Assembly Public Safety Committee, Tuesday, April 7, 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 2
AB twenty six ninety eight offers a better alternative that has already been demonstrated, excellently with excellent results in Bakersfield. Since 2022, it has delivered a 100% completion rate and zero recidivism because it gives kids their structure and support they need to succeed. The success comes from voluntary buy in peer accountability and consistent follow through not from peer fear or punishment. Youth court programs like this also deliver powerful civil engagement benefits to the students, jurors themselves. Hundreds of local high school students have received leadership training, learned empathy, and practice civil risk civic responsibility while serving on these juries.
It is true win win for the community. This approach directly addresses the concerns some stakeholders have raised. It is it is designed to minimize system involvement, not expand it. Cases are diverted, before probation filing. Records are protected, and the focus is restorative rather than than adversarial.
The date data from Bakersfield shows us reliability helps keep youth on a positive path. Many cities and countries, counties have, want to replicate Bakersfield's success but lack the resources of clear statutory authority to do so. AB twenty six ninety eight simply opens the door to local governments launching their own version using the same proven framework. I respectfully ask you I vote on AB twenty six ninety eight. Testifying with me today is sergeant Sandeep Molley of the Bakersfield Police Department who has led this successful program from day one and Haley Tatt who has been a student volunteer for Bakersfield's program.
Speaker 3
Bakersfield Police Department. We started the youth diversion program in 2022. Just to understand like the practical side of it, how the cock works in the system. Give you practical explanation would be if Johnny gets out of school one day, goes with his friends to a local store, doesn't have any money on him, gets peer pressured into stealing some food, chips, and candy, the police department would typically respond and take the report and arrest Johnny on the spot and released him to the custody of his guardian. At that point in time, that report would automatically get sent over to juvenile probation, and juvenile probation at that time would formally charge Johnny.
And in Johnny's situation, juvenile probation typically sends cases like that to either court, puts Johnny on probation, or three sends a warning letter to Johnny's residence. Regardless of whatever decision that the juvenile probation department makes, Johnny, at that point, gets a criminal record that follows him, from the remainder of his juvenile, life. With the youth diversion program, what we've, been able to do is in that same scenario with Johnny was contacted for stealing from a store, we would respond out there, take a report, and that report would not get sent over to to juvenile probation department. It would get sent over to the youth diversion team. At that point in time, the youth diversion team would have a follow-up conversation with Johnny's guardian and Johnny himself and to for explain the process of the program.
Speaker 44
And if Johnny successfully completes the program, that case would be closed entirely and would not be sent over to the juvenile justice department. Excuse me. The juvenile probation department. So what that cog looks like is if Johnny agrees to participate in the program, he admits to guilt. At that point, he would go to court and be in front of a real judge and a jury of his peers and local high schools that do not know who Johnny is will listen to Johnny's testimony and ask him several questions such as, what have you learned from this?
Speaker 17
Good morning, everyone. My name is Haley Tatt. I'm a current freshman at UC Irvine. I've been with the youth diversion program for about three years. And my senior year of high school, I was a student representative for the program.
Speaker 5
Throughout my time in high school, I was involved in mock trial and the youth diversion program, giving me a gateway for several civic engagement opportunities. However, many of generation z and youth today don't have the same opportunities that I do. The youth diversion program gives youth a gateway into being civically engaged as well as engaging with the community through restorative justice efforts. The program was, at first, very wild when I was introduced to it, to have a peer attorney represent a youth, we call them respondents in the program, and to have a group of peer jurors decide what would happen to that youth. While being in the program, jurors learned several important skills such as public speaking, community engagement, and community building.
The program also taught many students who didn't have the chance to be introduced to law, a new opportunity, a newfound passion. I met a lot of respondents who went through the program, became jurors, and became interested in actually pursuing a career either in law enforcement, getting a job outside of the town that they might have thought they would always live in, and even pursuing a career in law. This program works not only to help the youth but to actively stop this system of youth crime and to actively stop repeated occurrences of youth crime. It's important to note that our program has had a 100% success rate, meaning that 30 students who would have otherwise counted a charge on their college applications, their job applications now have no charge and are able to pursue a career, to pursue a job, to pursue a successful future. The program gives students the resources and support necessary that they wouldn't have otherwise without the program.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member, for the presentation, and thank you both for your testimony. Nice to see a young person testifying up in the state capital today. Not that you're not all very young and fresh looking. Boy, I just keep stepping in it, don't I? I see that we now have a quorum, so we'll take a brief pause to conduct the role.
Speaker 1
Okay. We have a quorum present. Next, we'll take the me too's. Anyone who'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time. Please share with us your name.
If you're with an organization, let us know. And, of course, your position of support.
Speaker 48
Good morning, mister chair and members of the board. My name is Adam Brady, and I'm the current student program coordinator at the Bakersfield Police Department's youth diversion program. I I support a vote of a for this bill, and I'm open to any technical questions regarding the program.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Nice to see you up here as well. Thank you. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay.
Well, next turn. Are there, any opposition witnesses present today? There are. Okay. Take your time.
Come on down. We have a pair of seats right here for you with the microphones. You'll each have two minutes to address the committee, and your time doesn't begin until you start speaking.
Speaker 51
Good morning. My name is Lynn Berkley Baskin with Justice to Jobs Coalition. I'm a sixteen year veteran in research system transformation and policy development focusing on preventing incarceration and building sustainable health based and anti recidivism systems. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here to strongly oppose AB 2,698 unless it is fundamentally revised to align with California's modern diversion framework, the same health based community rooted approach that led the legislature to create OICR and place it under the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure youth receive evidence based healing center supports rather than court based punishment.
Speaker 9
AB twenty six ninety eight, although well intended, and I loved hearing I do love hearing from the from the youth too, is not really a true diversion program. It is an alternative to incarceration program, very different. The bill requires youth to be adjudicated before entering the program, and by that point, the harm of system involvement has already occurred. True diversion happens before a young person enters the court pipeline. This bill is alternative sentencing, not diversion, and research shows that post adjudication programs increase recidivism risk, disrupt education, and deepen system penetration.
Second, AB 2,698 relies on a teen court model that is not evidence based. CSU Chico recent analysis found that teen courts struggle to provide rehabilitation or restorative justice and reproduce and institutionalize racial and socioeconomic inequalities. Peer reviewed research shows these courts normalize hyper punitiveness among teens and leave youth defendants with lasting harm, not healing. Third, the bill will widen the net of system involvement and increase county costs. The offenses covered, petty theft, vandalism, etcetera, are low level.
