you first.
Speaker 12
Okay. Let me begin by saying that I too oppose ghost guns. And for anybody that doesn't know what a ghost gun is, it means it's a weapon that has no serial number. So it's unable to be traced properly. So I and I I have to also tell you that I I commend you for trying to reduce the access to go ghost guns, but I, unfortunately, where we disagree is I don't believe that this does that because not all three d printers are even capable of manufacturing a usable firearm, but yet they will be falling under this provision, which I believe doesn't hit the mark.
And and I believe that's that makes it unfair, and I believe it's overbroad and therefore not effective in addressing ghost guns. But I admire your your willingness to go after ghost guns because they're they're a threat to public safety.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member. Are there other questions or comments from members of the committee? Alright. I just have one. To the author, I appreciate the very concise and to the point testimony of the opposition witnesses.
Does the author or her witnesses have any response to the opposition testimony?
Speaker 6
Thank you, mister chair. So I will start with mister Lackey's comments, if you if that's okay, mister chair, through the chair. So I really appreciate this. I think, you know, as you heard, law enforcement is in support of this for exactly the reasons you mentioned because it doesn't allow us to ensure that felons, people that we've decided should not possess firearms under the law, are not able to go procure one in a legal fashion and, again, scan for them in places we don't want guns, things like that. I actually think that, you know, this bill is in its first committee.
As I mentioned, it is double referred and obviously will go through the entire senate. I do not think this is the version of the bill that will be signed into law. Frankly, I think that we will be able to refine the technical requirements as this moves through the legislature to ensure that we are really limiting this to both printers that can produce these guns and also ensure that this technology, as you heard my witness say, already exists, is in use. To address the the point made by the ACLU, nothing would require the government to have access to the screening. This requires the manufacturers to use when you for anyone who's used a three d printer, as I'm sure many of us in the room have, you take a file, the fun thing you wanna print, in my house it's a lot of gadgets, you then put it into the computer and it prints it, and it will be on that local interface where this will screening will happen and where the printer will say, oops, sorry, can't do that, can't print your gun.
I think it's actually a really technical forward way of preventing this. We know in California, and this is something that has been a bipartisan effort, that we are not doing a good enough job going out and getting the guns that are in the hands of people that shouldn't have them. That is something California should and is trying to do better on, and this is one way for us to say, let's not make that a problem of law enforcement. Let's prevent them from ever being in existence. And, it's a very low cost way of making sure that is possible, allowing people to have the printers to be hobbyists.
Speaker 6
Okay. I was like, is that me? So so I you know, I'm not concerned about government interference because nothing requires the government to have access to what is happening in real time on the computers, and we've asked the ACLU for amendments. If they believe that is the case, they've offered us no red lines or anything of that nature as the privacy chair who just did a hearing on surveillance that the chair was a part of. It's obviously something I wanna prevent, and I look forward to them providing us real feedback on how we can prevent that.
And, you know, I I appreciate what the NRA is saying about Bruin. I think this I don't know which of the wonderful consultants wrote this. I should have looked. The analysis does a good job of addressing that. I don't believe that the commercial limitations we're putting here are covered by the second amendment in the same way if we were affecting the actual possession of a firearm by an individual.
So I think we've addressed all of those concerns. Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I'll give a brief response to the opposition. I'll also note, mister Weber, nice job on the on the analysis.
Speaker 22
Through the chair, we appreciate that, and I'm happy to engage with you further, assembly member. But just to clarify for the record, the government does have to approve this algorithm that has been updated or provided on the three d printers and the firmware and software. Is that correct?
Speaker 6
So there is a process in here for the AG to be providing the, what is it called, the architecture, right, of the Okay. Of the guns that they believe are available, but that will be held on the printer.
Speaker 22
Got it. And that that's where we're getting at the ACLU is just having the government kinda approve this algorithm and have it be up the are pro forced onto these three d printers. But, again, happy to engage with you further and seek potential amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both for the answer. Looks like there's much more fruitful discussion to be had. With that, unless there's anything else from the dais, Assembly Member, give you a chance to close.
Speaker 6
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to the staff for the incredible work. Thanks to everyone who's here to have this important conversation. Respectfully ask your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Alright. With a motion and a second, chair's recommendation is a strong eye. Oh, strong eye.
I don't know what's gonna happen with your other wish list, but I'll give you the strong eye. So with that, let's call the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 17 a b twenty forty seven by assembly member Bauer Cahan, the motion is due passed to the to the judiciary committee. Excuse me. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Alanis not voting. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez? Aye.
Haney? Harbidean? Harbetian? Aye. Lackey?
Speaker 1
That measure is on call for absent members. Thank you very much. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you all for being here. We're gonna take one more bill before the lunch hour.
Doctor Jackson, thank you for showing up. We're gonna have to take your bill after lunch, but we're happy to put you first after lunch if you'd like. Vice chair, you have the floor, and I have my opportunity to extract revenge. Yes. I'm kidding.
Please continue.
Speaker 43
Alright. I'll get going because we're on time limit. Thank you, mister chair and members. I appreciate the opportunity to present AB 2,004 today. AB 2,004 is a straightforward bill that expands the list of counties authorized to designate county correction officers as peace officers.
Over the years, California has seen fit to recognize the dangerous and volatile work that our brothers and sisters endure every day inside our jails. AB 2,004 adds Fresno and San Joaquin Counties to the existing list of 39 counties that already have this authorization. County correction officers are incredible public servants. They run the jails day to day, supervising inmates, moving them safely, intervening when incidents escalate, and handling emergencies inside lockdown facilities. In a lot of ways, they're the only line standing between order and chaos in some of the riskiest and close quarter environments we have in law enforcement.
The language in the bill makes that crystal clear. This is not about interfering with negotiations between sheriffs and their employee groups, not about shifting jobs around, and definitely not about replacing traditional deputy positions with lower paid ones. It's just about giving these officers the same legal recognition and protections their counterparts already have elsewhere. Let me tell you about Fresno County Correctional Officer Scanlon. On 09/03/2016, an armed individual entered the Fresno County Jail lobby and opened fire on correctional staff.
Officer Scanlon responded after another officer called for help and was shot while attempting to intervene. He was unarmed at the time, relying on only less lethal equipment, and suffered catastrophic injuries. He remained hospitalized and and in rehabilitation for five years before ultimately succumbing to those injuries in 2021. That kind of courage happens in our jails more than people realize. And right now, officers like Scanlan don't automatically get the same statewide honor on the California Peace Officer Memorial Wall, which is just across the street from the capital, that other fallen officers receive.
That's wrong, and it needs to change. AB 2,004 brings fairness across counties, strengthens the people guarding our gels, and makes sure we honor the real risk and sacrifice these officers make every day. I'm proud to be joined today by officer Scanlan's wife, Tepa Scanlan, here to my right, and their daughter, Pauline, who is here to share what this means to her family and community and why this recognition matters so much to our brothers and sisters in uniform who serve in our jails. I'm also joined today by Ruben Rodriguez with the San Joaquin County Correctional Officers Association to speak in support of the bill. Go ahead.
Speaker 80
Good morning, Chairman Schultz and members of this body. I have a new Ruben Rodriguez.
Speaker 80
Alright. Reverend Rodriguez with the San Joaquin County Correctional Officers Association, president representing correction officers and sergeants in San Joaquin County. And I'm here today to speak in support of this bill, a b two zero zero four, and urge you to support it as well. We have the, you know, current situation that Assemblyman Juan Alenise had mentioned where we have officers that are working in the correctional facilities right now that do not have the protections and the benefits of peace officers across the majority of the counties in state of California. We need, you know, these protections in order to be marketable in our profession, to make sure that we have adequate staff, to provide efficient, safe services to the community, and to keep them safe.
And right now, we are really, really hurting in that area. We have a staffing crisis that is not just something that can be addressed by pay and benefits and wages, but also with other protections that are afforded to the peace officers that are working in the correctional facilities all across this state. There is a disparity in the way that we are treated in San Joaquin County, and this bill will address that and bring us up to par with the majority of correction officers in the state of California. And, again, I ask for your support. They give us the peace officer bill of rights.
It'll give us other protections afforded. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And who will be your second witness today? Right here. The daughter. Wonderful.
You have two minutes.
Speaker 63
Good morning. My name is Pauline Scanlon, the oldest and second oldest daughter and second child to the late and beloved officer Scanlon, Fresno County CEO who was shot in the Fresno County Jail in a line of duty back in 09/03/2016 and later succumbed to his injuries on 10/12/2021. I'm here with my mom and two sisters alongside our CEO families to ask for your vote of inclusion amongst our San Joaquin Valley and Fresno County correctional officers to official peace officer status. Your vote not only secures that our officers and families would receive the same protection and benefits that the rest of the California correctional and law enforcement agencies are entitled to, but your support and vote for a b 2,004, the Scanlan bill, does not, in any way, shape, or form, jeopardize or impede any of our fellow opposition agencies' benefits, protection, or status. This is strictly for our officers' equal protection, equal safety, and equal status.
I didn't just lose my dad. I lost my superhero. And it's forever changed our lives emotionally, spiritually, and financially. Passing this bill won't bring my dad back, but it will honor his sacrifice by securing other CO families' futures and ensure no CO and their families will be left behind. With much respect, thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your presentation, and thank you both for your testimony today. Appreciate you being here. Next, we'll take the me too's in support. Come on down. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please let us know your name, if you're with a particular organization, and your position, which I presume would be support.
Speaker 33
My name is Ruben Canal. I'm vice president of the Fresno County Public Safety Association. I support this bill.
Speaker 1
Hello. My name is Jose Jaramillo. I am a member of the Fresno County Public Safety Association, and I support this bill.
Speaker 63
My name is Angelina Alvarez. I am part of the Fresno County Public Safety Association, and I support this bill.
Speaker 7
My name is Colonna Scanlon. I'm the daughter of Toa Malama Scanlon, and I support this bill.
Speaker 64
My name is Melania Scanlon. I'm also a daughter of officer Scanlon, and I support
Speaker 12
Ricardo Sevilla Nekuchea, president of the Fresno County Public Safety Association. I support this bill.
Speaker 14
My name is Alexis Guerrero. I'm with the Fresno County Sheriff's Office, and I support this bill.
Speaker 46
My name is Benning Navarro. I'm a correction officer at Fresno County, and I support this bill.
Speaker 39
Nick Romero with the Fresno County Public Safety Association, and I support this bill.
Speaker 81
Isaiah Benuelos, correction officer, Fresno County. I support this bill.
Speaker 28
is Wilfredo Mendoza. I'm with the Fresno County Public Safety Association, and I support this bill.
Speaker 1
My name is Paivan Ntakuman. I'm with the Fresno County Public Safety Association, and I support this bill. My name is Mitchell Ozzano. I'm a correction officer with the Fresno Sheriff's Department, and I support this bill.
Speaker 44
My name is Jose Alvarez. I'm correction officer of Fresno County, and I support this bill.
Speaker 47
My name is Joseph Delos Rios with the Fresno County Public Safety Association, and I support this bill.
Speaker 47
My name is Brandon Jimenez, a correctional officer of San Joaquin County sheriff's department. I support this bill.
Speaker 43
My name is Benjamin Fouth, treasurer of San Joaquin County Correctional Officers Association, and I support this bill.
Speaker 82
My name is Vicente Razo. I'm a correctional training officer for Samoa King County. I support this bill.
Speaker 46
David Pimetel, board member of Samoa King County Correctional Officers Association. I support this bill.
Speaker 44
Joshua Calvert, Fresno County Public Safety Association. I support this bill.
Speaker 1
My name is, Mariano Montiano Junior. I'm a correction officer for the Fresno County Sheriff's Office. I support this bill. My name is Louie Gonzalez, former correction officer and with and with the inside the pub with Louie, and we support this bill.
Speaker 15
I'm Teppatasi Scanlon, widow of To'omalama Scanlon, and I wholeheartedly support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much for your testimony. Next, we'll go to any opposition witnesses. Do we have opposition witnesses here? We do. Okay.
So you two will have these seats right here. When you begin speaking, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 81
Good morning, chair. Good morning, committee. My name is Josh Stern. A deputy sheriff with the Fresno County for the last decade. Prior, I was a COO for four years with Fresno County before I went to the Post Academy.
I'm here on behalf of the Fresno County Deputy Sheriff's Association and PORAC to respectfully oppose Assembly Bill two zero zero four. The biggest takeaway from what I wanna discuss is each county in California is different and is not a one size fits all. At its core, AB 2,004 proposes a significant expansion of authority by granting peace officer status to correctional officers designated as public officers. This is not a minor adjustment. It is a fundamental shift in how local law enforcement agencies are structured, trained, supervised, and funded.
From a fiscal standpoint, this bill substantially this bill creates substantial and ongoing costs for counties. Reclassification would trigger a mandatory compliance with post training and standards, including academy attendance, continuing education, firearms qualification. These requirements bring real costs, such as training, overtime, backfill, administrative oversight. Initially, these costs are a one time cost, but it will compound year after year after year. In addition, expanding authority increases liability exposure.
With broader powers comes higher risk related to use of force, arrest authority, and civil litigation. Counties face an increased insurance costs, greater legal exposure, and potential settlement liabilities. There are unavoidable pressures, pay, retirement, and bargaining rights. And let it be known, there has been no meaningful discussion or coordination between the Fresno County Sheriff's Office, Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association, or the County Of Fresno on how this would actually work in practice. There is no clear operational framework, no administrative roadmap, and no guidance on implementation.
Speaker 1
And I'm sorry, that is two minutes. But thank you. And there might be an opportunity to add more if you're asked a question. Great. Your turn.
Speaker 83
Thank you, chair, and thank you to the committee. My name is Brian McGowan. I'm the president of the San Joaquin County Deputy Sheriff Association, serving over 550 active and retired deputy sheriffs. I recognize and deeply respect the critical role correctional officers serve in maintaining the safety and security of the custodial institutions. AB two zero zero four represents a substantial and consequential expansion of peace officer authority and raises concerns related to training, standards, role clarity, liability exposure, labor impacts, and fiscal cost.
Fairness, legal protection, contract agreement, members income, and union strength are some of the legs that DSA stands on. If passed, a b two zero so two zero zero four puts at risk the weakening of the collective bargaining unit, reduces the ability to defend our members, financial impact on members, loss of transparency and trust, and the erosion of the union relevance. In an environment where local agencies are already facing the budget constraints, a b two zero zero four creates an unfunded mandate that will ultimately fall on counties and taxpayers. Finally, this bill raises significant label labor and collective bargaining concerns, peace officer classifications, duties, and compensation structures are the product of decades of negotiated labor agreements. Expanding peace officer status to additional classifications without addressing these impacts risks dis disrupting established labor framework and creating inequalities across similarly situated personnel.
For those reasons, we respect respectively oppose a b two zero zero four unless it's amended fully to address training, fiscal liability, and labor implications. We remain willing to work with the author and the committee on thoughtful solutions that support correctional professionals while preserving the integrity of the California peace officers framework.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me too's. Come on down.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Perry. Anyone else? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais for question, comments, motions. Mister Lackey?
Speaker 12
Yeah. This is a very pivotal and important topic to discuss. And it takes courage to actually bring this to the forefront because in this situation, it's apparent that we have about 40 of the 58 counties that have subscribed to what's being requested. And I do respect the collective bargaining process. Having been subject to that process for twenty eight years of my life, I do respect it.
Speaker 12
think what it becomes very, very dangerous when fiscal cost overshadow the value of life itself. How do we reconcile that? I don't think it's reconcilable. And so therefore, I find myself in an awkward position of supporting this bill.
Speaker 1
you very much, mister Lackey. Are there other questions or comments? Oh, sorry. Mister Ramos, you are next.
Speaker 47
Well, thank you, mister chair. And just to the to the author on the comments of negotiated class and to the family, my deepest consolants condolences to you. Is this an item that was negotiated at the local level, or are we getting ahead of the negotiation process?
Speaker 43
That's actually a great question. Actually, there's been attempts on this for many, many, many, many years. The way the framework works around this is the say so goes to the guys that are patrol over jail. The jail guys can yell as much as they want, the patrol guys have the last final say. And so no matter how loud they get, it won't happen unless there's an assembly member that may be recognized what's been going on for many years who's been involved in law enforcement who can bring it in front of you to actually see what I've been seeing over the years and how the fairness and the equality is not happening within law enforcement itself.