For these cases, the most healing and cost effective response is pre arrest, community based diversion addressing the That's root causes of your time.
Speaker 10
Good morning. My name is Daphna Gazani, and I'm here on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law and the other youth justice organizations listed in the oppose unless amended letter. We appreciate the author's intent to expand diversion and improve outcomes. And I'll say personally for myself, as somebody who thirty years ago went through something like this post incarceration, I can also say I appreciate people trying to be intentional. But the fact of the matter is, I experienced this thirty years ago.
We have lots of research, lots of experience, and lots of resources in California that have shown us there is a better way to go about diversion. We can see this through the investments through the youth reinvestment grant and the tribal diversion programs, and these investments work. They reduce recidivism. They improve youth well-being. They increase public safety, and they address persistent racial disparities.
Evidence shows that pre arrest, deflection, and diversion are more effective than formal system processing at reducing offending. If you look at the offenses that are listed, these are offenses that should never have go through an arrest process. It is simply a waste of resources and increases the chances that young people will end up deeper in the system. As written, 2698 undermines the progress that we have made. It doesn't sufficiently prioritize pre arrest deflection.
Speaker 42
It doesn't expand pathways to formal system processing. It marginalizes community based organizations, and it creates inconsistent implementation across counties, weakening California's broader broader diversion infrastructure. We would ask and be supportive of a model that goes with the youth reinvestment grant, one that prioritizes pre arrest diversion, community based programming, and culturally relevant resources. For these reasons, we respectfully respectfully urge and oppose unless amended on a b twenty six ninety eight. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much. Next, we'll take the me too's, also hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill. Come on down and share with us your name, your organization, and the opposed position, please.
Speaker 11
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 12
Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Oppose unless amended.
Speaker 13
Good morning. Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 53
Nedrick Miller, all of us none in LSPC. Forgive me. I got a long list of those who oppose. Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, California Alliance for Youth and Justice, California Coalition for Women's Prisoners, California for Safety and Justice, California United for Responsible Budget, Center of Juvenile and Criminal Justice, and the NLU Services, Community Agents for Resources, Advocacy, and Services, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Fresh Lifelines for Youth, Hayward, Burns Institute, Hopes for Hoops for Justice, Well, she said it. Initiate justice, justice to jobs, La Defenseia, legal services of prisoners with children, Life Free USA, Milpa Collective, National Center for Youth Law, Santa Cruz, Barrios, Unidos, Sisters Warriors, Freedom Collection Coalition, the California Youth Project, the Collective for Laboratory Lawyer, the Collective Healing and Transportation Project, Underground, urban peace movement, youth forward, youngsters for change, youth alliance, youth justice education clinic, and the lawyer law school, youth law center, individual, and self.
Speaker 1
Well well done. Thank you. Alright. We'll now turn it back to the dais if there's any questions or comments from members of the committee. Let's see.
Mister Lackey first.
Speaker 16
Yeah. First of all, thank the author for addressing a very difficult topic, and that is juvenile offenses. It's because some society has been wrestling with for my entire lifetime, and it's not as simple one size fits all effectively. But in listening to the opposition, I I find it entertaining and almost sad that we consider community service hyper punitive. I think that that's misstated.
I think that consequences for misconduct are powerfully shaping when administered properly. And I think the fact that this process that you're suggesting attaches consequences, but also erases the outcome if followed. And I think that is the great balance is being able to erase the misconduct is the goal. Actually, the bigger goal is never reoffending. And I I think that consequences I know that we have an energy that thinks that all consequences are hyper punitive.
I do not. I I think that it it can be helpful when administered with with care and concern. And I believe that that's what your program does, and so I support it.
Speaker 17
Okay. Thank you for bringing forth the bill. You're just smiling. I do understand where you are coming from, but I also understand where opposition is coming from. And when I think about these programs, number one, from what I from what I gather is it looks like we are introducing you to a formal process.
Right? A formal court process. Right? Do we always want to to introduce them to that process? I thought the goal was to try to keep them from that particular process.
From my experience of community service and advocating at home in San Diego, working with different organizations, Data has shown there's other data across the state that community based alternative programs work. If we invest in those programs because that community knows that population the best, then we are able to turn things around if we believe that everyone can be restored. Right? Everyone deserves a second chance. So there are some restorative processes that exist.
The school system have restorative justice programs and things of that nature that currently exist. But I believe that those programs are better aligned. Those programs have a lot more trauma informed practices that is their more holistic approaches that are there. And those programs are really a lot more cost effective. I understand that having that process and it being through the police department or other things that's there, yes, we want to better the relationship with our officers.
And we do want to do what we can to make sure people know that that, you know, the system in in some cases is not all jacked up like we think it think it is, whichever. However, when one of the testimony someone said about admitting guilt, Youth sometimes emit guilt under pressure. And if you are already putting them in a process to admit guilt, we're already setting them up for failure. That's just the way that I currently see it. I don't want to put them in a situation where they are being judged by their peers and they're admitting to guilt and not really knowing.
Speaker 7
We know that the brand is not fully developed. So this whole thing is is a whole process. For me to even consider going forward with this, I need to know that you are listening to your opposition and that you are understanding where opposition is coming from in regards to investing in your community, investing in these other types of programs that currently exist with the community based alternatives programs. Is that something I know I said a lot just to get to this point, but is that something that you as the author would consider doing is really working with opposition and working with community based organizations to be able to move forward in this in in a to me in a much better positive direction. I know that there's consequences of everybody's actions, but not all of them not all of them have to go through this process.
Speaker 17
To me, there's a more structured, aligned, meaningful process with the community that understands the population that they're serving more so than others. Is that something you
Speaker 2
Assemblymember, we are looking forward to working with opposition because we know that there's some holes in this, and we would look love to work with them to get this bill through.
Speaker 17
Okay. Alright. I know that there was some other deeper conversation. So I do hope that you would keep that word and be able to move forward with opposition and figuring out how we can find a middle ground on this particular part. Programs do need to exist, but we have to also look at combining both types of programs and not really focusing on one on one program.
But that's just where I am right now. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins. Anyone else hoping to be heard? Mister vice chair?
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chair. For those who know, again, I my background's in law enforcement, and I spent my first four years or so with a juvenile diversion program at my old department. And I loved that program. We we did just like you guys said. We're getting them out of the system.