I also got a message today from the Fresno County sheriff himself who is addressing some of the concerns that the Fresno DSA has been pointing out, which I'm very happy that they've been thinking as if, like, they were city council members or board of supervisors, but those board of supervisors are also saying that they're in support because they also see the cost savings, and they also see that how this also needs to be remedied. So as far as negotiations going, it's been going on for a long time, but nothing's been moved.
Speaker 47
So it's been a negotiated item at the table at the county board of supervisors over this?
Speaker 43
There's you know, let me let me tell you what the sheriff had told me. Retirement costs are not gonna change because correction officers already receive safety retirement.
Speaker 47
Question is to the author, not to the the sheriff of the the county. Okay. So the The question is negotiation. My concern is we're getting ahead of negotiation items that should be negotiated at the local level. Is that what your bill does or doesn't do?
Speaker 43
My bill allows them to be able to have that ability to negotiate it. Without them getting the eight thirty point one subsection c, there's nothing to negotiate unless it has already exist in law.
Speaker 81
Sir, I can I can speak to the fact that this hasn't gone to the appropriate channel first? What I can tell you, though, is that our association has reached out multiple times in an effort to extend an all branch, so to speak, to actually bring in correctional officers to our association so they can receive benefits that they are that they're asking for. And those have been denied time after time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Ramos. Assemblymember Aloniz, I have a question for you, and I have a question for your witness, the family member. So maybe in a moment, we can have her step up to that mic over there. But my first question to you, mister Aloniz, you've heard some of the concerns raised by the opposition. What's your direct response to them?
Speaker 43
That peace officer status cannot be negotiated between a county and the union. It has to be done legislatively, which is why we've been doing this over well, just the four years that I've been in here. All of us in this room who were here two years ago voted on it for other counties to do this as well. This is nothing new. This is just a legislative process that gives them that eight thirty status.
And then from there, they can negotiate it.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Could I sorry. I don't I don't have a question for you, but someone else might, and that's appropriate. Can I actually get your other witness up here or or maybe at that microphone, the family member? I think it was mister Scanlon's daughter.
Hi. Pauline. What was that? Pauline. Pauline?
Pauline. Sorry. Hi, Pauline.
Speaker 1
I had two questions for you. I've had a theme going today, and I think it's appropriate. Could you tell me a little bit about your dad? So we don't forget him.
Speaker 63
Excuse me. Sorry. Anybody that knew my dad personally, aside from me, I'm his daughter. I'm obviously, I'm gonna be biased. I could sit here and talk about him all day.
But if you were to ask a stranger on a street in Fresno, and I've witnessed this myself, a homeless guy. When my dad was in the hospital, we were staying at a house or, like, a facility called the Terry House for the the families of the officers. And a homeless man came up to me and said, what's going on over here? I said, my dad's in the hospital. He said, who's your dad?
And I said, officers Gamlin. He said, oh my god. I know your dad. I used to see him outside the jail. He would always say hi to me.
He'd always ask me how I'm doing. My dad wasn't the kind of guy that used his his, what's the word, his stature. He's a big, small dude. He's really buff. He's intimidating.
But, man, he was so humble, and he was so soft spoken. And any of the COs in this room, they'll tell you the moment he walked into that room, the inmates didn't need to be cussed out or they didn't need authority from my dad. They just respected him because he paid the same respect to them regardless of their title or their image or their past. On top of that, my dad like I said, I didn't lose my dad. I lost my superhero.
My dad was the kind of guy that just so happened to always be there when I needed him. I don't wanna take too long, but I'll tell you a really quick funny story. I used to work at, it was called Cream. It was a little ice cream shop in downtown in Fresno. His his good buddy used to own it.
And when I was working there, my dad taught me, if you're being stalked, just make sure you hang out. Like, don't let them see your car. Don't let them follow you home. And I stayed in that ice cream shop hours after my shift because I was scared that these guys that were hitting on me were gonna follow me home and try and figure out where I live. And once it got too late, said, I gotta I gotta I gotta get home.
And I get in my car, and I'm walking back towards my car, and I see this big shadow in the background. I go, who what is that? What? Dad? Dad.
And he turns around. He starts running to our Suburban. He hops in, he's trying to take off. And I I slap the car. I'm like, what are you doing here?
He said, I was worried about you. I was worried about you. It was getting late. I didn't know where you were. I said, so you saw those guys?
He said, yeah. I was waiting for them. That was the kind of guy that my dad was. He just was always there. So once again, I like I said, I can go on.
My dad wasn't just a strong man. He was a man of God. He was a man of truth, a man of justice. He was always gonna do the right thing regardless of who was looking, And I pray that that means something in this room today. Thank you.
Is there anything else?
Speaker 1
I had one more. Yes. I appreciate you sharing all that with us. Yeah. I believe at my core that he's with you today and he's standing right next to you.
Speaker 1
Unfortunately, I can't hear what he has to say. But if I can ask a really unfair question of you, it would be, if we could hear him, what do you think you would want this committee to know about the importance of this bill?
Speaker 63
I think as far as importance, once again, I can't speak for him, but I think that with the kind of man that I know my dad to be is he's very selfless. And I think aside from himself, he's probably just trying to speak for everybody else, not just working, but those to come, making sure that their safety is the first priority over anything else, making sure that when they're in the prison interacting with these inmates that they're safe, that they have the proper equipment to protect themselves. Because like, mister Lackey mentioned, what's more valuable than life? You can't argue that. And if you pass this bill, it increases those chances of our officers going home safe to their families.
And I think that's what my dad would say.
Speaker 15
I'm just sticking with consistency today. And I'm asking that as we prepare to recess for lunch, if we can acknowledge all of the families that have been here this morning with a moment of silence before we recess for lunch.
Speaker 1
Okay. We'll we'll certainly do that. Thank you. Thank you, doctor Chubb Collins. Anyone else?
Okay. Assembly member Alanis, you have a chance to close.
Speaker 43
Well, thank you, mister chair. And thank you, assembly member Ramos. Great questions. And, I wanna thank the Scanlan family, Depa, Pauline, and and their their daughters here. I wanna thank the Fresno County and San Joaquin County deputies who've came down here.
As you guys know, I was in law enforcement prior to this, and I got into that job because I wanted to help people. I wanted to help people who were helpless, that needed the help, that were calling for the help, and I wanted to be there to be that person, just like officer Scanlon was. And so I I've seen this going on for years, and now I see myself in a position where I can now help them. And so with your guys' help, I would also like you guys to help them. So I'm asking for an I vote.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. We have a second and a third.
Alright. With that, colleagues, chair recommends a strong I. Let's take the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 20 o four by assembly member Alanis, the motion is due passed. Alani Schultz? Aye. Schultz? Aye.
Alanis?
Speaker 26
Alanis? Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Haney? Harbidian? Aye. Harbidian?
Aye. Larkey? Aye. Lackie? Aye.
Nguyen? Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins?
Aye. Sharp Collins, aye.
Speaker 1
K. That measure passes. Before we break for lunch, at the request of doctor Sharp Collins, we'll have a brief moment of silence, commencing now. Alright. Thank you, everyone.
We'll meet back next door, Room 127 at 01:30PM with 10 items of business to dispense with. Thank you. Welcome back, everyone, to what I have to believe is the world's smallest committee room. But here we are. Thank you all in advance, and appreciate your help working together to get in and out of those very tight rows.
It's remarkably how poorly designed this room is, but we will persevere. So we still have our quorum. I just had a quick programming note. I wanted to note that assembly member Matt Haney will not be able to join us today. He'll be dealing with a personal matter.
We wish him all the best. But we do have a quorum and will carry on. Next, in terms of sign in order, we have assembly member okay. We have assembly member Sanchez with two items before the oh, I'm sorry. Assembly member Ransom is here.
I'm so sorry. Assembly member Sanchez, hang tight. Assembly member Ransom, would you like to begin with a B16O5 or A B2259? Fantastic. So, colleagues, this is gonna be item number 23 on our agenda, assembly bill twenty two fifty nine by assembly member Ransom.
Just as a reminder, after lunch, assembly member, once you make your presentation, your witnesses will have two minutes each to address the committee. Same courtesy will be afforded to opposition witnesses. The floor is all yours.
Speaker 5
Thank you, mister chair and, colleagues. Today, I'm here to present assembly bill twenty two fifty nine, which is a simple bill to solve a major problem. Each year, thousands of Californians are released from our correctional facilities without access to basic mental health care. While our Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provides many programs to help inmates with the diagnosis and history of mental conditions, it does not offer necessary therapy to inmates who are about to be released back into the community. The circumstances that put an individual into the justice system are varied, but the traumatic experiences are real and common.
Assembly Bill twenty two fifty nine would create a pilot program at two prisons, one women's facility and one men's facility, in order to give inmates within ninety days of their release a date date of parole eligibility to access a simple mental health service program. This bill would ensure that people nearing their release dates have access to mental health visits two per month until the date of of release arrives. Giving inmates basic access to health care whether in person or virtually can be a life changing benefit to justice impacting individuals, giving them the opportunity to process experiences and prepare for return to society. The mental health supports offered by this bill alongside other programs provide help to newly released individuals so that they can get back on their feet and hopefully stay out of prison. With me today to testify, we have Esteban Nunez on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition.
Speaker 82
Chair and members of the committee, my name is Esteban Nunez, and I'm here representing the Anti Recidivism Coalition. AB twenty two fifty nine holds profound significance to me, drawing from both personal experiences and insights gleaned from those currently incarcerated who face ongoing hardships. When I first entered the prison system at the age of 21, I was confronted with a stark reality and an unfamiliar set of situations. It was a journey marked by accountability for my actions and grappling with the harm that I caused my community and my family. Moreover, I was compelled to confront the underlying traumas that had contributed to my destructive path.
Struggling with cultural shock and emotional numbness, I found myself battling depression. Eventually, was classified as triple CMS, which is a designation reserved for individuals grappling with mental health issues, granting me access to vital mental health resources such as therapy. In therapy, I I began the arduous journey of unraveling my childhood traumas, particularly the impact of being molested at the age of six. Confronting these painful memories shed light on the motivations behind my past negative behaviors. It became evident that my actions were in part driven by a subconscious attempt to compensate for my inability to protect myself as a child.
While acknowledging that this does not absolve me of my responsibility for my actions, it underscores the critical role of rehabilitation in my journey. Moreover, the discussions with fellow incarcerated individuals revealed a startling prevalence of similar childhood traumas often normalized and left unaddressed. The essence of this bill lies in its commitment to providing essential therapeutic care to those who may not fit within the existing classifications of the prison system. It recognizes the inherent stigma surrounding mental health care within the prison walls, both among the population and its staff. Many of our rehabilitative program participants currently incarcerated have expressed a dire need for support but fear the consequences of seeking help within the current system.
Therapy should be available to incarcerated individuals irrespective of diagnostic labels. Research demonstrates that incarceration exacerbates underlying traumas, and the provision of therapeutic support can empower individuals to develop healthy coping mechanisms essential for successful reentry into society. This bill is also aligned with California's CALM initiative, which is designated to improve continuity of care for justice involved individuals as they transition back into the community.
Speaker 1
And I'll stop you there. We're a little over two minutes, I let you go because you're the only witness. Appreciate your testimony, and there could definitely be an opportunity for more in terms of answering questions. So thank you, and thank you, assembly member, for presenting the bill. Folks, as best we can, I know it's tight quarters, we have the microphone right over here next to assembly member Nguyen?
If you would like to present your me too testimony in support of the bill, you know the drill. Sorry again for the very tight quarters.
Speaker 70
Chair members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association in support.
Speaker 21
Kyan Nguyen with legal services for prisoners with children in support.
Speaker 20
Hi. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.
Speaker 31
Tina Marie Silva on behalf of CCWP, California Coalition for Women Prisoners in support.
Speaker 66
Karen Vecary, Mental Health America of California, proud cosponsor in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition to the bill? By show of hands, anybody? Okay.
Anyone else wanting to register an opinion on the bill? Okay. Back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions? K.
We have a motion by Nguyen and a second by mister Gonzalez. Any other discussion from the dais? Alright. Easy peasy. Assembly member, would you like to close?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you, mister chair. So first of all, I wanna thank mister Nunez for coming here today and for sharing a rationale and some lived experience, and that's why this matters to this community and to this state. So I just wanna close by saying that if the objective of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is truly to rehabilitate people and give them a fair chance, That work starts and ends with mental well-being of people in their care. This bill is an essential step in providing that care.
And with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member, and thank you for taking the words right out of my mouth and extending that courtesy and thanks to the witness. I too, recommend an eye and, with a motion and second, we'll conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 23 a b twenty two fifty nine by assembly member Ransom, the motion is due pass to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Alaniz? Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Haney? Harbidean? Lackie? Nguyen?
Nguyen? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos?
Aye. Sharp Collins?
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure passes, but we'll allow others to add on as they come back to the room. Thank you. And that brings us to our second, assembly member ransom bill of the day. Colleagues, this is item two on your agenda.
This is assembly bill 16 o five. And, assembly member, do you have any witnesses with you today?
Speaker 1
Okay. Oh, perfect. As they make their way in, just let them know they'll have two minutes each to address the committee. And, assembly member, the floor is yours whenever you're ready.
Speaker 5
Awesome. Thank you, mister chair and members again, for the opportunity to present assembly bill 16 o five, which is a bill, designed to enhance public safety in our state. Assembly Bill 16 o five allows judges to place a no alcohol label on IDs of individuals, convicted of serious and repeat repeat DUIs preventing alcohol purchases, to help cut down on repeat offense offenses. As we've heard and will continue to hear, we have some real stark issues that we are trying to address across our state with drunk driving. This bill will give us an opportunity to deal with the root cause, which is access to alcohol for people who cannot handle it responsibly or who have demonstrated an addiction.
As mentioned, we will be giving, the judges a tool. Minnesota has a similar law that they introduced in the early two thousands and data shows that prohibition and restriction has reduced recidivism. The second time offenders who had a sobriety requirement showed a 74% reduction in recidivism. If you are a serious and repeat offender, then this is, something that would be for you to prevent you from making alcohol purchases. Forgive me.
According to the California Office of Trade Traffic Safety, in 2023, nearly fifteen hundred people were killed in alcohol involved traffic crashes in California, accounting for roughly one third of fatality statewide. This is not just a DUR number, which with hundreds of thousands of people, across our state experiencing incidents with drunk driving, it's really important that we are stepping up right now. This is an entirely preventable epidemic that we are facing, and the bill attends to address the root cause. I wanna, demonstrate or I really wanna be clear that this is not a blanket ban. One of the things that we've heard is, you know, what about constitutional rights?
This is not a blanket ban. This only applies to repeat and serious offenders. Many DUI offenders struggle with disorders. And while alcohol addiction could be a health issue, when it intersects with driving, it becomes a public safety crisis, and we have to respond to that. So this supports accountability and intervention, having this tool for judges to work alongside ignition locks and mandatory treatment.
California already adds restrictions to driver's licenses after DUI's convictions, And license suspensions, see, are also included, but that alone is not enough. We've seen people go around license suspensions, go a lot around the ignition locks. So we wanna make sure that we are adding another tool to keep our public safe and make sure that we are responding properly to the epidemic that we are facing. Here with me today, in order to add additional context, I have Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chief Association to testify.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And before you present, mister Feldman, I will just, ask of the author. Is the author accepting the committee amendments today?
Speaker 5
Yes. I wanna, say thank you to the chair. We've had some very lengthy, amendments, and so I really do appreciate their work to help us get to a place that meets the needs of the committee as well as the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And the the feeling of respect is certainly mutual. I would just add for those in the room, if you're trying to follow along, right outside the door, I'm told we have a four page document entitled amended mock up for the twenty twenty five, twenty twenty six a b 16 o o five ransom bill. I would just note that you'll find the bulk of the changes listed in sections one through four on pages one and two as well as an addition on the very top of page three. With that, mister Feldman, you have two minutes.
Speaker 70
to hear that things were worked out on this policy, and thank the chair and thank the author for all their hard work on this one because I do think it is important policy discussion for us to continue happening in the legislature. You know, we're working a lot on DUI issues. We're looking a lot on the penalties and the accountability side, but the preventive side is just as important. And I think to the extent that this bill actually gets at the root cause, obviously, fully aware of the practical implementation issues, and I I'm glad that, again, see the amendments work through some of those those points. But, you know, the state does restrict individuals from purchasing certain products if they're shown to be irresponsible or negligent.
You know, firearms, obviously, but if you're convicted of animal cruelty, you might be prohibited from purchasing an animal. Certain online accessibility if you're convicted of having child sexually abusive material. So we do have a history in the state of regulating when someone has been found to be clearly too irresponsible or dangerous to possess, you know, whatever product it might be. And so when it comes to alcohol, I mean, obviously, there's workarounds. Obviously, there's there's issues that we'll have to continue to work through.
But in all those other instances, we don't just ever say, well, it's too hard to do this. We should just, you know, forget the laws and allow everyone to just purchase what they want. No. We we work hard to craft policy that's reasonable, meaningful, but does actually try and protect the public, and this bill does that. And for that reason, we are in strong support.
Ask and I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos in support of the measure. Feel free to come forward at this time.
Speaker 71
Good afternoon. Justin Vanzal on behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition in support.
Speaker 41
Good afternoon. Raul Verdugo on behalf of Alcohol Justice in support of, AB one six zero five.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you all very much. Just final call. I know it's tight quarters. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill?
Okay. Do we have witnesses in opposition? Okay. Great. So if you're gonna give a me too, I think you can start lining up.
There will be two opposition witnesses. So whichever two, we have two seats right here in front, and you'll have two minutes each to address the committee.
Speaker 21
Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Hyun Nguyen, campaigns and policy manager with legal services for prisoners with children in opposition to a b 16 o five. That would create significant risk to civil rights and equity. LSPC and All of Us Are None has have been champions of Ban the Box, a national civil rights movement led by formerly incarcerated people and their families to combat job and housing discrimination. Our opposition to a b 16 o five flows directly from this legacy.
Ban the Box succeeded because it recognized the visible record automatic, that visible record automatically excludes people from consideration regardless of their qualifications or rehabilitation. A marked license functions as a visible scarlet letter that will trigger automatic discriminations in an in employment, housing, and public life. People with arrest records or conviction records need and deserve reliable access to income through safe, good paying jobs. So this is just not a matter of fairness. It's a matter of public safety as well.
Research on reentry consistently shows that stable employment is one of the most critical factors to reducing recidivism. The federal First Step Act and California's own Fair Chance Act recognizes that removing barriers to work is essential for helping people successfully reintegrate. An employer seeing a mark doing a required I nine verification or a landlord reviewing IDs will have immediate grounds for discrimination even if the individual has completed probation or maintained sobriety. So this policy directly undermines the very employment opportunities that evidence shows are essential to preventing reoffense. The bias that perpetuate systemic racism because black, Latinx, and indigenous people are disproportionately penalized by the criminal legal system and therefore are more likely than other racial or ethnic groups, to have records.
If the goal is to reduce repeat DUI offenses, the and prevent serious harm, the led the legislature should prioritize investment in treatment, substance use services, preventative technology, and restorative accountability approaches that directly address behavior change.
Speaker 1
And that's your time. I'm sorry. Thank you. But we have another witness. You also have two minutes.
Speaker 76
Thank you very much. Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Rebecca Miller, and I'm an attorney with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. And I'm testifying in respectful opposition to AB 16 o five. We appreciate the amendments, and we're looking forward to reviewing them.
I think we're particularly heartened to see some of the reduced criminalization and the increased judicial discretion. While acknowledging the devastation that impaired driving can cause, Western Center is concerned that this bill proposes an unproven approach that's over breath will have harmful unintended consequences. A driver's license is a critical piece of personal identifying information that people rely on for their basic needs to apply for employment, to apply for housing, to open a bank account, to cash a paycheck, to register children for school, and identify oneself when picking them up from day care or camps, to obtain prescriptions and medical care, and to receive public benefits and social services. A designation on their driver's license advertises a criminal conviction far beyond the intended scope and with questionable value for public safety. And for low income Californians with fewer options and less resources, this can compound barriers to economic stability for them and their families.
We're concerned about discrimination and stigma, not just for the individual, but for their family members and their children. This bill will also involve significant costs for enforcement and implementation. At a time of limited resources. We encourage the legislature to invest in more targeted, Evan based approaches to keeping Californians safe. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear the me twos from others in opposition or registering any position on the bill. Please come forward at this time.
Speaker 59
Thank you, mister chair, member Sarah Fox, California Federation of Labor Unions. I believe I'm a tweener in transition. We had an oppose unless amended position because of representing delivery drivers, bartenders, food service workers. We just saw the amendments, but on first glance, they look like they go very far in addressing our concerns. So we really look forward to moving to a neutral position.
We just have to take one look outside of committee, but we look forward to this bill moving so that we can get to a neutral position. Thank you very much, the author, and to the committee.
Speaker 22
Good afternoon, chair and members. Connor Gretzman on behalf of Teamsters California and UNITE here, just wanna echo the comments of Sarah with, Labor Fed. Again, thank you to the author and the committee for their work, and we also look forward to moving to a neutral position. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Sheila Wilson on behalf of Ladefense and the Justice Jobs Coalition. We'll take a look at the amendment to the but at this point, still in opposition.
Speaker 14
Deputy public defender Estermedes on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union in opposition.
Speaker 1
Great. Just one last call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Yes.
Speaker 8
Micah Doktarov on behalf of Smart Justice California. We really appreciate the author taking our concerns into consideration, and we're gonna review the amendments.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you all very much. We'll turn it back to the dais now. Questions or comments from members of the committee? Assembly member Wynn, was that oh, okay.
Oh, double duty today.
Speaker 1
Very good. Alright. Or would anyone like to make a motion at this time? Thank perfect. We have a motion and a second.
Any other discussion from the dais? No. Assembly member Ransom, back to you.
Speaker 5
Awesome. Thank you, mister chair. So first of all, I wanna start by thanking, even those who are in opposition of this bill. I find myself on the opposite opposite side of folks who I've typically typically have worked with, whether it be labor, whether it be justice organizations, because it's the right thing to do. If we wanna talk about rehabilitation and restorative justice, restorative justice and rehabilitation both require accountability, and it also requires that we employ tools and that are helpful to individuals who are struggling.
And so while I appreciate and understand that people are fearful and concerned, I really wanna say that one of the things the one of the first questions as someone who spent a lot of time training people on restorative justice across the state, one of the first questions we would ask is how can we make things right for victims? And when we have these conversations about opposition, I don't hear anybody talking about the victims, people who are losing their lives by people's negligence, recklessness, irresponsibility, or even their illness. So while I have sympathy and empathy for people who are in the justice system, the goal is to be able to keep those people out of the justice system by doing something that they're not doing for themselves, but also by prioritizing those who, without no fault of their own innocent people out on the streets, minding their own business. And the next thing they know they know their their lives are taken and their families are changed forever. And so that is what we want to address.
We have an epidemic. We're not, as a state, we're not leading in resolving this, and we cannot do it by keeping the status quo. And so that's why we brought this bill today. So I appreciate the healthy dialogue. I'm I'm happy to continue it.
We've had great conversations with labor, with the Teamsters, and others, and we're hoping to get to a healthy place to address any of the worker issues. But this is about safety. This bill gives judges the tools that they may use to address the root cause of the problem, And we're looking, at people who are a serious and dangerous threat, who have done this over and over again because DUIs are preventable. We need people to be responsible and our roads to be safe for our kids, our community, and for everyone here. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. I'll just briefly note, colleagues, I am happy to be in a position to recommend an I today. Really appreciate the hard work of the author. I know that the bill as amended isn't everything that you set out to do. I think, nonetheless, it does seek to add a critical tool to the toolbox for judicial officers to hopefully prevent repeat offenders from becoming the reality that they often are.
I also want to thank much of what we heard from the opposition, both in the form of the testimony from our witnesses and others who registered in a position. I won't submit that we addressed every concern, but I think that some of the provisions of Brown decriminalization address many of the comments that were highlighted in the letter from at least a few of those in opposition as well as the amendments to twenty three six hundred point five subsection a. So really appreciative of the author to get us to this point. And with that, I recommend an eye. So we have a motion and a second.
Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item two, a b 16 o five by Islami memorandum, the motion is due pass as amended to the government organization committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Haney? Barbidian, Lackey?
Aye. Lackey, aye. Wen? Aye. Wen?
Aye. Aye. Ramos? Aye. Sharp Collins?
Speaker 1
it. You got it. We'll let others add on as they come back. Just a quick programming note because I know we have a few authors here that might have to be elsewhere. Next in sign and order, we have two bills from assembly member Sanchez, then we have assembly member Jackson.
If he is not here, then mister Patterson, you would be If he is here, then mister Patterson, you'll be waiting for just a little bit. So sorry. Poor mister Lackey's at the tail end, but we'll get everyone done today. Assembly member Sanchez, are we going to begin with item seven? This is 1747.
Please. Okay. We'll start with that one. Thank you. Item seven, everybody.
Speaker 61
Thank you, mister chair, members of the committee, and staff. I am here today to present a b seventeen forty seven, a measure to ensure that when a drunk driver takes the life of a human on California's roads, our laws reflect the gravity of that tragedy. Currently under existing law, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated is considered a wobbler. This means a driver who is under the influence of a substance and kills another person can be charged with a mere misdemeanor. To put this in perspective, under our current code, an intoxicated driver could face a lighter sentence for killing a person than another driver might face for simply injuring one.
This inconsistency fails to adequately protect the public from dangerous drivers and worse yet, denies justice to grieving families who lost loved ones. The need for this reform is underscored by the recent Cal Matters investigative series. Their reporting revealed a shocking reality. Alcohol related roadway deaths in California have surged by over fifty percent in the last decade. That is twice the national rate.
AB seventeen forty seven is a straightforward fix. It eliminates the misdemeanor wobbler option making vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated a mandatory felony. This ensures a uniform serious response throughout the state's criminal courts. Testifying with me today is assistant sheriff Jeff Puckett?
Speaker 46
Good morning, mister chairman and members of the committee. My name is assistant sheriff Jeff Puckett, and I'm here representing the Orange County Sheriff's Department. In my current assignment, I oversee policing services for 13 contract cities in multiple unincorporated areas, which gives us the largest public safety footprint in a county of 3,100,000 people. I'd like to thank you for your consideration of a b seventeen forty seven. I want to express we are proud to partner with assemblywoman Keith Sanchez on this important bill.
By reclassifying vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated as a felony, this bill ensures that individuals who endanger others by driving under the influence will face meaningful consequences. Like the assemblywoman pointed out, 50% of vehicle collisions have been increased in California, which outpaces national trends. It's important to say that Orange County, which reflects the majority of the state, rests approximately 10,000 people annually for DUI, of which we know one in four repeat offenders. In recent years, California has averaged more than thirteen hundred fatalities annually from drunk driving crashes alone. These tragedies are the result of individual bad decisions and are further enabled by public policies that do not adequately deter dangerous behavior.
In addition to looking at the data, it's also important to recognize the human impact. And while I can certainly share many stories in regards to the human tragedy that this this crime impacts, I think one important one to note is that on November 2025, a 13 year old boy by the name of Luis Morales Pacheco was walking to school in the city of Dana Point when at zero 08:15 in the morning, a repeat DUI offender ran him over and killed him on his way to school. This tragedy could have been avoided had this law been in place with stricter prosecutions. Under current California law, vehicular manslaughter while intox icated is classified as a wobbler, meaning it can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or a felony. And when charged with a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty is one year in county jail.
This structure of keeping as a wobbler allows for inconsistent sentencing outcomes in cases involving involving devastating loss of life. Intoxicated driver who caused a fatal crash could actually receive a lighter sense than another impaired driver whose actions result only in injury. This creates significant injustice and inconsistency for victims' families and does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime. AB seventeen forty seven strengthens the safety of California's roads by eliminating that misdemeanor option, and we would ask this committee consider an I vote moving forward.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you for the presentation and for your testimony, sir. Next, we'll hear from those hoping to speak in support of the bill. Please make your way over to that microphone. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 39
Garrett Hamilton with the California District Attorneys Association in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Wonderful. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. I just do that, by the way.
So if anyone's in the hallway, they have a moment to come in. Alright. Next, do we have anyone hoping to testify in opposition? We do. I see a couple.
So come on down once you're seated and start speaking. You'll each have up to two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 20
Good morning, chair and members. Eric Henderson. I'm the policy director at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition to a b seventeen forty seven. The Ella Baker Center believes that we all deserve to feel safe on our roads and avoid preventable deaths. However, we hold the view that the approach outlined in this bill fails to provide a meaningful solution to the issue it seeks to address.
Instead, it seems poised to further overcrowd our jails and prisons without tackling the underlying problems. Many people who engage in impaired driving are experiencing a substance use disorder. Addressing impaired driving solely as a criminal legal matter ignores the complex health issues that often contribute to such behavior. This narrow focus misses a crucial opportunity to offer the treatment these individuals truly need as well as to provide support to the survivors. Importantly, the proposed felony changes related to intoxicated vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence have the potential to encompass a diverse spectrum of individuals and cases as noted in the analysis.
Many of these cases may not warrant a felony charge, and currently, prosecutors have the discretion to determine whether to file a misdemeanor or a felony charge, and judges can also evaluate the circumstances of each case to decide whether a misdemeanor or a felony would be more suitable considering various factors. I also wanna highlight, as noted in the analysis, there's little evidence suggesting that the courts are misusing this discretion. And also noted in the analysis, the need for this legislation remains unclear. The Ella Baker Center believes that we must connect individuals to treatment, counseling, and support both before and after such incidents occur. This method offers a more humane and effective approach to ensuring public safety and addressing the root causes of impaired driving.
And for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon, everyone. I am mister Mendez, speaking on behalf of the Local one forty eight Union in Los Angeles, and we respectfully oppose this bill. The way the law is currently working right now is that there's currently discretion that the judges and the prosecutors can use when addressing cases that involve people who are intoxicated that resulted in somebody's death. And the way that the discretion works is that the ultimate question is, was there gross negligence? And if the answer is no, the next question is, was it done while committing an infraction?
And so there's a big difference between gross negligence and an infraction, and that is determined on a fact to fact basis, meaning each case is observed very differently compared to the other. What this law would do is that it would remove that kind of analysis that is very critical in our justice system. Our justice system currently functions in a way where we balance the facts. We look at the law, and we treat every case as its own case and not treat it as any other case. And by implementing this law, we are creating an unjust system that prohibits balancing the facts of the case.
Gross negligence is completely different from an infraction. An infraction is a simple act that can be treated with a citation. Gross negligence is way beyond that. It requires the mental state of reckless disregard of human safety. And by implementing this law, we would be removing this from the court system.
That means that judge judges and prosecutors that are evaluating these cases will not have the opportunity to treat them differently as they deserve to be treated. That's why we have this justice system to balance the facts of the case and ensure fairness for everyone.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the me too's. If you'd also like to be heard in opposition to the bill, please make your way up to the microphone. Everyone take their time. Don't trample over each other in this small space.
As you can tell, I'm not a big fan of this room. Whenever you're ready.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 29
Sheila Wilson on behalf of La Defensea and the Justice Jobs Coalition in opposition.
Speaker 31
Tina Marie Silva, California Coalition for Women Prisoners in strong opposition.
Speaker 60
Ariana Montes on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition.
Speaker 72
David Martinez with Street Sprawl. We're oppose unless amend to include, discretion for extraordinary circumstances.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you all. Final chance if anyone else wants to heard of the bill. Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.
Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? One, I I would just ask assembly member Sanchez, having listened to some of the testimony from the opposition witnesses, do you or your witness have any brief response you'd like the committee to consider?
Speaker 61
Sure. I appreciate that. Is this my close as well? Okay. Okay.
Great. I just wanna make sure that we all understand. I know that we have other work work in this space that other colleagues are doing, but this is a baseline about accountability. Right? And it's just starting to make sure that if an intoxicated driver, it's recognized that this is taken as a serious felony because we are always standing on behalf of the victims and justice and accountability and making sure that this is a life changing experience for them, and it shouldn't be treated as anything other than that.