We're never putting their name in there, and that's what we want. And these are these were definitely kids of color, of of kids who didn't have parents that took care of them, unfortunately, were probably in jail or were strung out on the streets. They didn't have any mentors. They didn't have anybody to guide them. And I saw this diversion program do that, and I got to be part of that.
And I enjoyed that. I still am in touch with some of them who have now gone to be successful and who have stayed out of trouble. And so I wholeheartedly believe in the diversion program. Let me be clear that regardless of what we do today, departments still have a choice whether or not they're gonna do a diversion program. It just seems that this is gonna help with the funding of some diversion programs, which they do need help.
I've seen a lot of programs in the state get funded for things I probably don't agree with, and obviously, I do agree with this. As far as the opposition, I want to say most of the things you guys said are the same things that they're trying to do. Obviously, all of us here are here to help the children, help these youth that are not guided, need help, and just need to basically help with their best foot forward is what we're trying to do here. So I wholeheartedly believe in diversion. I obviously will be supporting this bill, and I look forward to other departments hopefully adopting this as well and doing the same thing.
Thank you. And I'll move the bill. Alright.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Motion by Aleni, second by Lackey, noting that some member Ramos has joined us. We do have a quorum. No need to add the we'll add him to the role. Any other questions or comments?
Okay. I just have one question, mister Ellis, just for the sake of fostering a good, fruitful discussion. Having had a chance to hear some of the concerns raised by opposition witnesses, is there anything you'd like to respond to today or share with the committee?
Speaker 2
I just want you to know that we wanna we would look forward to working with opposition. You know, we started this with good intentions, of course, and we wanna protect our youth. And if it in in in in in includes certainly a different perspective, and we look forward to working with you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. Seeing no other questions, would you like to close, mister Ellis?
Speaker 2
Yes. Thank you. AB twenty six ninety eight is reasonable evidence based measure that expands a locally successful program to help first time youth take accountability, get the support they need to change and receive a real second chance. I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member Ellis. Colleagues, I have a non recommendation on this bill, meaning that I'm making no recommendation. Mister Ellis, I believe that your bill is supportive of our youth youth peer courts and diversion generally. Those are goals that I share, I applaud you for that. However, the opposition, both in the course of today's testimony and in their letters, have raised some good points.
And should your bill advance out of committee, I would refer you specifically to the points raised in the letter submitted by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. I think that they spelled it out pretty clearly there. Separately, I also believe personally that your bill, while very well intentioned, would, in my mind, be more appropriate for budget committee since it is contingent upon funding by the legislature. So I will not personally be voting on the bill today, but there is a motion and a second. And should it pass out, just encourage you to, as you always do, sir, work collaboratively with the opposition.
Let's take the roll.
Speaker 6
For item 34 a b twenty six ninety eight by assembly member Ellis, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 6
Alanis? Aye. Gonzales? Gonzales? Aye.
Haney? Barbadian, Lackey, aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen, Ramos, aye. Ramos, aye.
Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins not voting.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure will remain on call. Thank you, mister Ellis. Thank you, everybody. Alright.
Yes. Why don't we go ahead and take the consent calendar while we get ready for our next presenter? The next one up in the queue will be assembly member Patel on AB nineteen fifty nine. Before we get there though, let's go ahead and read the proposed consent calendar. We have 10 items on the calendar.
Item number four, AB seventeen fifty nine by El Hawari, entitled prisons classification. Item number seven, a b nineteen twelve by Hadwick, entitled deer, archery season, concealed firearms. Item number eight, a b nineteen thirteen by Soria, entitled licensure emergency equipment. Item 13, a b nineteen ninety four by Alvarez, entitled defending immigrate immigrant victims act. Item 14, a b 2,001 by assembly member Stephanie, entitled criminal procedure state summary criminal history information.
Item 20, a b twenty one forty seven by Schiavo, entitled criminal procedure jurisdiction of public offenses. Item 21, a b twenty two zero four by Gabriel entitled prisons organized sports programming. Item 26, a b twenty two eighty six by Bryan entitled criminal procedure attorney visits medical settings. Item 30, a b twenty three forty seven by Aaron's entitled commission on peace officer standards and training, hate crime training, and guidelines. And lastly, item 33, a b twenty five fifty six by Berner entitled evidence, credibility of witnesses, and evidence affected or excluded by extrinsic policies.
Do we have a motion? Do
Speaker 6
Shultz, aye. Alenise? Aye. Alenise, aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney, Harbidean, Lackie?
Speaker 1
Okay. The consent calendar is adopted. We'll keep it open for others to add on later. And next, I see that we have assembly member Patel ready to go. Colleagues, this will be Assembly Bill nineteen fifty nine.
Speaker 19
Thank you. Good morning, Chair and colleagues. I am here to present AB nineteen fifty nine. I want to start by saying that I will accept the committee's amendments to narrow the scope of the bill and address concerns raised by opposition. I also want to thank the committee chair and his staff for taking the time to work with me and my office on this bill so that we can address this very important issue related to constituents in my county.
As amended, the bill seeks to close a dangerous loophole in the law related to a school shooting in San Diego County. You will hear from witness testimony of the real pain and impact that was caused by the school shooting in 2001 at Santana High School, which ended the lives of two fellow students and caused injury to 11 other students, one teacher, and a campus security officer. The individual was sentenced to prison after his guilty plea. However, because of a loophole in the law, he was able to file for resentencing in a jurisdiction that didn't even try him, even after getting denied parole months before the motion. AB nineteen fifty nine simply seeks to ensure that my community continues to feel safe and that convicted individuals are held accountable for their actions until they are successfully rehabilitated.
And I urge your I vote today. With me to testify are my district attorney, Summer Stefan, and city council member, Phil Ortiz, a survivor of the Santana school shooting. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 21
Chair, Nick Scholes and committee members, I'm Summer Stefan, San Diego County's district attorney and a thirty year plus prosecutor. I'm here to bring the voices of my really terrified community here before you today and to ask for a narrow exception that allows judges to regain their discretion to make decisions regarding public safety, remorse, and all of the other factors that judges are good at making. AB nineteen fifty nine is that solution. What it does is it creates an exception in the welfare and institutions code seven zero seven b regarding violent offenses. There's already an exception if a youth was not apprehended until they were past the age for juvenile treatment.
Speaker 20
This would create a second exception if a youthful offender is past the age of juvenile treatment and is resentenced to be sentenced in juvenile court where there is no discretion by the judges. The case of the Santana shooter where two people were murdered, a 17 year old and a 15 year old. And 13 people were shot. Multiple reloads, a premeditated murder. The defendant was sentenced to fifty years to life.
There was an exception that was developed by the court that decided fifty years to life was tantamount to a life without parole sentence. That's what's causing the resentencing in juvenile court, which means immediate release.
Speaker 21
Good morning. Thank you, chair and honorable committee members. My name is Phil Ortiz. I'm a survivor of this shooting at Santana High School that happened on 03/05/2001. I'm also a council member for the neighboring city where the school shooting happened.
I represent thousands of former students, teachers, faculty, parents, friends, family, and community members who experienced unimaginable mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical loss from the school shooting. I'm here to say that the pain doesn't go away. More than twenty years later, the effects are still causing casualties. One of my classmates who died, Randy Gordon, his mom was found a couple years ago in a homeless encampment just a few miles from Santana, her life destroyed by the death of her son. My other classmate, Tommy Millsap, he killed himself on the anniversary of the shooting in 2020, citing the shooting in his suicide letter.
We're here to ask that you would ensure justice is balanced. The victims have no opportunity to be free from their mental, emotional, and physical wounds, including Randy Gordon and Brian Zucker who were killed. Perpetrators shouldn't so easily have the opportunity to be opportunity to be free from the consequences of their actions either. Teenagers who have committed some of the most violent crimes are deserving of the consequences of their original sentence. However, when they bring a petition for resentencing, they can only be sentenced in juvenile court even though they are in their forties and the juvenile court has lost jurisdiction long ago.
Speaker 2
This rule will result in their early release through resentencing even if a parole board has determined they are not deserving of release. Thankfully, a b nineteen fifty nine fix this loop will fix this loophole, restore discretion to the juvenile court, and ensure these offenders who have aged out of the juvenile court could be resentenced in a door adult court appropriately. Urgent, I vote on AB nineteen fifty nine.
Thank you
Speaker 1
Thank you for the presentation. Assemblymember, madam district attorney, thank you for making the effort to be here today. I know it's quite a way to come. And councilmember, thank you for your testimony and turning taking that pain and that tragedy and what I would imagine is trauma that you probably carry with you every day as we all do when we've been through something. And taking that and making a lot of good out of it and giving back to your community and lending your voice to your community.
So thank you for being here. Thank you. Next, we'll take the me too's in support of the bill. Please come up to that microphone there by mister Weber. Name, organization, and position, please.
Okay. Oh, we may have one. Alright. Come on down.
Speaker 22
Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, California District Attorneys Association in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses here? Alright. Possibly one.
Okay. Would you
Speaker 11
Good morning. Leslie Caldwell from the California Public Defenders Association. We'd like to withdraw our opposition. We'd like to thank the author for productive discussions and
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Anyone else who wants to be heard on the bill, you might as well line up at this time. We'll take this as the me tos, or other positions to register.
Speaker 23
Good morning. Glenn Bachus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We are opposed to the bill in print, but we wanted to thank the author for her office and the committee working with us to address our concerns. We'll reconsider our position after we see the bill in print. Thank you, assemblymember Patel.
Speaker 12
Good morning. I've been getting asked to give a comment on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. They have an opposed position to the bill in print, but we'll re appreciate that work on the bill, and we'll review the amendments and their position.
Speaker 24
Halam Surna from Saving Lives in Custody, California San Diego. I oppose. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Jim Lindberg. On behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation, we're reviewing the amendments and hope to get to neutral. I'm also voicing opposition on behalf of youngsters for change.
Speaker 14
Javier Rodriguez with the ACLU California action. I want to thank the author for accepting amendments, and we look forward to reviewing, the proposed amendments.
Speaker 26
Ariana Montes on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice in opposition right now, but reviewing. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.
Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? None? Okay. Is there a motion?
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Motion by Alenis, second by Ramos. Assembly member Patel, seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close?
Speaker 28
Yeah. I would like to offer deep gratitude once again to, you, mister chair, as well as your committee staff and the coalition of people who came to speak with me on this bill. We introduced it in a certain manner, and we were able to work very collaboratively with those, with our sponsors as well as those in opposition to bring it to a place that we think will serve the state of California and, really put justice forward first and center. And I would respectfully ask the committee for an I vote today. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, assembly member. You will have my I recommendation and my I vote. I really wanna thank you for being the thoughtful and collaborative author and partner that I know you to be. And I'll simply say that in my view, the authors that have the most success in this committee do exactly what you do they listen every perspective they treat committee staff and myself as a resource and someone willing to help you brainstorm and get the very best possible outcome from your bill. I know this isn't the bill that you started out with but I think this will deliver fundamentally good things for San Diego and for everyone impacted by in this incident and probably many more sadly to say, but others that might be in similar circumstances down the road.
Appreciate all that you've done and your witnesses recommending an I vote. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 6
For item 11, a d nineteen fifty nine by assembly member Patel, the motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz? Schultz? I. Alanis?
Speaker 6
Alanis? I. Gonzales? I. Gonzales?
Haney? Harbidean? Blackie? Wen, Ramos, Ramos, I, Sharp Collins.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measures on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you very much. Alright. Next up, I see assembly member Rodriguez here to present a B1628 if she's ready.
Great. Alright. A B1628, everyone.
Speaker 19
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of California's most vulnerable newborns and the mothers who need our support. I'm proud to present AB sixteen twenty eight, the Keeping Infants From Danger Act, which extends California's safe surrender window from seventy two hours to thirty days, giving mothers the time and space they need to make safe, informed decisions during one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives. California has long led the nation in compassion, first evidence based policy.
Speaker 28
AB sixteen twenty eight continues that proud tradition. No woman should be forced to make a permanent life altering decision while she's still recovering physically, emotionally, and mentally from childbirth. We know that postpartum depression, physical complications, and emotional crisis do not resolve themselves in seventy two hours. For many mothers, the hardest and most desperate moments come days or even weeks after delivery. Our law must reflect that reality.
This life saving bill meets mothers in their moment of crisis with compassion, not restriction, and it gives the newborns a chance of safe, loving future that every child deserves. AB sixteen twenty eight, a woman's caucus party bill, preserves full confidentiality for mothers and strengthens the safety net for newborns across our state. By modernizing this law, we reduce the risk of unsafe abandonment and ensure that when a mother reaches her breaking point, a safe legal option is within reach. Additionally, it's important to understand that even with California's robust social safety net and existing adoption resources, gaps in awareness and access mean mothers still need a clear, protected avenue for relief. In practice, when a baby is safely surrendered, firefighters are often the ones on the ground receiving these newborns and taking them into care, making them a critical part of this process and a powerful reason why their support on this bill holds so much weight.