Speaker 1
Mhmm. Before I go on, are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Alright. With that, is there a motion at this time? Second.
We have a motion and a second. At this point, assembly member, this is your closing if there's anything else you'd like to add.
Speaker 61
Thank you. Members, today we have a choice. We can stand with the families who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers, or you can support those who like to drink and drive. I pray that you make the right choice. Please support a b seventeen forty forty seven and help make our roads safe.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much. Thank you to everyone who testified. Colleagues, I am recommending a no, and I'd like the opportunity to explain why. Before I go on, I would like to thank miss assembly member Sanchez. Like you, I too am very concerned about the safety of our roadways, and I wanna ensure that our laws are responsive to the evolving challenges of our state.
I also apologize for needing notes, but there are so many bills to keep track of that I couldn't possibly keep all that in my head. For that reason, I authored a b fifteen forty six earlier in this session a bill to increase punishment for repeat DUI offenders. I will also note that this committee, including today, has passed or considered bills to clarify the completion of a court ordered misdemeanor diversion program for specified driving offenses didn't does not dismiss required point assessments to a defendant's driving record and to clarify that the date of revocation following a conviction for specified offenses begins when the DMV actually revokes a person's license and not on the date of conviction. Today, we've already heard or will be hearing bills to mandate IIDs for first time offenders to toll driver's license revocations for specified offenses during periods of incarceration, and to increase the points added to a person's driving record for specified crimes. I bring all that up to say that this committee takes the issue seriously and is passing a number of initiatives to tackle the issue of drunk driving on our roads.
With all of that said, I do have concerns about a B1747. Your bill would require intoxicated vehicular manslaughter with ordinary negligence to be punished as a straight felony rather than as alternative alternate alternate felony misdemeanor treatment. To be very clear, in most cases, intoxicated driving resulting in death deserves felony punishment. For example, a person who kills someone while driving impaired and with gross negligence as opposed to ordinary negligence is a person, in my view, deserving of felony pun punishment. And indeed, under existing law, they may be punished by incarceration for up to ten years in state prison.
Intoxicated vehicular manslaughter with ordinary negligence, however, and in my view, requires a greater range of possible outcomes to account for the facts of the particular case. For example, intoxicated driver whose conduct fell just short of gross negligence and whose negligence was the sole cause of death should be punished more harshly in my view than a person whose negligence amounted to low level speeding or where there where there are other contributing causal factors that contributed to the person's death. In short, that's a long winded way of saying that my position is that prosecutors and courts should retain authority and discretion to evaluate the facts and to determine the appropriate charge and punishment in these instances. I will also note separately from what I just mentioned that the bill would create inconsistent punishment under the penal code by authorizing harsher punishments for intoxicated manslaughter with ordinary negligence than are required for similar offenses that involve greater culpability, such as gross vehicular manslaughter. For all of those reasons and with nothing but respect to the author, I'm unable to support the bill today, and again, I recommend a no.
With that, we have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item seven, a b seventeen forty seven by assembly member Sanchez, the motion is due passed through the appropriations committee. Schultz? Schultz? No. Alanis?
Alanis? Aye. Gonzalez? Gonzalez not voting. Haney?
Harbetian? Lackie?
Speaker 26
Lackie? Aye. Wen? Wen not voting. Ramos?
Ramos not voting. Sharp Collins?
Speaker 1
That measure remains on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you all for your testimony. Assembly member, I know you have one more. Same witness? Yes.
Okay. Easy enough. So this, colleagues, will be next on our agenda, item number eight. This is assembly bill seventeen forty eight, almost as if you timed that to get the two bill numbers. Very well done.
The floor is yours.
Speaker 61
Thank you, mister chair, members of the committee and staff. I am now presenting a b seventeen forty eight, a bill that will prevent tragedy on our roads. Last year, an investigation by Cal Matters, reporters Robert Lewis and Lauren Helper was aptly titled 15 DUIs still driving California's failure to take repeat drunk drivers off the road. The report revealed a troubling reality of the state's approach to reinstating licenses for those convicted of a DUI. Despite California being the birthplace of our nation's anti drunk driving movement, California's alcohol related roadway deaths have spiked over fifty percent in the last decade, double the national average.
Annually, over a thousand Californians lose their lives to drunk drivers. Yes. Annually. Despite this, California returns licenses to repeat offenders significantly faster than other states. For a third DUI, a third DUI, not first, not second, but a third, the state typically imposes a three year revocation.
In Nebraska, the same driver loses their license for fifteen years. In Connecticut, they are never allowed to drive again. Our current relicensing timeline signal to dangerous drivers that their privilege to drive is more important than their right to live. And a b seventeen forty eight changes that by aligning our revocation timelines with the gravity of that offense. Testifying with me today is assistant sheriff Jeff Bucket from the Orange County Sheriff's Department.
Speaker 46
Mister chairman, members of the committee, Jeff Bucket, again, Orange County Sheriff's Department. Again, proud to work with assemblywoman Kate Sanchez on a b seventeen forty eight, which we feel is incredibly important legislation to increase public safety in the state of California. By extending license revocation timelines related to driving under the influence, this bill will enhance public safety on California's roads and highways. Drunk and drug driving continue to pose a serious danger to motorists, passengers, and pedestrians. And as mentioned earlier, over the last decade, alcohol related vehicle collision deaths have increased by fifty percent, which by far outpaces every other national trend in America.
California, again, has averaged thirteen hundred fatalities annually from drunk driving crashes alone. And like we identified, one in four offenders are usually repeat offenders. AB seventeen forty eight addresses one critical part of this problem, which is was identified by CalMatters, which is California's rapid reinstatement of licenses to first time and repeat DUI offenders. California returns driver's license to repeat DUI offenders much faster than other states. In the CalMatters investigation done in 2025, a driver's license in California is revoked for three years after a third DUI compared to eight years in New Jersey and fifteen years in Nebraska.
The investigation also identified individuals with many as 60 DUI convictions who are still able to regain a license in California. AB seventeen forty eight strengthens roadway safety by increasing its license revocation timelines for individuals convicted of DUI or DUI DUI involving bodily injury, which from a patrol operations perspective enhances that repeat impaired drivers are usually the individuals most frequently involved in serious injury and fatal collisions. This bill sends a clear message that driving on the influence is unacceptable and that California is committed to protecting the public by confronting repeat impaired driving behavior. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Next, we'll take the me too's. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, come on down.
Speaker 41
Hi. Good after good afternoon, committee chair and members. My name is Raul Verdugo on behalf of Alcohol Justice, and we are in strong support of a b one seven four eight and echo the need for effective deterrent strategies to prevent repeat DUI and protect public safety. Thanks.
Speaker 10
Mister chairman members, Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association support.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. And you're correct, vice chair. He's still wearing the very snazzy jacket that I envy. Right again. Thank you.
Alright. Anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Come on down.
Speaker 14
Deputy public defender Esther Mendez here speaking on behalf of the local forty eight LA Public Defender Union, and we respectfully oppose this bill. So this bill, what it's really doing, it's criminalizing mental health. Okay? I know that, DUIs involve people that have been harmed by those who have been drinking and driving. But a lot of times, as a practicing attorney, I see a lot of the clients walk in with letters from their rehab center.
And this rehab center is basically addressing the substance use disorder recognized in the DSM five that is causing the person to drink and drive in the first place. So this law, one of the things that stands out to me the most is that it's trying to revoke, the license from a person permanently. And it's also trying to extend the beginning stage of the timeline when a license is suspended. I represent indigent people who come from low income backgrounds, who live in Los Angeles, that is not transit centric. It is driving centric.
And these people are often trying to rebuild their lives, not only to just help themselves become a better person, meaning trying to access education, address that substance use disorder, but also create a safer community for everyone. I am going to disclose something personal. I have been convicted of two DUIs. It was not the DUI school that changed my behavioral pattern. It was not any of the conditions that the court had imposed on me to complete.
It was the rehab program that I had signed up for, and that was ten years ago. After I graduated from that rehab program, I was able to reach ten years of sobriety this year and I'm no longer drinking and driving. And the reason I bring that up is because punitive measures like this one is not the reason why I was able to create a safer environment for everyone It was access to resources like rehab.
Speaker 7
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Ilona Yanez, deputy public defender at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and I'm testifying in opposition to a b seventeen forty eight, which substantially increases the length of driver's license suspensions and revocations that apply to DUIs. And to begin with, we wholeheartedly agree that DUIs are a problem that must be meaningfully addressed and prevented. We understand and support efforts to improve road safety. However, this bill is not evidence based and will not lead to increased road safety.
Under current law, judges already have the authority to impose such penalties, including license revocation, in individual cases. We wanna preserve judicial discretion to impose penalties that are appropriate for a particular individual because unreasonable restrictions won't serve public safety and will lead to avoidable violations and a revolving door for to the criminal legal system. Access to a driver's license is a fundamental need for Californians, especially those reentering society after incarceration. According to The US Department Of Health And Human Services, a license suspension can make it harder to find and keep a job, increase exposure to the criminal legal system, and place a great strain on a person's life and the life of their family. Research has found that having a driver's license a valid driver's license and possession of a car is a stronger predictor of finding employment and leaving public assistance than a high school diploma.
Almost 30% of jobs require some amount of driving, and 75% of workers commute to work in a car. And I can speak from personal experience that for many of my clients, having a job and gainful employment and being able to pick up their kids from school, take their grandmother to a doctor's appointment is the best deterrent for getting back into the system. It follows that by drastically increasing the period of license revocation without providing accessible mental health and substance abuse services and robust investments in transportation public transportation, we're setting up people to lose their jobs to be housing, for housing instability and social isolation, which exacerbates stressors that cause individuals to abuse alcohol in the first place. This can lead to unintended consequences of more accidents and fatalities on our roads, not less. Please vote no on a b seventeen forty eight.
Thank
Speaker 1
you both for your testimony, and just wanna say congratulations to you on ten years. That's an that's a remarkable achievement, so good on
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 29
Sheila Wilson on behalf of La Defensea and the Justice of Jobs Coalition in opposition.
Speaker 20
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.
Speaker 31
Tina Marie Silva on behalf of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, everybody. We'll turn it back to the dais. Do members of the committee have questions, comments, or motions? Alright.
Right on cue, guys. We have a motion. We have a second. Any other comments, questions, coffee orders? Assembly member Jackson's ready to run out and grab coffee or no?
Okay. Very good. Alright. Like I will do like I did last time to not interrupt the flow of your closing assembly member, I would just ask you don't have to, but if there's anything that was brought up in opposition testimony that you'd like to respond to.
Speaker 61
Chair, do you mind if I allow my witness to share his testimony in response to as
Speaker 1
Absolutely comfortable with that. Go right ahead, sir. Do you have any response to what we've heard from opposition witnesses today?
Speaker 46
I do, and I appreciate the respectful testimony brought up in opposition. There were actually a few points that I agreed with, but I'd like to take a chance to maybe add on a little bit more context. So the comment that was made in terms of suspended license and using that as kind of a blockage towards rehabilitation is in fact true, but I think it leaves out the part that a DMV commissioner or a judge can still order a license to be suspended with exceptions for employment for work or other meaningful life activities, which this bill certainly does not change. We see that in law enforcement on a daily basis for those specific reasons. In addition to that, one of the things that I think that was neglected and not being brought up was an analysis was completed of this bill which got some things wrong.
Specifically, there was an NIJ article that was cited in regards to not being a complete deterrent effect because, basically, a lack of advertising on the part of the offender knowing specifically what the crime is. That actually comes from the godfather of modern criminal justice systems, a gentleman by the name of Asari Bekkaria, was a seventeenth century philosopher and is widely regarded as the godfather of western criminal justice. The comment was made in pro support of this bill as being a deterrent factor, and that's what it is at its basis standpoint. This bill acts as a deterrence. DUI offenses are widely advertised and pushed by all municipalities and law enforcement agencies across the state, and harsher penalties allow us to continue to use this as a deterrent factor against repeat offenders.
I believe these are important facts that did not get brought up by either the opposition or the analysis of part of this bill that merits certainly further discussion and hopefully an eye vote to move this bill forward.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Does that raise any other questions or comments from members of the committee? I'll just say, sir, I now wanna grab a drink with you and talk about seventeenth century philosophy. A coffee to be very clear, but we should definitely talk about seventeenth century philosophy. I'm on my fourth cup of the day.
Okay.
Speaker 1
have a motion? We do have a motion. Okay. Assembly member, you have a chance to close if you'd like.
Speaker 1
Okay. I appreciate that. I'm sorry to disappoint twice in one day. I am recommending a no, and I'll have a slightly briefer explanation. I won't repeat myself, but as I did mention earlier, the committee has already passed out or I anticipate we will pass out today several bills strengthening California's laws related to DUI license suspensions.
I will also note that my bill, a b fifteen forty six, increased the license, if signed by the governor, would increase the license revocation period for re serious repeat DUI offenses from four years to five years. Shortly, we'll be hearing assembly member Lackey's bill, a b sixteen eighty seven, authorizing an eight year license revocation for repeat impaired drivers and a b eighteen seventy four by assembly member Wilson, which we've we previously passed out, would toll the license revocation term while a person is incarcerated. Your bill, certainly appreciate the intent, but your bill would go further by drastically expanding the length of DUI license revocation by among other things. Number one, increasing the license revocation for a DUI with two priors from three years to ten years, and number two, create permanent license revocation for DUI crimes that currently result in four year revocations. This approach, among many of the concerns that I have, the key one is this.
This approach would create inconsistency in the state's revocation framework by singling out DUI license sanctions for lengthier suspensions, whereas other serious vehicle crimes that that are punished more severely in terms of incarcerated time would receive comparatively shorter license sanctions. For example, this bill would subject misdemeanor DUI with two priors to a longer license revocation term than gross vehicular manslaughter that results in death. Further, the bill would establish permanent revocation for specified offenses, including DUIs with three or more priors. A lengthy license revocation is certainly appropriate in these cases. For this reason, my bill, a b fifteen forty six, would increase DUI penalties and also created a new five year license revocation for serious repeat offenders.
But in my estimation and with all due respect, a permanent license revocation is unwarranted and, I would say, excessively punitive. For that reason, I'm recommending a no on a b seventeen forty eight. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item a, a b seventeen forty eight by assembly member Sanchez, the motion is due passed to the Transportation Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Schultz? No. Alanis? Aye. Alanis?
Aye. Gonzalez? Gonzales not voting. Haney? Harbetian?
Blackie?
Speaker 26
Blackie? Aye. Wen? Wen not voting. Ramos?
Ramos not voting. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins? No.
Speaker 1
Yes. I'll grant it. Oh. I'm sorry. Do we have unanimous consent of those present to grant the reconsideration to the member?
Does anyone object? Okay. Reconsideration will be granted. Thank you, assembly member. Thank you to the witnesses.
Speaker 1
And, yes, just to be clear, philosophy discussions over coffee. Very nice. Okay. Next, we have assembly member Jackson. Are you here?
Yes. You are. Okay. We have, this is item number 19, colleagues. This is Assembly Bill twenty one nineteen, and then we will get to mister Patterson who's been waiting very patiently.
Thank you, Assembly Member. Assembly Member Jackson, the floor is yours. Do have any witnesses with you today? No. Okay.
So you feel free whenever you're ready.
Speaker 84
Thank you very much, mister chair, committee members. First, let me say that first, I wanna thank committee staff and the chair for their amendments, and I'll be accepting them. And I really I anticipate that this bill will continue to be amended along the process until we until we get it right. This past summer, I was approached by a constituent who's a victim of sexual assault, and I asked him to write a bill that he believes would bring him justice. And that's the bill before you all today.
And understanding that the victim understood that this goes through a process of refinement that will hopefully continue to strengthen the bill. And what I mean by strengthen in this context is, how can we bring as many people to justice that currently feel like they're not receiving justice who are victims, of sexual assault? And so a v twenty one nineteen aims to ensure that victims of sexual assault or domestic violence receive a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation regardless of gender. Specifically, this bill would require law enforcement and district attorneys to follow clear, trauma informed procedures and eliminate gender bias in questioning and decision making. Sexual assault remains a persistent and deeply rooted problem in The US affecting individuals of all ages, genders, and backgrounds.