Joining me today to offer testimony is Doug Sobers from California Professional Firefighters.
Speaker 29
Thank you, mister chair members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We represent more than 37,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical services personnel across California, and we are proud to support AB sixteen twenty eight. This critical bill will provide a pathway of safety for an infant should a parent in crisis need a pathway to ensure that child's safety. As the analysis notes, firefighters and fire departments are trusted community resources that are well understood in location and their practice and their role in the community.
And the analysis does a really good job of laying out the process by which an infant is cared for in the case of a safe surrender. Every fire department in the state has a a protocol and a packet to initiate that process to ensure the child is taken safely. The appropriate elements of the community of of the safety net system are notified, and the child is safely put into the care of the state. So for those reasons, we would respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member, and to your witness as well. Next, we'll take the Me Toos, also hoping to be heard in support of the bill. Come forward. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 30
Thank you, mister chair. Members of the committee, Angela Hill, California Medical Association in support.
Speaker 31
Good morning. Kelly McMillan on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, California in support.
Speaker 9
Rochelle Connor, on behalf of Concerned Women for America, strong support, has for an aye vote.
Speaker 7
Good morning, mister chairman. Members of Withronko here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay. Seeing no affirmative response.
Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? No. Alright. Back to the dais. Questions, comments, or motions?
Speaker 1
Okay. We have a motion by Ramos and a second by mister Gonzalez. Alright. Any other questions or comments or coffee orders? No?
Alright. Assembly member Rodriguez, would you like to close?
Speaker 6
For item two a b sixteen twenty eight by assembly member Michelle Rodriguez, the motion is due passed to the Human Services Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 6
Schultz, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Gonzales?
Gonzales, aye. Haney, Barbadian, Blackie, Wen, Ramos, Ramos, aye, Sharp Collins.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure's on call as we wait for absent members. We'll let you know the outcome now. Alright. Just doing a call out for okay.
I don't see assembly member Johnson present. So with her absent, the next in line would be assembly member Stephanie. Alright. And this is oh, let me see. Assembly member Stephanie, did you wanna start with 1974?
And I think you also yes. You wanna start with 1974? Please. Alright. Let's go ahead whenever you're ready.
Speaker 32
Thank you, chair. I'm actually thrilled to be presenting, AB nineteen seventy four to the committee today, and I wanna first start by thanking the committee and the staff for the amendments and indicate my support for those amendments, I will be accepting them. A b seventeen four is about giving people a safe, responsible option when they need to temporary temporarily store a firearm, especially during moments of crisis. There are more guns than people in this country. Twenty seven thousand people die by suicide by a firearm in this country every year.
I don't think I have to tell this committee, this public safety committee, the dangers of firearms in our country, in The United States Of America, where it is now the leading cause of death of teens and children. So I don't think I need to make the case that we need to do something about the gun problem in our country. And this bill is an excellent example of what happens when people who are affected by gun violence turn that pain into advocacy and do something about it. This bill is inspired by the incredible work of Leslie Hu, an incredible gun violence prevention advocate and the founder of Pierce's pledge in San Francisco, which has helped lead the way in creating voluntary safe storage programs in partnership with local law enforcement. Now Leslie Hu lost her nine year old son during a very embittered battle of custody with her ex husband, who used a gun to kill her child and then himself.
Pierce's pledge is about working with family law professionals to make sure when there are custody battles that are contentious and there are firearms present, that we have a place to store those weapons to protect children in those extremely difficult times. I've also been contacted by a commander for a retired commander at the San Francisco Police Department, commander Al Casciato, who expressed support for this, saying, sometimes after officers perish, their widows are left with the guns, and there's no place to place them. There's no place to store them. When Leslie Hughes started Pierce's pledge, there were a whole bunch of women who were helping her figure out what we do and where we store guns. There's a woman named Cody who called around to all the federally licensed firearm, centers in California.
Not one of them was willing to store weapons. Thank goodness we had SB three sixty eight by senator Portantino that changed that problem. But there are still many places in California that just don't store weapons in times of crisis like this. And I want to express my extreme gratitude to the San Francisco Police Department. We don't have gun stores in San Francisco, but we have a police department that was willing to work with Leslie Hu in Pierce's pled to make sure that we solve this problem, and I can't thank them enough.
The San Francisco Police Department has implemented one of the first programs of its kind in this state, offering individuals and families a trusted place to store firearms when they feel it is no longer necessary to keep them at home. And the goal here is simple. With more guns safely stored and fewer guns accessible during moments of crisis, we can save lives, and we should do everything we can to do that. We know that there are times when people recognize they need help, when they know that having a firearm nearby is not safe. And in those moments, access to a secure voluntary storage option can make all the difference.
And the data is clear, creating distance between a person in crisis and a firearm, even temporarily, significantly reduces the risk of suicide and firearm related injury. AB nineteen seventy four builds on that understanding. It provides clear, consistent guidelines so that law enforcement agencies across California can implement these programs safely, responsibly, and effectively. This is about prevention, and it's about giving individuals and families the tools they need to make safer choices in difficult times. And here with me today, to support is Ethan Murray from Giffords and Steven Lopez from the San Francisco Police Department.
Speaker 33
Good morning, chair Schultz. Oops. Vice chair Alanis and members of the Assembly's Public Safety Committee. My name is Steven Lopez. I am the legislative liaison for the San Francisco Police Department.
I'm here today to give my testimony on behalf of the city and county San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Department in support of Assembly Bill nineteen seventy four, which would authorize law enforcement agencies to create voluntary temporary firearm storage programs. Last year, our department partnered with the nonprofit organization Pierce's pledge to establish a temporary safe firearms surrender program. This program was created in part to address a gap in safe storage options in San Francisco which currently has no licensed firearm dealers operating within city limits who could normally provide the service. Under our program, each of our 10 district stations serve as designated drop off locations for surrendered firearms where they can be temporarily stored. Firearms may be stored for up to one year and returned upon request.
Prior to any destruction, owners are notified if a firearm is not reclaimed and we also have an additional sixty day period for them to pick up the firearm if they wish to. The bill would set one year as a minimum amount of time for a agency to store a firearm, but they would have discretion to make it longer if they wish. The bill does not mandate participation by a law enforcement agency or a firearm owner. Instead, it provides clear statutory authority and a flexible framework for agencies that choose to implement these these types of programs, allowing them to tailor procedures to local needs. The bill includes safeguards as well, including law enforcement ensuring that the owner is still eligible to possess a firearm upon returning or when destroying a firearm to properly update the automated firearm system.