In particular, for far too long, male survivors encounter additional barriers to reporting, including stigma, harmful stereotypes about masculinity, fear of not being believed, and the false notion that a man cannot be a victim. As a matter of fact, our Department of Justice, US Department of Justice, has many reports on this that confirms that there's many biases when it comes that is preventing the victims from receiving justice. So we have a responsibility to help close these gaps as much as we humanly can. And as you know, being human means messy, which means that sometimes when you try to correct one thing, there might be an unintended consequences for another. And how do you create the greatest amount of good for as many people as possible?
But that's what this bill intends to do to ensure that we continue to work on and recognize that our current system, as well as our current culture and biases that come with it, are preventing all victims from getting the justice that they deserve. And so through this process, I'm looking forward to continuing to refine this process. I'll be working directly with the Police Chiefs Association as well who have a number of technical things that I have no problems with. Of course, as you know, this is a rest process right now, and we're trying to so we didn't have the time to generate language and and present it in this committee, but looking forward to doing that in the judiciary committee. And every step of the way, the idea is is that we've got to figure this out.
It's messy, but I think it's worth going through this process every step of the way until we get it right. So with that, I'm looking forward to any questions anyone may ask me. But I think this is a process we're going through. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. We'll now go to the me too's. There any other folks that would like to register a position of support on the bill? Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition?
Okay. Yeah. Come on down. Great. And then just because I think I didn't see you earlier, I'll just remind everyone you each you each get two minutes to address the committee, and I'll if you look up, I'll try to time you when you're getting close.
Speaker 10
I tried to defer. Just want that recognized. Mister chair and members Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, regretfully in opposition to the bill. Obviously, law enforcement doesn't agree with doesn't disagree with the sentiment of the bill's text that every victim of sexual assault or domestic violence has a right to a fair, unbiased, and complete investigation. In fact, we think every victim, irrespective of the crime, deserves that no matter the victim's characteristics.
But this bill makes broad pronouncements about how certain investigations should be conducted using undefined and vague terms and then opens the door for litigation that could result in enormous fiscal liabilities for public agencies. Under the bill's language, a person could assert that a law enforcement officer or agency failed to take a, quote, unquote, complete investigation, an undefined term, of a reported crime. And that alone would be the basis for the person to then sue the agency for actual and compensatory damages, pain and suffering, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and court costs. Similarly, law enforcement could, by no fault of their own, fail to collect, quote, unquote, all relevant evidence in connection with a case and be subject to the same type of litigation. Obviously, law enforcement attempts to do its best when investigating reports and collecting evidence in all cases irrespective of the victim's characteristics, but this bill opens the door to baseless claims and crippling litigation that could result from a person simply feeling as if the investigation of their crime report failed to meet their personal expectations.
The bill also installs unfunded mandates related to training and the adoption of policies, and the analysis also notes other practical concerns with the bill. And for this reason, and those previously stated, we must oppose the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 85
Good afternoon, chair and members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and very respectful opposition. So this would impose substantial additional burden on DA's offices for investigating and prosecuting cases with no concomitant funding to do that. DA's offices, even small ones across the states, have thousands of domestic violence and sexual assault cases in each jurisdiction each year. And this bill directs prosecutors not to rely solely on the report of the investigating agency, which is what prosecutors do.
Like, that's all pretty much all they get, and then requires each district attorney to establish a separate process that includes its own independent investigation. DA's offices have a handful of investigators, but they are not set up to be a parallel law enforcement investigating, agency. Additionally, the bill requires prosecutors to provide a report to victims explaining whether criminal charges will be filed and identifying those charges. All of those provisions make a separate, different sort of way of doing things than DAs normally do. Now we hope that DAs review investigations carefully and thoughtfully and routinely request follow-up from the appropriate investigating law enforcement agencies so that victims get the justice they deserve.
But we are afraid that this separate process would be unduly burdensome and wouldn't actually necessarily lead to to greater justice for there therefore, we must respectfully oppose.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me too's. Would anyone else like to register a position of opposition on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it over to the dais.
Any questions or comments from committee members? Or if not, motions are also okay. We have a motion by Sher Collins. Do have a second? Second.
Second by Ram oh, sorry. Ramos didn't comment. Okay. Thank you. So we do have a motion and a second, but the floor goes to assembly member Ramos.
Speaker 47
I wanna thank the author for bringing this this up and certainly, the work that we've done together, within the the tribal community addressing missing and murdered indigenous women. And we know that the sexual exploitation and those things do address those areas too. So I wanna thank you for bringing this up. But we do hear concerns, from opposition that's there, and I know this is the beginning of the process. But intrigued in in in how this could actually start to move forward on some of those cases that are out there not even being investigated in Indian country.
Mhmm. Would really like to see, opposition and yourself come together, and start to work through some of those issues. I know this is the beginning of the process. Mhmm. So I'm gonna be looking forward to seeing, some of the progress on this bill.
I will support it today Mhmm. Because of those issues that I mentioned, but I will be looking at it, seeing making sure the progress is there, and specifically on how it addresses missing and murdered indigenous women.
Speaker 84
Absolutely. If if I may, mister chair. I wanna thank you for those comments, assembly member. You have my commitment to work with them. I don't see any ideological differences here.
I mean, obviously, again, as you know, the process, we all saw the analysis at the same time, and so we haven't had even the opportunity since last night to kind of work through it and kind of figure out and even provide technical assistance. So, I have given my office direction to reach out to all the agencies to ask for technical assistance to continue to work through the process and to make sure, that if there's unintended legal liabilities that aren't really supposed to be a part of the process or intent of the bill, but really just making sure that based upon, you know, sometimes depending on who comes to the door when they are receiving a report, as the Department of Justice has noted, sometimes it's based upon their own biases that, hey, no, you're a male. It's not possible for you to have been sexually assaulted. So therefore, we don't think an investigation is necessary, and we move on. And it happens because that was the author of this bill.
And so I think that we have some things that we can work on. And the idea here is just to try to get as many people justice as possible, of course. And we will continue to work with the opposition today and any opposition in the future. We want to get this right. And we want to make sure that we do this in a fair and balanced way to everyone involved in the process.
And so assemblyman, you have my commitment to go through this process and also to work with your office as well to ensure that the lived experiences of our the first people of the state are included in the process.
Speaker 1
Wonderful. Thank you both. Any other questions or comments? Alright. Would you like to close, doctor Jackson?
Speaker 84
Thank you. I think this was the beginning of a great conversation, a great process moving forward. And, again, the purpose of the legislative process is to continue to refine and to continue to make sure that if people have concerns, please engage with the office. This is too too important of an issue not to, and and we wanna make sure that everyone is respected along the way. So with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Well said. And just to confirm, you are taking the committee amendments? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you.
Colleagues, I recommend an I. Appreciate the author and take him at his word. Sounds like there's more conversations to be had. I trust that they will happen. And as I told you in private, doctor Jackson, to the extent that I or committee staff can continue to be a resource in any way, shape, or form in facilitating those conversations, happy to do it.
Absolutely. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 19 a b twenty one nineteen by assembly member Jackson, the motion is due pass as amended to the judiciary committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Gonzales? I. Gonzales, I. Haney, Harbidean, Lackey? Not voting.
Lackey, not voting. When? Ramos. Aye. Ramos, Sharp Collins?
Sharp Collins, I.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure remains on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you. Okay. Mister Patterson, you have been incredibly patient.
If you are ready to come up, we'll be going to item number 22, colleagues. This is assembly bill twenty two thirty seven by assembly member Patterson. The floor is yours whenever you're ready.
Speaker 34
Great. Thank you, mister chair. See you guys having a pretty quick, hearing today, so won't take up too much time. You know, I wanna, start off by you know, this is actually my assembly fellow's first bill that she's staffing that I'm presenting today. So we have an internal competition on who's gonna get the most bills out of committee.
So just keep that in mind as we move forward. Also, wanna thank again, you know, the staff. It really is, you know, you from your team, it's really good to at least have conversations about these really important issues. So I am thankful for for that opportunity. But here today to present AB two two three seven sponsored by my good friend, Placer County district attorney Morgan Geier, who you may have noticed has been in the news as of late.
Just feel free to Google his name, but keeping the entire safe state safe, I would say, I would argue. But what two two three seven does is it provides judges the discretion to increase probation for up to three years on sex offenders for felony and misdemeanor cases. And as you know, prior legislation in the past capped probation to one year. And as what the district attorney will talk about is what we've seen, and and I really wanted to focus on the misdemeanor cases, actually. I I know that there were some conversations around misdemeanors, but to me that that's more important is because if there is a these are individuals that our county and other counties are actually trying to rehabilitate and get back and become productive members of society once again.
They're living in society already, and they're under probation. And one year actually doesn't give them the amount of time needed to be rehabilitated in a way in which, again, they could be productive. And if there is an issue on the probation front, by the way, because a lot of the opposition letters spoke about, you know, incarceration and things like that, these individuals aren't being reincarcerated, you know, when there are misdemeanor cases and there's a violation of probation. So that's really what the intent of the bill is actually, while we talk about felonies and misdemeanors, is actually around the misdemeanor individuals so we can keep the the supervision on them and help them actually become successful. So with that, I actually will just turn it over to the experts because that is definitely not me.
And as mentioned, I have mister Morgan Geier as well as Siri McLeod with us here to discuss this legislation.
Speaker 57
Thank you, and good afternoon, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of a b two two three seven. Specifically, this problem addresses misdemeanors, mixed misdemeanor sex offenses. Under current law, sex offenders, convicted of misdemeanors are placed on probation for just twelve months. The required sex offender counseling, as deputy probation officer McCloud will talk about, are ordered to complete those courses that typically last eighteen months or longer.
That means supervision ends before treatment is finished. Accountability ends early and risk is pushed back into the community unmanaged. AB two two three seven closes the gap by allowing probation terms of up to three years so courts can ensure the treatment has not just started, but that it's completed. And let's be clear about who we're talking about. These are offenses like the man who sits next to the young teen at the children's movie and slowly rubs her leg as she's paralyzed with fear.
The man who videos young girls and women in public places without their knowledge or consent. The man who masturbates in public directing his conduct towards children and families. These aren't low level offenses. These are predatory behaviors. They cause real harm, and they often are early indicators of escalating conduct if not addressed with meaningful intervention.
Probation is the tool that allows us to intervene. It requires counseling. It creates structure. It provides supervision and accountability, but it only works if it lasts long enough to matter. If probation ends at twelve months while treatment is still ongoing, we are effectively walking away mid process, removing oversight at the very moment it is most critical.
AB two two three seven is about prevention. It ensures that individuals complete sex offender counseling and remain supervised while doing so. That is how we reduce recidivism. That is how we stop misdemeanor conduct from becoming felony conduct. This bill strikes the right balance.
It preserves judicial discretion. It prioritizes rehabilitation, and it puts public safety first. For those reasons, I respectfully urge your I vote on a b two two three seven. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Hello. Greetings, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Again, my name is Siri McLeod. I am a senior deputy probation officer representing Placer County probation department in support of a b two two three seven. I'd like to note that I serve on a speaker of the assembly appointed position on case on the California Sex Offender Management Board.
I'm also the supervision representative for the California Chapter ATSA or the Association of the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse. I also teach sex offender supervision for California probation officers through Serrato, the state authorized risk assessment tool for sex offenders. And I also am our department trainer on sex offender supervision. Placer County Probation supports AB two two three seven, and I do wanna speak on the treatment piece as to why. Studies indicate that the risk of reoffense amongst adult males with a history of sexual offending is highest within the first few years following release from custody.
Reoffense rates decline as individuals age and remain offense free in the community. Therefore, timely engagement in sex offender treatment upon release, whether following an the instant offense or a probation violation, is critical. Longer periods of supervision can further enhance community safety by supporting sustained participation and treatment. The abbreviation of probationary periods following a b nineteen fifty has had a detrimental impact on treatment dosages for individuals convicted of sexual offenses. Many individuals are unable to complete case on certified sex offender treatment within the two year time frame.
In practice, treatment rarely begins immediately after release from custody and initiating services can be, consuming time consuming for a plethora of different reasons. Additionally, case on certified treatment providers are limited in many county in many counties and in some areas nonexistent, creating further delays. Periods of custody can also interrupt or postpone treatment progress. More importantly, an individual's level of personal responsibility and honesty regarding their offense can either facilitate or hinder progress, often necessitating extensions of treatment duration. Lastly, consultation with a local case on sex offender treatment provider indicates that only a minority of individuals continue with their sex offender treatment after their probation term is concluded.
Thank you.
Speaker 85
Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.
Speaker 30
Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff Association representing the county's probation officers in support.
Speaker 4
Chair members, Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in support.
Speaker 66
Hi, again. Stephanie Herrera with the Empower and Resilience Project in support.
Speaker 61
Annabel Velasquez with the Justice Advocates Battling Exploitation and Lies in support.
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, members Corey Sazelow on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you everybody for registering your position of support today. Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition? Okay. Do we have one or two witnesses?
You have two. Okay. Can I get one of you to thank you? One of you are more than welcome to stay up with mister Patterson. We just need those two chairs right there.
Thank you. Alright. Come on down. Once you begin speaking, you will each have up to two minutes to address the
Speaker 50
opposition to assembly bill to assembly bill twenty two thirty seven. Better? By assembly member. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice. Thank you, mister Lachie.
Here today in respectful opposition to assembly bill twenty two thirty seven, just six years ago, AB nineteen fifty authored by then assembly member Kamlager Dove set the statutory ranges of terms of probation to up to two years for a felony conviction and up to one year for a misdemeanor conviction with limited exceptions. This was both a historic and evidence based reform, marking California as a trailblazer and role model for the rest of the nation. AB twenty two thirty seven seeks to reverse this progress. AB nineteen fifty already allowed for extended terms for offenses defined by laws of violent felonies and offenses that include a specific probation term within its provisions. The most serious two ninety offenses are already covered by this exception.
Research shows that the period of highest concern is often quite short with the highest likelihood of probation violations occurring in the first few months of a probation term. Ensuring adequate supervision during these early months yields the biggest public safety returns with supervision experts agreeing that probation terms should generally not exceed twelve to eighteen months in total. Many of the offenses that the author has highlighted as the drivers behind this bill are wobblers. As such, district attorneys and judges already have flexibility to resolve the case as a misdemeanor or a felony, and if imposing probation, apply the appropriate probation term within their respective range. Extending the probation terms as this bill proposes will not make our community safer, is costly to the state, and is unmistakably misaligned with evidence based public safety best practices.
We urge the committee to vote no on this measure. It is imperative that the state is investing in public safety solutions based on research and a proven track record of success. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Can you hear me? Wonderful. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Shivani Nashar, and I'm the policy associate with Initiate Justice. We are in respectful opposition to a b twenty two thirty seven.
There's no evidence that shows that adding even an additional year to someone's probation term increases their chances of success or enhances public safety. And since 2021, when a b nineteen fifty was implemented, research has continued to demonstrate that longer supervision periods amplify stressors that make reintegration more difficult. People on multiyear probation face ongoing uncertainty about the future, navigate homelessness, difficulty obtaining stable employment, and constant fear that minor missteps could trigger legal consequences even when they are making positive changes in their life. This demonstrates that social stability, not just time under supervision, is critical to safety outcomes. National analyses show that a disproportionate share of jail admissions, which is incarceration, result from technical noncriminal violations rather than new offenses.
As a reminder for us all, technical violations can look like being late to a treatment session because you need to take multiple buses to get there or struggling to pay a fine payment on time because you can't get a job. Imagine not being allowed to live in a certain neighborhood because your standard probation condition requires you to avoid certain people, yet that is also where your family lives, and you need to drop your child off with them so that you can attend mandated treatment. This is the real juggling act that people on probation struggle to maintain, forcing them to be dependent on the hopeful goodwill of their probation officer and risking a signal technical violation that can result in a loss of all the positive time spent while on probation. Researchers have also found that lengthy probation terms can actually result in a net decrease in public safety. This is because extended terms can serve as a disincentive for people on probation to engage in programming, such as sex offense treatment programs, while simultaneously increasing the obstacles people face in establishing resources to help prevent crime.
Finally, states that have reduced supervision links and moved away from overly long probation have actually not seen rises in crime. Instead, they have freed resources for targeted support services, mental health care, substance use programs, education, and employment assistance, which evidence demonstrates they're far more effective at cultivating a safe society.
Speaker 1
It goes quick. I know. Alright. Next, we'll take the me too's in opposition to the bill. Come on down.
Speaker 42
Afternoon. Ben Bachus, Verrilla Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.
Speaker 29
Sheila Wilson on behalf of La Defensea and the Justice of Jobs Coalition in opposition.
Speaker 60
Ariana Montes on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice in opposition.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 14
Deputy public defender Ester Mendez on behalf of Local one forty eight, the LA Public Defender Union in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, everyone. We'll turn it back to the dais now. Mister Lackey, you're first up.
Speaker 12
Yeah. First off, let me just say that I'm very frustrated by a reality that it seems to exist in our culture. The probation officers are limbo officers. They're not embraced by law enforcement because they're too friendly with offenders, and they're not embraced by these folks because they're too harsh on offenders. My personal opinion is that these people are trying to help.
They're motivated by pure motives and trying to assist offenders. Now it's a very complex population, and it's filled with a variety of of people and their desires to want to improve and want to change. Sex offenders need help, folks. They need help. And this is not driven this piece of legislation to try to punish.
It's to try to help. And I I know that it's it's perceived in the hearts of many people that probation officers are punitive. I think that's unfair. It really is unfair because they're trying to help people adapt into society. And it's viewed by too many people as something that is cruelly truly unfair to these these people that are that have a no win set of circumstances.
They have no allies except fellow probation officers. That's wrong. It's wrong, and I hear the opposition say that there's no evidence to show that extended probation helps. You know why? Because we've never done it.
So there's definitely no evidence, so give it a try. I'm telling you folks, sometimes stereotypes are the enemy to good change. And I think that's what we have here, and I hope that you'll give this a chance because it is well intended and give it a chance to prove itself. And I am clearly in support of this.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Lackey. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. Mister Patterson, I'll ask you one. In fairness, we heard a bit of critic a critique from the opposition witnesses.
Do you or your witness have any response that you'd like the committee to consider?
Speaker 57
Thank you. I'll just respond to two quick points. Number one, the crimes that I enumerated earlier are straight misdemeanors. Those aren't wobblers. So in those situations, would not have the ability to prosecute under a a felony violation for a longer probation period.
And two, the general body of study that the opposition cites, I generally agree with. The only exception to that specifically are the group of sex offenders that do require longer periods of super supervision in order to achieve the the rehabilitation that is being sought. With that all, give it back to
Speaker 34
Great. Thank you. You know, I just, I have a little bit of institutional knowledge around this subject, believe it or not. You know, as you may know, I used to be a staff person here for many members, but one of them being now district attorney Todd Spitzer when he was in the assembly. And one of the things he did was author, along with Judy Chu, was AB two zero one five, created the California Sex Offender Management Board.
And we were also I also worked here at a time where prison realignment and the discussions with the plot of lawsuit and realignment, And the entire purpose of the program was, putting people back into the communities through the probation programs with the intent that probation would have oversight over, certain individuals at at various degrees. The entire purpose was probation would be able to monitor individuals and make sure they got the treatment. It was rehabilitation focused. That was the entire purpose of the history starting from when we had prison overcrowding because, you know, medical receivership to now. So and we did hear, you know, one of my witnesses, you know, Siri, she's, you know, appointed by the speaker.
She's an expert in this, field, sits on the California Sex Offender Management Board. And I gotta say, like, I I feel like, you you know, the the date she gave data that conflicts with the data of the opposition. We're talking about specifically, my focus is really wants to be on those misdemeanor people's misdemeanor cases so they can actually get the treatment that's necessary so they don't reoffend and go to prison. That's what we're trying to prevent. So, anyways, mister chair, thank you for the allowing me the tirade.
Speaker 1
Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? I believe we need a motion. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Mister Patterson, would you like to close?
Well,
Speaker 34
thanks again, mister chair. Just to reiterate, I mean, the the state of California has spent billions of dollars as you know, you know, reform first, not only on incarceration, but also moving from a time where people were incarcerated, prisons were overcrowded, went to the prisons at the time, people sleeping in bunks and things like that, to put people back in the community again for the purpose of of some kind of oversight after a crime is committed to make sure that they don't reoffend. And that's what this legislation is committed to doing is to actually ensure that the people who have committed crimes receive their probation and receive the treatment as mister Guyer was saying might take eighteen months. We wanna make sure they're actually successful and not going to prison. That's our goal with this bill is actually to prevent incarceration.
So with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, mister Patterson. Colleagues, I am recommending a no. However, I will note that I have enjoyed working with this author, and I certainly have no question as to his intent in bringing the bill forward. I think there is common ground to be found on the fact that some registered sex offenders on probation could use more time to complete their real rehabilitative treatment programming. I completely agree.
My understanding, mister Patterson, is that your version of the bill as proposed sought three years for both felonies and misdemeanors. I would like to note to colleagues that the committee amendments, I believe, did achieve that at least as it relates to felonies. I know you didn't take those amendments, but I will note that assembly member Davies did in a b eighteen sixteen, which I anticipate passing out of committee today. So there is some good to come from this conversation. I would simply say that in my experience as a prosecutor, though I certainly don't have all the experience in the world, misdemeanors are not treated equivalent to felonies.
There are distinctions. And, traditionally, in addition to incarcerative time having a having a distinction, so does the period of probation. Perhaps the conversation can continue, and perhaps there's more information and evidence that you can provide to me. But as I sit here today, I am I am unmoved and unconvinced that misdemeanants require a three year period of of probation as equivalent to felony probation. For that reason, colleagues, I am recommending a no vote today.
Mister chair, could
Speaker 34
be the bill and then, maybe do, like, a reconsideration type if we can come to some kind of agreement, not a full presentation.
Speaker 1
Give me just a moment. Mister Patterson, why don't we go ahead and do this to just keep it nice and clean?
Speaker 1
Let's take the vote. If you ask for reconsideration, I will grant it to you, and I will be happy to assuming there's no objection from the body, and then I'd be happy to talk with you about maybe another approach on the bill, but just to keep the record very clean. Sounds good. Okay. With that, we have a motion and a second and a recommendation from the chair.
Let's call the roll.
Speaker 26
For item 22 a b twenty two thirty seven by assembly member Patterson, the motion is due passed through the appropriations committee. Schultz? No. Alanis?
Speaker 1
Okay. We have absent members, but that measure will fail. So for the purposes of of now, you ask for reconsideration. I will grant it. There no being no objection.
We'll continue the conversation. Thank you, mister Patterson. Thank you, everybody. Alright. Mister Lackey.
Here we go. Assembly member Lackey, would you like to go in file order, or is there any particular order you'd like to take your bills? Doesn't matter to me. Okay. I if it's all the same, why don't we go in file order?
So, colleagues, we'll be starting with assembly bill sixteen eighty five. This is item number three on your agenda. Mister Lackey, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours.
Speaker 12
Alright. Let me begin by indulging the audience and please fighting back against DUI fatigue. There's been a lot of DUI presentations today, and I feel like what I'm bringing before all of you today will will help address this tragic malady that exists in our culture. And I I thank you, mister chair, and the members for allowing me to present a b sixteen eighty five. And I wanna thank the committee staff for all working with my office on all three DUI bills that I'm going to be presenting.
As many of you may know, I am a retired California Highway Patrol officer, and I've seen the dangers and profound heartbreak that drunk driving brings to families. The reality is I more than most highway patrolmen, I focused twenty of my twenty eight years working the night shift where this is the biggest threat to our society. And even though I still believe it would be beneficial to have this bill include vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, I'll be accepting the committee amendments to narrow the three points to vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence or where the accident was done for financial gain. With new amendments, a b sixteen eighty five will still bring offenders one step closer to license suspension, keeping them off the roads and out of our loved ones and and no longer threatening our loved ones. The California DMV uses negligent operator treatment system, also known as NOTS or NOTS, to assign points to a driving record based on traffic related convictions and violations.
These points are then used to determine whether a driver's privilege to operate a motor vehicle should be suspended or revoked. If a person accumulates four points in twelve months or six points in twenty four months or eight points in thirty six months, the DMV may suspend their licenses. Currently, a conviction for vehicular manslaughter even when intoxication is involved results in a person receiving only two points on their license. Two points. This is the same number of points assessed for reckless driving and driving over a 100 miles an hour.
These crimes are not the same as taking a person's life. It's not the same as a family shattered or a parent never coming home or a child whose future is gone in an instant. We've heard some of those stories today. Reducing that loss to the same consequence as speeding over a 100 miles an hour diminishes the gravity of this particular tragedy that may occur. This bill, sixteen eighty five, makes the necessary change to the Knot's system by adding three points to vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence becoming the first conviction to have this high of a point assessment.
And with me to testify on behalf of this bill is Terry McHale with the California Highway Patrol Association and president of, government affairs and Justin is it Fence Law? Fence Law of the Safe Coalition I'm sorry. The Safe California Roads Coalition. You heard from him today already.
Speaker 73
Mister chairman, nice to be here. Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. My seven year old grandson just went from playing tee ball to playing what he's calling real baseball. And I asked him, what is real baseball? And he said, papa, real baseball is when you start keeping score.
Well, today, we're keeping score. The California Association of Highway Patrolmen represent brave men and women who see things on the freeways that cannot be unseen. My friend here, officer Lackey, goes to bed at night, I'm sure, and nightmares come from what he has seen as the consequence of drunk driving. All we are saying is that if you drive drunk and you hurt somebody, you should lose the privilege, and this is cumulative privilege. It's not even immediate, the privilege of driving a vehicle.
Mister chairman and members of the committee, I ask that you support this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 71
Thank you. Good afternoon. Justin Vanslov here on behalf of Safe California Roads Coalition. Trying to figure out something different to say to you all today. I appreciate the indulgence, mister chair and members.
Just sort of thinking through some of the both sides here. And we're talking about manslaughter for a vehicular for killing someone while you were drunk. We heard from a victim today. I remember one of my first meetings with any of the some of the victims of that are associated with MAD, and I said the word mistake. I was corrected immediately by those parents.
It's not a mistake. The moment you drink and get in a car, turn the car on, you're committing a crime. When you kill somebody, you've murdered them. Yet we have manslaughter as an opportunity for those folks. And many times we talk about addiction and other mental health issues that are related to that.
One of the witnesses previously cited that need to address their own addiction and how they receive services to help themselves. Well, truth is I'm nine years sober. The government didn't help me get sober. I did it because of consequences that I was going to face because of the the addictions that I had to alcohol. That didn't mean that I got to get away free from anything.
That meant that I had to do the hard work. These bills are all about taking accountability for the choice that you made to get behind a vehicle, turn it on, drive down the road, and in this case, kill somebody. Thank you, mister Lackey, for bringing this one and your other bills forward and ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the presentation. Thank you both for the testimony. And mister Fansalock, congratulations. Nine years. It's a lot of hard work.
Quite the achievement. Me too's in favor, please.
Speaker 85
Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. Paul Gonsalves on behalf of the California Association of DUI Treatment Programs and strong support. Thank you, mister Wacky.
Speaker 65
Gia Chen on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals in support.
Speaker 30
Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff Association and California Narcotic Officers Association in support.
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Okay. Yes. There is.
Come on down. Oh, thank you. As long as we just have two chairs available, we can cycle out as needed. Why don't you two come down here? You'll each have two minutes.
Time starts when you begin to speak. And before we begin, mister Lackey, if you'd like, you're welcome to have one of your witnesses at your side if you need any.
Speaker 29
Good afternoon, chair Schultz and members of the committee. I promise this is the last time you'll hear me speak in testimony today.
Speaker 29
My name is Sheila Wilson. I am the policy advocacy adviser at La Defensea, and I'm here in opposition to a b eighteen sixty five, which will, as you know, increase the number of points added to the driving record of a person convicted of vehicular manslaughter. Again, as you know, a person's license might may be suspended if they accumulate too many points in a specific period of time. Receiving points on a driving record can have devastating consequences to low income Californians and their families, including increased cost of insurance and even the loss of a driver's license. The loss of that driver's license is a major threat to economic security in which numerous studies have indicated a direct correlation between driving and employment.
Further, the assessment of points in the suspension of driver's licenses, unfortunately, do not get at the root causes of unsafe driving. In car safety mechanisms such as pedestrian crash avoidance systems and in car speed limit warnings as well as road design changes are all proven to provide lower instances of car crashes and fewer fatalities without the fiscal impacts. For these reasons, we urge you to vote no on this bill. I thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 22
Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez, and I'm a alleged advocate with ACLU CalAction. While we appreciate the author's motivation in introducing this bill, this proposal imposes a duplicative administrative penalty that does not address the root cause of unsafe driving in California. Under existing law or courts and the DMV may suspend a person's driver's license for receiving a conviction for several offenses, including vehicular homicide, and I believe gross vehicular homicide as well. Therefore, assessing additional points on a person's driving record vehicular homicide is duplicative and unnecessary if the overarching goal is to get people convicted of this type of homicide off our streets. At the ACLU, we encourage policymakers to search for alternative solutions that aren't punitive.
When it comes to road safety, our approach should be rooted in the belief that human life is worth protecting before tragedy strikes, not just responding after the fact. Alternatives to punitive punitive measures include evidence based and publicly funded DUI treatment and diversion programs. And expanded access to, financially, free, appropriately tailored IID technology with meaningful due process and privacy protections. We are thankful to the author for his commitment to this issue and hope he reconsider this punitive approach. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on a b sixteen eighty five.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both for your testimony. Now we'll take the me too's in opposition.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 14
Deputy Public Defender Ester Mendez on behalf of the LA Public Defender Union Local one forty eight in opposition.
Speaker 20
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. Anyone else hoping to hear it on the bill? Okay. Back to the day. Questions, comments, motions?
Speaker 43
Miss Wilson, you talked about there being a study at linking the economics and stuff like that. What study who what group did that study?
Speaker 29
I'd have to go to my letter of, opposition to cite that study. I can take that time to do it. But other members, other colleagues gave testimony in reference to that study earlier. I think it was out of New Jersey linking,
Speaker 29
know, poor unemployment or, well, unemployment to, loss of a driver's license.
Speaker 22
I believe it was the Rutgers University study. What year? It might have been sometime around 2010 Okay. From what I recall.
Speaker 43
Alright. And then one other question, miss Wilson. The road design. You got me curious. What road designs could we do?
Speaker 29
I am not an expert on it. Happy to do additional research. We work on these bills in coalition with one another. But my understanding is that there are solutions that can help. Primarily, my understanding is reducing road speeds and making it more difficult for people to then get up to speed to cause greater harm.
Speaker 43
And then my last one for you, do you not think that insurance should go up on people who drive drunk?
Speaker 29
answer is going to be that we're concerned about the harmful impacts on their families at large and not the individual themselves. And so as we've spoken in testimony on other similar bills today, we're really concerned about the economic impact on the family at large, rather than the individual themselves. And so that would be my response.
Speaker 43
I gotcha. Yeah. In my family, we call it consequences, so I agree. Thank you, mister chair. Alright.
Speaker 1
Thank you, vice chair. By the way, I wanna send you some information offline. There's actually some great I know. I got it. We dealt with it in my city.
It's amazing if you just narrow the lanes and reduce these long stretches of roadway. People will speed less, and they might drive a little bit less drunk once in a while. Who knew? With all that said, any other questions or comments? Okay.
Mister Lackey, have a chance to close. You have a motion and a second.
Speaker 12
Yeah. I just like it to be understood that I do have something to come with the opposition. I do believe that prevention is way better than dealing with consequences. But unfortunately, especially with this unique offense, we gotta do better on on the prevention side, and those prevention measures have fallen way short. And, unfortunately, we are seeing tragedy after tragedy.
You've heard of some of them today. And I wanna do whatever I can because in some instances, as you heard from one of my witnesses, consequences can also be a preventive measure. And I'm not saying they always are, but we've gotta do everything we can to try to impose upon our public the reality of what a threat this really is to our society. Every day, people are dying, folks, in California. Every day.
And it's we've gotta do better, and this bill attempts to make it better, and I hope I can get your support.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Lackey. Colleagues, I am recommending an eye. I just wanna say to the author that, as I think you know, I was looking at doing something similar in this space in the interim. I am glad that you are carrying the bill with your background and your expertise. I only ask one thing of you, and that is, as I always say, there may not be common ground, but I still believe there's value in having the conversation.