Speaker 13
Temporary firearm storage in California is currently too inconsistent. While licensed firearm dealers may offer storage, they are not required to do so, and availability varies by location. AB nineteen seventy four expands access to safe storage options, especially for individuals who will need it most, such as those experiencing health crisis, family instability,
Speaker 3
vice chair Alaniz, my name is Ethan Murray. I am a state policy attorney with Giffords, the organization led by four former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. We are proud to sponsor AB nineteen seventy four, which authorizes law enforcement agencies to create a voluntary safe storage program. Out of as the assembly member eloquently put it, out of out of home storage options can create essential time between and space between a person in crisis and highly lethal means. The committee analysis does really very well to highlight the connection between access to lethal means, namely firearms, and suicide.
Speaker 34
I wanna broaden the scope and note that out of home storage can also be a less intrusive safety measure in contentious cop child custody battles. As assembly member, Stephanie outlined Pierce's pledge, started this program with mayor Lurie and the San Francisco Police Department in San Francisco. It also followed in 2023 the legislature's pasture, passage of SB three six eight requiring licensed firearm dealers to provide a crucial safety valve of out of home storage options. In the times since, Pierce's pledge has called all of these licensed dealers. The findings reveal the areas like San Francisco that don't have any options, but also where options are limited.
Chair Schultz, according to Pierce's pledge, your district has 43 licensed dealers. Only four offer out of home storage at about $55 per month. 13 said they didn't offer storage, and the rest didn't respond to the survey. Vice chair Alanis, your district has 27 dealers according to Pierce's pledge. Three said that they would store firearms at about $50 a month.
10 said they would not, and the rest did not respond. Those are just two examples, but they reveal the gap SB three six eight left has left behind. AB nineteen seventy four gives law enforcement the agency to step up like SFPD and fill that gap if they want to. It establishes clear, standardized protocols for intake and return, including vital eligibility checks to ensure weapons are only returned to legally permitted And that's
Speaker 1
your time. I'm sorry. Too many. Goes very quick. But thank you both very much for your testimony.
Thank you, of course, assembly member, for your presentation. Next, we'll hear the me too's in support of the bill. Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco board of supervisors as well as the city and county of San Francisco, both in very strong support and just wanted to thank the author for this important measure. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Good morning. Jamie Minor passing on our support for our colleagues over at Everytown for Gun Safety. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Good morning, chair members. Rebecca Marcus representing the Brady campaign and Brady California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have any witnesses testifying in opposition today? Going once, going twice. Alright.
Anyone else hoping to register in a a position on the bill? Okay. I will turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions, all appropriate at this time. Mister vice chair.
Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 7
So I like this bill. It's a great bill. My concerns are with the law enforcement agencies. So it's completely volunteer if they wanna do it or not. And have there been any agencies that you know of that that do hold them that maybe do charge to hold them?
Speaker 32
I haven't heard of any agencies charging. I'll let the witnesses answer that too. I know that the San Francisco Police Department does not.
Speaker 7
Okay. And it is good to know. Thank you for those points that you made that it's cheaper to storm in my district than it is the chair. So thank you for saying that. I don't know.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister vice chair. I I think. Thank you. Alright. Any other yes, mister Gonzalez.
That's it. No comment? No commentary? Okay. We have a motion.
Is there a second? Second. We have a second. Alright. Anyone else?
Alright. Assembly member, would you like to close?
Speaker 32
Yes. Thank you, chair. I I'm very happy the opposition didn't show up, but I was ready and ready to go for that. So this is absolutely nonsensical, but I respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Well, thank you very much, assembly member. Colleagues, chair recommends an aye. We have a motion and a second, so let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 6
For item 12 a b nineteen seventy four by assembly member Stephanie, the motion is due pass as amended. Schultz? Aye. Schultz? Aye.
Alaniz? Alaniz? Aye. Gonzales? Aye.
Gonzales, aye. Haney, Barbadian, Blackie, Nguyen, Nguyen, aye. Ramos, aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins.
Okay.
Speaker 1
That bill is out. We'll keep it open. However, perhaps the members to add on. Thank you all very much. Alright.
Oh, assembly member Stephanie, you have one more bill. Yes. Alright. Colleagues, would be assembly bill twenty two ninety seven. This is item 27 on page two of your agenda.
Assembly member, you can begin whenever you're ready.
Speaker 32
Thank you, chair. Today, I'd like to present AB twenty two ninety seven, which makes sure victims have a fair and consistent path to restitution when a case is resolved through diversion. I want to make, very clear that I am a huge fan of diversion as a former prosecutor. I'm from Contra Costa County. It is something that, I often worked with public defenders to make sure that people had second chances, and I absolutely do believe in diversion.
I also believe in making sure that victims are made whole when they are harmed, and this bill is an opportunity to do both of those two very valid goals. When a case is resolved through diversion, victims can be left behind, and diversion is an important tool. It helps people get treatment, turn their lives around, and helps them to reduce repeat offenses. I support diversion because it gives people a second chance and really does help build safer, healthier communities. But I don't think it should be, a situation where victims are forgotten.
And right now, our laws are inconsistent. In some diversion programs, victims receive restitution, and in others, they receive nothing. Two victims can suffer the same loss from the same crime, and one is paid back while the other is not simply because of the type of diversion that is used. And I don't think that's fair. AB twenty two ninety seven fixes that problem.
It makes clear that choosing diversion does not mean leaving victims behind. People deserve the opportunity to turn their lives around, but they must also take responsibility for the harm they've caused. Fairness makes making victims whole, this bill delivers on that promise. With me today to speak is in support is Victor Oh from the San San Diego district attorney's office and Carl London from Crime Victims United.
Speaker 36
Good morning, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Victor Rowe. I'm a deputy DA from San Diego County. Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with some of the people that are opposed to this bill, and I wanted to briefly address some of the concerns that they raised.
And that is primarily that those who enjoy the benefits of diversion, they are able to avoid conviction. And therefore, the question is whether or not we can ask them to do anything, let alone pay back the the victims, the restitution that they owe. And first of all, diversion almost universally is is voluntary. Nobody has to force anybody to participate in a program of diversion. Article one section 28 requires restitution every time there's a conviction, but that that mandate doesn't necessarily translate into a preclusion against restitution in diversion cases.
And this is not a new or untested concept. In fact, the requirement of restitution has been in mandatory or or mental health diversion since its inception, and it has withstood judicial scrutiny in People v Braden, a court California Supreme Court case that directly looked at the reason why there is a restitution requirement in mental health diversion. And it came to the conclusion that it's actually a good thing because trial courts then don't have to be forced to choose between criminal offenders and their victims. And so the problem is, though, that mental health diversion is only one form of diversion in California. In California, 10 out of the 14 available forms of diversion are completely silent on the issue of restitution.
And so in those cases, victims, they don't get restitution through 12 o 2.4 because there's no conviction, and they don't get it through the the applicable diversion statute. So they're out of luck. And those courts, in those situations, would be forced to choose between offenders and the victims. And so, that's what this bill is all about, never forgetting, California crime victims. Thank you.
Speaker 52
Mister chairman and members, Carl London here today on behalf of Crime Victims United. As miss Stephanie pointed out, this bill, it helps protect crime victims who often suffer financial hardship as a result of crime. They lost wages, property loss, other costs associated with being a victim. We believe that this bill strikes an appropriate balance between diversion, rehabilitation, while also maintaining the principles of accountability and affirming victims' rights. We urge your support for the bill.
Speaker 1
Oh, you both did fantastic. I didn't even have to signal you. That was great. Let's next take the me too's hoping to be heard in support of the bill.
Speaker 20
Julianne Vorris on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you both very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? We do. Alright.
Come on down. Once you begin speaking do we have two witnesses? Sounds okay. Great. So there's two microphones right over here.
You'll each have two minutes. Your time doesn't begin until you start speaking. Again, these two microphones and chairs right here. Thank you both in advance.
Speaker 15
Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Nedrick Miller. I'm an elder Freeman policy well, senior policy fellow at Legal Services of Prisoners with Children. I'm also a member of All of Us and None. Because requiring restitution in all diversion context is largely duplicative, all existing law is unlikely to increase restitution collection and undermines local authority and discretion in diversion cases.
We respectfully oppose a b twenty two ninety seven. California courts already have the authority to order restitution in diversion cases. Indeed, state law requires assessment of diversion in mental health and misdemeanor diversion, and judge order restitutions as a matter of course and other diversion courts. State law also requires the imposition of up to a thousand dollars in diversion restitution fees on anyone whose felony or misdemeanor charge is diverted, the revenue for which goes to the restitution fund. A b twenty two ninety seven is therefore largely duplicative on both existing diversion practices and victim compensation efforts.
To that end, a b twenty two ninety seven is also unlikely to increase restitution collections. One study found that individuals assessed restitution were more likely to recidivate than the likelihood of reentering the legal system increase with every additional essential
Speaker 15
dollar ordered against them. But plainly, order and restitution, whether it is not essential, perpetuates the cycle of law breaking and harm. Furthermore, most cases are criminal legal, are low income, black or brown Californians who face significant barriers to financial stability, especially considering California's persistent poverty crisis imposing additional financial obligations in the context will likely result in low collection rates while increasing administrative enforcement costs on courts and counties. The number of cases where restitution is not already required is limited to circumstances where the victim suffers no loss. In instances, the court has determined that a thousand dollars diversion key
Speaker 13
Thank you. Good morning. Elizabeth Kim, policy director at Initiate Justice. I respectfully oppose a b two two nine seven. I wanna start by acknowledging the intent of the bill.
We all agree that victims deserve restitution and meaningful accountability. That is not in question. But this bill changes when restitution is imposed in a way that undermines one of the most effective tools we have to promote long term public safety, diversion. At its core, diversion is designed to move people out of the traditional punishment system and into pathways focused on stability, rehabilitation, and successful reentry. This bill shifts restitution into the pre conviction phase requiring individuals to take on financial obligations while they are still navigating that process.
Speaker 32
That shift matters. Because the individuals who qualify for diversion are often those most impacted by economic instability, housing insecurity, and unmet behavioral health needs, this bill states that inability to pay cannot disqualify someone from diversion in practice, imposing financial obligations early in the process creates additional barriers to successful completion. And when diversion fails, individuals are pushed back into the traditional system, resulting in worse outcomes for both public safety and long term accountability. And from my work with directly impacted communities across California, we consistently see that successful diversion depends on stability. So if the goal is restitution, California already has mechanisms in place to ensure victims are compensated a structured and enforceable way, and that is why we believe support we we can support victims without undermining diversion success.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Toos in opposition to the bill.
Speaker 38
Danica Rodarmo on behalf of Debt Free Justice California in respect of opposition.
Speaker 11
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 12
Eric Henderson on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.
Speaker 24
Hello, miss Cerner from Saving Lives in Custody, California opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you, everybody. Now we'll turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions? Motion by when, second by Ramos? Sorry.
By Gonzalez? I I can give it to you, James, if you want. Okay. Now we'll give it to mister Gonzalez. Okay.
Third by mister Ramos. Mister vice chair, please.
Speaker 7
There were some things mentioned in regarding to the restitution fund and the direct restitution. Can you tell me the difference between the two?
Speaker 36
Yeah. The the this bill this bill addresses victim restitution. Though those are completely different subjects. This this bill doesn't touch rest restitution fund or restitution fees or anything like that. It it directly addresses victim restitution.
And in in this case, what what this bill primarily addresses is the the lack of uniformity that we currently face with with within our current system where you have 14 different forms of diversion. The four that that that address victim restitution are kind of all over the board in terms of how they apply to victims and and what is mandated. This bill preserves some due process that is already reflected and already exists and has withstood some scrutiny in mental health diversion 1,001.36, where the court can entertain a hearing upon request to determine whether or not restitution is owed at all and make that determination before any order is is made. This and also to address one of the the points on restitution being ordered at a pre conviction stage, that that is precisely one of the issues that was looked at by the court in People v Berlin was the fact that restitution was attempted to be ordered after the completion of the two year period of mental health diversion. And the court concluded that after that two year period, there's only one thing left to do is dismiss the case.
And so it has to be ordered during the period of of diversion. It has to be. And and so what what we're looking for is some consistency, some uniformity, and the ability to give victims a a level expectation of what comes out of their criminal case.
Speaker 7
Thank you. And then just one more. As far as the court's determining the restitution to include the the ability to pay, could you also comment on that?
Speaker 36
Yeah. That that's the that's always a a a factor that the court can consider. That's that's in 1001.36, and I don't think the bill changes that.
Speaker 1
Are there any other questions or comments? I just have one. I really appreciated the thoughtful answer and explanation from our representative from the district attorney's office. Just wondering if opposition witnesses had any brief response.