So I hope and fully expect that you'll continue to engage in the opposition and to find any common ground that might exist. With that, I am recommending an aye. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 26
For item three, a b sixteen eighty five by Aslemy member Lackey, the motion is due passed as amended to the Transportation Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz? Aye.
Alaniz? Alaniz? Aye. Gonzales? Aye.
Gonzales? Haney? Harbinian? Lackey? Aye.
Lackey, I. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen? Aye.
Ramos? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Sharp Collins.
Speaker 1
That measure passes. I was off. I was wondering what assembly member Lackey was gonna do on this one. Very well. Okay.
We have two more bills. I'm just gonna do a quick PSA. If you're a member if your staff and you're watching and your members are part of this committee and they're not here, please get them here. I would guess in about twenty ish minutes time so we can wrap up the day. Mister Lackey, we're gonna be taking, item number four.
This is assembly bill sixteen eighty six. You can begin whenever you're ready.
Speaker 12
Alright. Thank you, chair members. Let's get this ball rolling. AB sixteen eighty six is the second DUI bill in my package and would allow for a person to receive their second DUI within ten years to be charged with a felony or misdemeanor. Being a member of the highway patrol has been one of the greatest joys of my life.
It's also brought me to my knees in tears over the tragedies I've seen. And I do wanna add to one story that I can't get out of my head and never will. So I hope you'll indulge me for just a quick moment or two. This was unique. We had a tragedy that, killed four young people, and they were returning from a rave party.
And I'm not here to rag on rave parties or to espouse any other negative emotion, but it's a perspective that is often overlooked and something that I'll never forget. One of the occupants that was in this car that went over the edge, this daughter and her mother had moved from the East Coast due to adverse circumstances in their life. They were trying to get a new start in their life. They did and engaged in some very, very, very hurtful circumstances. So they had moved to California and had started a new life and only been here a couple months.
And the young gal that I'm referring to had created some formed some new friends, and it was the night of her sixteenth birthday. And so she was gonna go and celebrate that birthday with this family, have a sleepover with this new family that they had aligned themselves with a friendship. And so the mother said, sure. Go ahead and go over there. The mother had no idea that rave plans were were going to be undertaken.
As as you already know, it involved this circumstance that ended up in the tragic loss of this young girl. And I had the unfortunate responsibility to contact the families of of all involved because there was also some intoxicants taken that were very volatile at this time. And and it was a highly sensitive circumstance, and I wanted to be the person to deliver this news before they read about it because there's there's also a lot of media attention over this particular incident. And so to make a long story as short as I can, I went about three months later, we got the results? And I went to contact the mother, and I knocked on the door, knocked on the door, knocked on the door, got no answer.
So I went to her employer. I knew who her employer was. And they said, no. This young lady had recently withdrawn from work, had not shown up for work. And I said, well, did she relocate?
Did she give any forwarding address? No. She did not. So I went back. I went back to the home, knock, knock, knock, knock, knock, and announced who I was and that I had sensitive information to share.
The mother answered. You could tell this impacts me still. The room was dark. The room was dark, and she invited us in. She turned on the lights.
The room was filled with pictures of her daughter. This crime impacts way more than just the people we think about. And it's not just during the funeral period, not during the just general mourning period. It never goes away.
Speaker 12
the way she looked at me when she opened the door, I'll never forget. I recognize that this bill strength strengthens penalties, but it also does does so responsibility my responsibly, in my opinion. It does not automatically impose a felony. Instead, it makes the second DUI a wobbler, not a strict felony. This bill is about giving our courts the tools they need.
It places discretion where it belongs, in the hands of judges who can weigh the facts, harm, and risk to the public. What we're facing on our roads is not is not in theory. It's actually very, very real. There's even one step that we can take to prevent loss. We need to do it.
We trust our courts to make life altering decisions every day, and we should trust them to make this one. I ask for your support in this measure. I with me to testify on behalf of this bill is Kim Stone on behalf of the District Attorneys Association and Linda Ridgeman Smith on behalf of the California Association of DUI Treatment Programs.
Speaker 85
Thank you, chair and members, and, thank you, assembly member Lackey. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. So California law doesn't currently publish doesn't currently punish repeat non injury DUI drivers as potential felons until their fourth DUI and doesn't ever require felony classifications. There's 28 other states that mandate felony classification before that fourth non injury DUI, and nearly every state mandates felony classification if those four DUIs happen within a decade or a ten year period. So in California, approximately one third of all DUI convictions are repeat offenders, but those repeat offenders account for two thirds of the DUIs with injury or death.
So those are the ones we really need to worry about. They're doing the most harm. Those repeaters are killing Californians. In 2023, one thousand three hundred and fifty five deaths in alcohol involved crashes, which is a fifty five percent increase up from 2014. This increase is unique to Us California.
It's more than double the national average over the same time period. This bill makes only makes a repeat DUI a wobbler, meaning that there's discretion to both the charging DA whether to charge it as a felony or a misdemeanor. And if the DA does elect to charge it as a felony, the judge still has discretion to reject that charging discretion decision and knock it down to a misdemeanor if they feel the circumstances warrant. We think that this reasonable bill makes sense and deserves your support.
Speaker 56
Hi. And my name is Linda Bridgeman Smith, and I'm here today on behalf of the California Association of Driving Under the Influence Programs, or CADAP. We are in support of AB sixteen eighty six. And in general, CDAP is in support of all legislation that enhances and clarifies existing law. And those expectations for DUI offenders is incredibly important for everyone who works within the licensed DUI program system in the state of California.
What has been said earlier today by a number of people is that DUIs are 100% preventable, and they are. And the importance of this legislation is that it holds accountable those individuals who have done it not just one time but three times. And that means that they have probably been through a DUI program already. They have already been informed of certain things. And they have decided to continue to engage in this adverse behavior.
And so holding them accountable with the knowledge that it will be a felony will be important for that individual in our opinion. But it's also important for everyone else within the DUI treatment system because they know that there are consequences for actions if you continue to engage in this reprehensible behavior. I'd also like to note that KDAP is 40 years old this year and has been providing advocacy, education, and training around driving under the influence issues from the viewpoint of the licensed DUI provider excuse me, the licensed DUI program in the state of California. And those programs that are licensed for DUI specifically are the only program that is capable of providing the certificate of completion that allows someone to get a driver's license back should the Department of Motor Vehicles deem that it is appropriate to do so. I also want to note that DUI programs get no public funding.
And so there are payment arrangements on an individual level for every single one of those participants who are in the program, and they are able to work out payment plans because it is recognized that this has an impact on them. And thank you for, this bill and your consideration.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member and both of our witnesses for testifying today. Next, we'll take the me too's. Thank you. And to clarify the me too's in support
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 30
Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers and Riverside Sheriff Association in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition? Okay. See at least two people.
Alright. Come on down. We have two chairs for you, and you'll have two minutes each to address the committee.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon, chair. I brought if you'll indulge me, I brought up a colleague earlier today that had to catch a flight back to back to Orange County, so I'm gonna read her testimony for her. This testimony is on behalf of Tina Marie Silva, who works as the statewide hub coordinator for the California Coalition for Women Prisoners or CCWP, and she ref we respectfully oppose a b seventeen forty seven. While safety is a priority for all of us, increasing the penalties including minimum jail time will not make us safer. Tina Marie has personal experience with this topic, having served over ten years for a DUI traffic related incident in CDCR.
During her incarceration, she was able to engage in restorative justice work and program and be an active participant in her rehabilitation, but this was largely due to her own efforts rather than the support provided by CDCR. Treatment and access to mental health would have better addressed what she was experiencing rather than more jail time. And I wanna share a little bit more about what treatment looks like inside of a jail because it's already limited in the CDCR and it's even more limited in a county jail setting. Access to AA and NA programs and other programs like substance abuse treatment that help address the root cause are crucial for people, but were largely inaccessible. These programs have large wait lists.
They've offered up to only 30 people at a time in six month intervals, and you had to get on the waiting list again after if you were not able to get into the program on the first try. As is clear, that's not conducive to treating an active addict addiction, and it's not nearly enough to start the start back on the road to serious sobriety. Moreover, mental health services were equal equally inaccessible, and they are also equally inaccessible in jails. To kind of sum up, it's clear that no amount of lengthier sentences and harsher punishments are not serving as an effective deterrent for this type of conduct, And we really need to seriously look more into treatment and mental health services, which lead
Speaker 1
to I'm a road to sorry. That's your time. Good job there. Got it pretty much all in. Next witness, two minutes.
Speaker 14
Hi, everyone. I'm Esther Mendez, deputy public defender on behalf of Local one forty eight, the LA Public Defender Union, and we respectfully oppose this bill. Particularly with this bill, I want to raise my experience as a practicing criminal defense attorney. We have clients who are undocumented. And when they're undocumented, the consequences of the law are different.
This kind of, elevation to DUI charges would definitely make them more vulnerable to ICE. I know that, we have received information in general that ICE tends to work with prisons sometimes. And, also, right now, the way DUIs function is that it goes to the character of an undocumented person who wants to apply to become a citizen. And the more DUIs a person gets, the more vulnerable they are to eventually get deported. So this kind of elevation to a second DUI would definitely put them at risk.
It's already a very risky environment for undocumented people in our state. And another thing is I I know that there were some issues about, looking at punishment as prevention. And one of the unique things about DUIs in criminal cases that there is no mental health diversion option. And mental health diversion basically allows a person of being accused of a crime to address their mental health needs with adequate resources. DUI schools do not give rehab kind of education or practices.
And I also heard a person over here state something about DUI schools would work with what a person can afford. That's not true. I have seen many, many clients come back and tell me I cannot afford these classes and this results in violation of their probation. So there's no rehabilitative, option for clients right now, and just putting another consequence onto their situation is not going towards rehabilitation at all.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me twos in opposition. Come on down.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defenders Office in opposition.
Speaker 29
Sheila Wilson on behalf of La Defense and the Justice of Jobs Coalition in opposition.
Speaker 60
Arianna Montes on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. I'll turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments from anybody? Mister Vice Chair, do have something?
Speaker 43
I have a couple of things. You said you're practicing with the LA District or with the public defender's office?
Speaker 43
You mentioned about how prisons are working with ICE. Yes. Is that is that facts? Is that
Speaker 14
Right now right now, what we're doing at the office is that we cannot guarantee clients that if they go to prison, that ICE is not going to work with the prison, meaning anybody who's in charge of disclosing an information that we cannot ensure that their undocumented status would not be disclosed and put them vulnerable to ICE. And I have heard circumstances where as soon as clients are released from prison, ICE is right outside waiting to put them in a detention center to eventually deport them.
Speaker 43
Okay. Also, you mentioned about consequences of undocumented people if they get DUIs may not be able to get documented. Do you think DUIs are a good thing for them to get documented, or maybe they should not get documented or not get
Speaker 14
the law works I'm not an immigration attorney but the way the law functions is that there are crimes that are deemed crimes of moral turpitude. And right now, misdemeanor DUIs are not one of moral turpitude. However, if a person accrues multiple convictions of DUI, it can be counted against their character. However, I am using my legal knowledge and my understanding of the way the criminal justice system works, and I'm foreseeing how an elevation to a second DUI can be treated differently the way we are currently treating a second DUI.
Speaker 14
It starts at the second DUI from my understanding. My understanding is that at the second DUI, there's an opportunity to then charge a person for a felony.
Speaker 43
Okay. Well, would hope they wouldn't even get to the third or the second. But you also said that looking at punishment as prevention, you were talking about mental health. So are you saying that everybody who has DUIs has mental health? Is that what they need?
Speaker 14
No, actually. What I'm saying is that a lot of the people that are being treated, or yeah, that are being seen through the office that have multiple convictions of DUI in their record, they tend to come in with a substance use disorder. I believe someone brought up a statistic about a first time DUI and there's like a three percent recidivism rate. And that's usually because with the first time DUI, we're not seeing the same behavioral patterns with a person that commits multiple DUIs. Now we're talking about a person who keeps drinking and driving even after the consequences.
And with my background in substance use disorder, I know that people suffer with this substance use disorder. They have a behavioral pattern that is not normal compared to the average person who is not suffering a substance use disorder. So it becomes a behavioral issue that needs to be addressed by professionals.
Speaker 14
Well, that's a that's a good question because right now what we have is basically a punitive way of addressing the issue. Right? So with people that get convicted with multiple DUIs, like I said, they're more likely to suffer with a mental health disorder. And right now, we don't have mental health diversion for these clients. And so they keep coming through the doors back and back again because there is no court order for them to go to rehab supported by the government in funding it.
All we have are these DUI schools who are like, give me your money, sit down in class, here's the video, do not drink and drive, and then they go back home. And it doesn't address the mental health issue in their case.
Speaker 1
there. Thank you, vice chair. Any other questions or comments? Okay. The only thing I would ask in fairness, mister Lackey, is having heard some of the opposition testimony aside from your closing statement, anything else you'd like the committee to know?
No. Okay. Well, thank you, sir. With that, I think we need a motion and a second. Motion.
K. We have a motion and a second. Your closing statement, sir.
Speaker 12
Yeah. I would just be very cogent, very to the point. When someone gets a second DUI, they didn't learn from the first. Rehabilitation is a complex and a very individual responsibility and challenge, truthfully. Part of justice is penalty.
And when when you think of the threat that they pose, not only once, but a second time, it deserves second. New consideration. And we're we're asking that the judge be in the position to make that decision, not compulsory decision here. We're leaving it to the judge, and we've heard a lot in this committee about the importance of trusting judges. I ask that you consider this consideration in trying to prevent further tragedy.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, mister Lackey. I too, and I believe I can speak for all of us, say that we're increased with the we're concerned about the increase in DUI related fatalities and injuries in California. And I think we can all agree on one point, that is that there is more that we can and should do to keep our roads safer. I also agree that existing law is insufficient. Currently in California, as was stated in the back and forth involving the vice chair, a person's first three DUIs within a ten year period barring injury to others and other circumstances, they're all treated as misdemeanors, and only on the fourth can a person be prosecuted as a felony.
That's why as I know you know, I authored a b fifteen forty six to address this very issue. Among other things, my bill makes a third DUI with ten years of wobbler as well as the fourth. And by the way, the fifth becomes a straight felony. I believe that fifteen forty six is the more appropriate next step towards strengthening our DUI laws, and I base that on my career prosecuting DUI cases. So today, I'm sorry to say, sir, I am recommending a no, but I appreciate and admire your commitment in your more than a decade plus of experience and commitment to California.
And regardless of what happens with this bill today, I hope you believe me when I say, sir, I look forward to working with you to send a robust reform package to the senate and with any luck off to the governor's desk. So we do have a motion and a second, the chair's recommendation. We'll conduct the roll, and we'll probably need to wait for the absent members to find out.
Speaker 26
For item four, a b sixteen eighty six by Assemblymember Lackie, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? No. Alenise?
Speaker 12
Can I ask make a request that if it falls short, I'd be granted reconsideration?
Speaker 1
Okay. That brings us to one more item. And now I get to do my performative piece. To all the other members that are not here, I am now going to shame your staff. I'm kidding.
But if you could please send your member back to Room 127. We have one more bill, and I'm really hoping to get all these folks home by, like, 04:15. So please come back to Room 127. Mister Lackey, you have the final item of the day. This is item 5AB1687.
You can begin whenever you're ready.
Speaker 12
Well, I'm as ready as everyone else is. Thank you, chair and members. AB sixteen eighty seven is my final DUI bill, which is proposed to increase the Department of Motor Vehicles revocation period for a third DUI conviction from three years to eight years. Think about getting three DUIs, first of all. What are the chances, and how many times is that person driven under the influence?
It's unimaginable. I would like to once again thank the chair and committee for working with our office, and I'll be accepting the amendments. That add that a person may be able to apply for an interlock device after four years with the requirement to have it within their vehicle for two years. A recent DMV analysis followed drivers who received a DUI in 2005. Over the next fifteen years, over twenty five percent of drivers were arrested once again for another DUI.
Just think about this. We have a person that lives in Fresno that has 16 convictions. 16. Our system is really falling short. Among those drivers, forty percent already had three or more DUIs at the time.
And I'm telling you, to get caught driving DUI, that's some pretty bad luck. There's so few of us. So the chances are if you get caught, you're driving DUI too often. California was once leading the nation against driving under the influence, and now the state has fallen behind. In New Jersey, a person convicted of repeat DUIs cannot get their license back until eight years after their conviction.
While in Nebraska, it takes fifteen years. And in Connecticut, they permanently revoke a license. However, California, a person can get their license back after three years and continue to add more DUIs to the record. It's very frustrating. A b sixteen eighty seven will require the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately revoke the license of a person convicted of three DUIs for eight years unless the driver agrees to the installation of a IDD at year four.
By expanding the revocation period for repeat offenders, this bill will help make California roads safer by, keeping repeat drunk drivers from being behind the wheel. With me to testify on behalf of this bill is Rhonda Campbell on behalf of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Ryan Sherman, legislative advocate for the California Narcotic Officers Association.
Speaker 67
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time today, chairman and members of the committee. My name is Rhonda Campbell. I am the victim services manager for Mothers Against Drunk Driving in California.
I'm here today in very strong support of a b sixteen eighty seven. For me, this issue is not just policy. It's personal. My sister Irene was killed by a repeat DUI offender. Our family lost someone we love deeply because a person who had already demonstrated a pattern of impaired driving was still able to get behind the wheel.
When people talk about impaired driving, they often focus on statistics. But behind every statistic is a family whose lives are forever changed. One of the moments that will stay with me forever and for the rest of my life was at my sister's funeral. As Irene's casket was being closed for the final time, my mother screamed a scream that was the sound of pure heartbreak. A mother saying goodbye to her child is a sound that never leaves you.
That moment represents the families, the realities of many of the families that I work with face after an impaired driving crash, the empty seat at the dinner table, the birthdays and holidays that will never be the same, the milestones that person will never get to experience. In my work supporting victims and families that have been impacted by impaired driving, I have met many people whose stories mirror my own. Far too often, the responsible party had multiple prior DUI convictions. The warning signs were there, yet the opportunity for another tragedy still existed. A b 67 addresses this reality.
By strengthening license revocation for individuals with repeated DUI convictions, this bill recognizes a serious threat that repeat impaired drivers post to everyone on our roads. No law can bring back my sister, but we do have the opportunity to act in a way that may prevent another family from experiencing the same devastating loss that mine did. In honor of my sister Irene on and on behalf of all the victims and families of California, I respectfully ask for your support for a b sixteen eighty seven. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you. Good afternoon, mister chair. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association along with a number number of states law enforcement organizations in support of sixteen eighty seven, which increases the DMV revocation period for a third DUI conviction. Current law sets license revocation for a third DUI conviction at just three years, while other states have established anywhere from eighteen to fifteen years to permanent revocation of that offender's driver's license. In light of the heightened media scrutiny around our state's lax DUI laws, we were disappointed to learn that committee amendments have reduced the proposed additional five year revocation to just a single year of additional license revocation for a third DUI.
Speaker 30
A single year of additional license revocation seems wholly inadequate to address the dangers these three time convicted DUI offenders pose to the public. However, we also recognize that a one year increase is preferable to the status quo, which is why we support a b sixteen eighty seven and respectfully request an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Mister Lackey, you are accepting the amendments for a matter of
Speaker 40
Good afternoon, mister chair and members of the committee. Paul Gonzalez on behalf of the California Association of DUI Treatment Programs in strong support.
Speaker 65
Gia Chen on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals in support.
Speaker 85
Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.
Speaker 10
Mister chairman, members Corey Salzillo, behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you all very much for your testimony. Thank you to the witnesses as well. Mister Lackey and ma'am, thank you very much for being here, staying so late in the day, and telling us a little bit about your sister.
Speaker 1
Do we have anyone here to testify in opposition? And if so, do we have one or two? Just the one? Okay. Great.
There's a rough room for everybody. You can take this chair down over here. Thank you so much, ma'am. You will have two minutes to address the committee whenever you're ready.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Melanie Kim, state policy director at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. We wholeheartedly agree that driving while under the influence is a problem with devastating consequences that we must meaningfully address and prevent. We also appreciate the author and the committee for working on the amended language. However, we must still respectfully oppose.
Under current law, judges have authority to impose penalties, including including license revocation in individual cases. It's important to preserve judicial discretion to impose penalties that are appropriate for a particular individual. AB sixteen eighty seven implements a license revocation period for eight years, for a range of DUI offenses. After four years, a person may apply to the DMV to have their driving privilege reinstated on the condition that they install and maintain an IID. We're concerned that the application after four years will favor individuals who have the means to pay for and maintain IIDs.
IIDs are cost prohibitive with post up with upfront and monthly ongoing costs. We do not oppose the use of IIDs when they're implemented in a way that is evidence based, publicly funded, appropriately tailored, and with meaningful due process. Although the existing law allows for discounted IID fees based on income, these programs are often poorly advertised, difficult to access, and inconsistently enforced. Individuals who can't pay for IIDs will be subjected to the eight year revocation period, which may result in exacerbating the stressors that leads people to abuse substances. Californians rely on cars to live and make ends meet.
By greatly increasing the period of the license revocation without providing accessible mental health and substance use services and robust investments in public transportation, we are setting individuals up for job loss, housing instability, and social isolation, which can be a revolving door, to more tragedies. Please vote no on a b sixteen eighty seven.
Speaker 29
Sheila Wilson on behalf of the justice jobs coalition, La Defensea, and the Ella Baker Center for in opposition.
Speaker 14
Deputy public defenders Estebrandes on behalf of Local one forty eight LA Public Defender Union in opposition.
Speaker 16
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. We'd like to thank the author for taking the amendments, and we will be withdrawing our opposition after a robust discussion. And I'd like to, correct the record. I stated that CPDA is opposed to a b sixteen eighty five. I was wrong.
I was on a roll. We are neutral.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you all very much, mister Lackey. I think you can call it right there. You're getting wins left and right today. Okay. Back to the dais.
Questions, comments, or motions? We have a motion by Wynn and a second by Ramos. Any other discussion? Mister vice chair, you got something? No?
Okay. You don't wanna extend it? Okay. Fair enough. Mister Lackey, would you like to close?
Speaker 12
Yes. Certainly, I would. It has been a very long day and a lot of discussion about this particular problem. And I'm telling you, even though it's been a long day, we deserve to hear more. It it is until we can fix this problem, we need to keep talking and talking and talking.
This is my twelfth year in the legislature, and this is the last time I'll have to really speak in committee to this issue. And what I wanna tell you is how proud I am that I've seen dramatic improvement on how we look at this. It's no longer just Republicans beating the drum. I'm very, very thankful on it. I also wanna thank CalMatters because they that article that they wrote at the end of last year was more impactful than ten years of me pounding my fist here.
I'm very, very thankful for that because it was compelling, and it it woke people up. And I'm very, very thankful. Whatever and whoever awakens people, I'm forever grateful. As you can see, I will carry this with me my life, what I've seen, and the tragedy and the preventable tragedy for heaven's sake. That's why we're still talking about this stuff, folks.
We can prevent this stuff. And if we don't, we need to send a message of intolerance. And that's what this bill has accomplished. I mean, not only do we have a bipartisan approach to this, but I wanna thank the chair for taking an active role in addressing this issue. I barely even got bills heard in the past with committee chairs.
And, chair, you have my admiration. Thank you. Let me just close with one final remark. Let let let me just close with one final remark. I'm thankful for the progress that we have made because it is profound, but we have so much more that we can do.
And I pray that this particular measure will get support because it's one more step to doing what we need to do to prevent this needless tragedy.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much, Assembly Member Lackey. Is this your last bill in committee this year? I don't know. Couple more maybe? Your staff sure indicate he got a couple more.
Well, I will just Possibly. Possibly. Okay. Well, I will just say, I am recommending an eye on your bill. I think it is a matter of good policy.
And I think that if you're one of my absolute favorite members of this committee to work with. I like you all, of course. But Sorry. I just got myself in massive trouble there. But, assembly member Lackey, even where we disagree on policy, I don't think anyone could say that you don't lead with your heart and govern from a place of compassion and and care for solving the issues.
So you will be incredibly missed when the time comes, but you're not going anywhere just yet. We have a lot more work to do as evidenced by the 41 bills we got when we come back from spring break. So if you thought today was long, this is only 30.
Speaker 1
With that but thank you very much, and I just hope we can raise the level of discussion in the capital community. It's okay to disagree, but we should have the conversations because they're important to have. So I recommend an aye. We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 26
For item five, a b sixteen eighty seven by assembly member Lackey, the motion is due pass as amended to the Transportation Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 26
Alaniz? Aye. Gonzales? Haney? Harbidian?
Harbidean. I. Lackey. I. Lackie.
I. Nguyen. I. Ramos. Ramos.
I. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins. I.
Speaker 1
That measure passes. Congratulations, assembly member Lackey. And if you're all wondering, I rotate favorites, you all get a day of the week. Can we so that's how I stay out of trouble. Everyone's my favorite.
Okay. Colleagues, there actually is one more item of business before we go back through. Hopefully, assembly member Gonzales is on his way so we can let all these people know the outcome of today. But we do have item 30 on the agenda. This is a reconsideration request from assembly member Gallagher.
Because he isn't here, we will require a motion if there is one.
Speaker 1
We have a motion. Is there a second for reconsideration? K. We have a second. With that, we'll call the roll.
Speaker 26
For reconsideration on item 30 a b nineteen sixty eight by assembly member Gallagher, Schultz.
Speaker 1
And just to clarify, this is simply to request to grant or not reconsideration. With that understanding, I'll vote aye.
Speaker 26
Schultz, aye. Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzales, Haney, Harbidean, Harbidean, Lackey, aye.
Lackie, aye. Wen, Wen I. Ramos I. Ramos I. Sharpe Collins.
Sharpe Collins I.
Speaker 1
Okay. Staff for assembly member Gallagher, reconsiderations granted. Don't worry. That means they have to wait till the end of the last day, so it's really a punishment more than anything to get reconsideration. Okay, colleagues.
We're gonna go through everything one more time. I did wanna just note so I don't have to do it because we're all gonna here all day. Exact well, know I you're you're lucky to be here all
Speaker 1
Okay. I I did wanna just mention, I hope you all have a wonderful spring break next week. When we come back on Tuesday, April 7, we're currently projected to have 41 items. So we got through 30 today, and it's so plan to be here late is what I'm trying to say unless items get pulled. Thank you to our fan club that stays so late and loves to be here.
With that, we're gonna go back to the top of the agenda to add on, and I'll announce the results as we get there.
Speaker 26
Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins, aye. Consent calendar item is adopted. For item one, a b fifteen thirty eight by somebody member Cruell, the motion was due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Haney.
Harbodian? Aye. Harbodian, aye. Ramos? Aye.
Ramos, aye.
Speaker 1
On this bill item number one? Yes. Okay. You had voted Not voting. Not voting, and you'd like to go to Aye.
Okay.
Speaker 26
For a b fifteen thirty eight by assembly member Corral, vote changed by assembly member Lackey from not voting to aye. That measure now passes.
Speaker 26
For item two a b 16 o five by assembly member Ransom, the motion was due passed as amended to the government committee. Haney, Harbodian Aye. Harbodian, aye. Sharp Collins?
Speaker 26
For item three, a b sixteen eighty five by assembly member Lackey, the motion was due passed as amended to the transportation committee. Haney? Harbodian?
Speaker 26
For item four, a b sixteen eighty six by assembly member Lackey, the motion was due passed to the appropriations committee. This measure was on call. Gonzales. Gonzales not voting. Haney.
Harbodian. Harbodian not voting. Sharpe Collins. Sharpe Collins not voting? Okay.
Speaker 1
That measure fails. I will just note that it fails because of committee rule number nine c, which requires five votes to get out of committee with only four. It fails. Mister Lackey previously requested reconsideration, and I'll grant it without any objection.
Speaker 26
For item five, a b sixteen eighty seven by assembly member Lackey, the motion was due passed as amended to the transportation committee. Gonzalez?
Speaker 26
For item six, a b seventeen thirty nine by assembly member Ward, this measure was pulled by the author. For item seven, a b seventeen forty seven by assembly member Sanchez, this measure was on call. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Haney? Barbadian?
Aye. Barbadian, aye. Sharp Collins?
Speaker 26
For item seven a b 14 seventeen forty seven by assembly member Sanchez. Vote changed by assembly member Harvey Bidien from aye to no.
Speaker 26
For item eight, a b seventeen forty eight by assembly member Sanchez. Haynie? Harbodian?
Speaker 26
For item nine, a b eighteen sixteen by assembly member Davies, the motion was due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. This measure is on call. Alanis?
Speaker 26
For item 10 a b eighteen thirty by assembly member P. T. Norris, the motion was due passed to the appropriations committee. Haney? Nguyen?
Aye. Nguyen? Aye. For item 11 a b
Speaker 26
For item 11 a b eighteen seventy four by assembly member Wilson, the motion was due passed as amended to the Transportation Committee. Alanis? Aye. Alanis? Aye.
Haney? Harbetian? Aye. Harbetian? Aye.
Speaker 26
For item 12, a b eighteen seventy seven by Assembly Member Stephanie, the motion was due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Haney?
Harbetian?
Speaker 26
For item 13, a b eighteen ninety seven by assembly member Haney, this bill was pulled by the author. For item 14, a b nineteen twenty seven by assembly member Corral, the motion was due passed in the insurance committee. This item was on consent. For item 15, a b nineteen forty one by assembly member Mark Gonzales, the motion was due passed as amended to the appropriations committee and is currently on call. Alanis?
Speaker 26
Alanis? Aye. Haney? Harbodian? Aye.
Harbodian? Aye. Larkey? Aye. Larkey?
Aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye.
Speaker 26
For item 16, a b 20 o four by assembly member Alanis, the motion was due passed. Haney? Aye. Nguyen aye.
Speaker 26
For item 17 a b twenty forty seven by assembly member Bauer Cahan, the motion was due passed to the judiciary committee and is currently on call. Haney, when? Aye. Nguyen aye. Sharp Collins?
Jackson, the motion is due pass as amended to the judiciary committee and is currently on call. Alanis?
Speaker 26
Alanis not voting. Haney? Harbidean? Aye. Harbidean?
Aye. When? No. When not voting.
Speaker 26
For item 20, a b twenty one twenty two by assembly member Carla Kalra, excuse me, has been pulled by the author. For item 21, a b twenty two seventeen by assembly members of Bird, the motion was due passed to the appropriations committee and is currently on call. Alanis?
Speaker 26
For item 22 a b twenty two thirty seven by assembly member Patterson, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Harvidian? Not voting. Harvidian not voting.
Speaker 26
Item 23, a b twenty two fifty nine by assembly member Ransom. The motion was due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Harvidian?
Speaker 26
Harvidian, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Sharp Collins?
Sharp Collins, aye.
Speaker 26
For item 24, a b twenty three seventy eight by assembly member Gabriel, the motion was due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Haney, when? When? Aye.
Speaker 26
For item 25, a b twenty four ninety nine by assembly member Gibson, the motion was due passed to the Labor and Employment Committee and is currently on call. Alanis?
Speaker 26
Alanis? Aye. Haney? Harbodian? Aye.
Harbodian? Aye. Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye.
Speaker 26
For item 26, a b twenty five zero two by assembly member Pollard, the motion was due passed to the appropriations committee and is on consent. For item 27, a b twenty five eighty two by assembly member Schultz, the motion was due passed to the appropriations committee. Haney, Harvadian? Aye. Harvadian, aye.
Speaker 26
For item 28, a b twenty five eighty four by Assembly Member Flora, the motion was due passed as amended to the judiciary committee. And Haney? Harvidian? Aye. Harvidian, aye.
Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Ramos?
Speaker 26
For item 29, a b twenty five ninety three by assembly member El Huari, the motion was due passed to the appropriations committee. Alanis?
Speaker 26
Alanis, aye. Haney? Ramos? Ramos? Aye.
Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, aye.
Speaker 26
For item 30, a b nineteen sixty eight by assembly member Gallagher, this was a motion just on reconsideration. Gonzales?
Speaker 1
Reconsideration granted. Thank you, everyone. That concludes our business. We'll see you all April 7, and have a wonderful spring break.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.