Speaker 13
Thank you. I just wanted to point out that thank you for the answer. Regarding the victim fund, we did have a discussion with the Department of Finance, and it does cost more money now to pursue recovering victim funds than it is to actually receive victim funds. So, the cost benefit analysis done by the Department of Finance is showing that it's at a a net, loss at this time. So I do wanna point that out.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Does that beg any further questions from the committee? Alright. Seeing none, I believe we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, assembly member?
Speaker 32
Yes. Thank you, mister chair. You know, diversion is about, second chance. And when someone's standing before a court and a judge and the public defender and the DA agree to diversion, a person sets out on a process to make sure that they don't harm again. And part of that is to make certain they make their victims whole.
If they've caused harm, they should do everything they can to eliminate that harm. And I I don't think people realize that restitution is not just about the victim. It's about the person that harms someone. Making amends is a self esteem building project, and everyone who is on diversion should have that opportunity to do it. If you are lucky enough to know anyone in 12 step programs or in a 12 step program yourself, you know the power of amends.
You know what it means when someone who has harmed an individual turns around and makes amends to a person. That's what restitution is. Diverseness is the second chance. So this is not just about helping victims. It's about helping the people who are on diversion make the amends that they should for the harm that they've caused.
And I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. Really want to appreciate the thoughtful testimony of everybody today. Assembly member, I am going to recommend an I. I'll be voting for it today. In my time working with you, I've known you to be someone who really does try to work with every perspective and find that common ground.
I have no doubt that you'll continue to meet with the opposition and do what you can to find that common ground, but I think this is a thoughtful bill. It's a smart bill. Colleagues, I am recommending an eye with a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 6
For item 27 a b twenty two ninety seven by assembly member Stephanie, the motion is due passed. Schultz?
Speaker 6
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Aye. Alaniz?
Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney, Harbetian, Lackey, Nguyen?
Speaker 1
Okay. That bill is out, but we'll keep the roll open for absent members. Okay. Quick programming note, everyone. I believe next up in the queue, we have assembly member Johnson.
So in a moment, we'll take her two bills. After that on my list, mister Calro was actually the first one to sign in. So if he comes back, mister Carrillo, I apologize. He'll go in front of you. You will be right after assembly member Johnson.
I believe we're waiting for check ins from assembly member Jeff Gonzalez and assembly member Soria. So if they wanna make their way down here to sign in, that would be terrific. We have eight bills remaining today. Assembly member Johnson, I believe you'd like to take a b twenty four thirty eight up first. Is that correct?
Okay. Come on down. You once you make your presentation, your witness or witnesses in support will have two minutes each. As I mentioned at the beginning, I'll try to give a visual cue, and there's about 30 remaining so you can wrap up. And you can begin whenever you're ready.
Speaker 24
All right good morning, Mister chair and committee members. Still morning. I'm here today to present AB 2,438, a common sense measure to address the unintended consequences of California's 2011 public safety realignment stemming from a b one zero nine. This bill ensures that individuals sentenced to long term felony terms serve their time in state prison rather than in our overcrowded county jails. Since realignment, county jails originally designed for the short term stays and pretrial detention.
Speaker 39
These have become the de facto long term prisons. Under current law, there is no maximum limit on the length of sentence served in a local jail provided the offense meets certain criteria. This has resulted in individuals serving decades long sentences in local facilities that lack high security infrastructure and robust real rehabilitative resources found at the state level. County jails are now faced or facing severe overcrowding and strained budgets that are undermining their ability to focus on effective community reentry and supervision. AB twenty three thirty eight provides a straightforward threshold.
Any person sentenced to a term or a total term of more than six years for a felony must be housed in a state prison, not a county jail. This shift, will it allow local government the flexibility necessary to manage their populations more effectively? The burden on our counties is significant, and it is measurable. In Riverside County alone, the county I come from, it costs approximately 59,000 annually to house a single inmate. Just three individuals serving terms of six years represents a million dollar local custody cost over the life of their sentence.
These are taxpayer dollars that are being sapped from our communities while state prisons are shut down due to declining prison populations. Additionally, as noted by the California Police Chiefs Association, jail overcrowding leads to extended booking delays, sometimes lasting for several hours. This takes officers off the street, reduces availability, patrol resources in our communities. Jail was never meant to hold prisoners for more than a few years. With state prison populations declining, AB 2,438 provides a solution to ensure correctional resources are properly leveraged while decreasing local overcrowding.
With me to testify in support of this bill is Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Assembly Member, Sheriff, whenever you're ready. Thanks for being here today.
Speaker 40
Absolutely. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, in strong support of AB 2,438. AB 109 shifted a significant portion of long term incarcerated population from the state to counties but it did not change the fundamental design, capacity, or availability of services to local jails. County jails were built for short term detention less than one year, not for individuals serving multi year or long term sentences.
In Riverside County, we are currently housing 46 individuals serving sentences of three years or more including three individuals serving six years or longer including one at 20. This creates a measurable strain on already limited county resources, increased classification, and housing complex complexity, greater demand for programming, medical care, and supervision, ongoing staffing, and operational pressures. These individuals require a different level of management, which pulls resources away from the rest of our jail population. The result is a system wide impact, overcrowning pressures, reduced program access, operational inefficiencies, and serious safety concerns for those incarcerated. The fiscal impact to Riverside County alone is significant.
It costs approximately $59,000 per year to house one incarcerated person. Those three long term individuals represent $177.00 annually and over 1,000,000 for just their sentences alone. AB two forty two two four thirty eight addresses directly by establishing a clear threshold for individuals sentenced to more than six years, they should serve their time in state prison. This is fiscally sound possible policy. It shifts long term incarceration costs back to the system that was designed to handle these individuals.
But this is not just about cost. It is about doing it the right way. State prisons are built, staffed, and structured for long term incarceration. They provide more appropriate housing, better classification systems, and greater access to programming and rehabilitation services. That ultimately leads to better outcomes for the incarcerated population and safer communities for us.
County jails simply do not have the infrastructure to replicate those conditions at scale. AB two four three eight reduces or restores the proper balance between county jails and the state prison system. It relieves pressure on local systems while placing individuals in environments better suited for their needs. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote on AB two four three eight. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you again, assembly member and sheriff, for making the effort to be here today. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos hoping to speak in support of the bill. If anyone would like to be heard in support, please come forward at this time. Okay.
Do we have anyone hoping to testify in opposition? Alright. It looks like we have two. Great. We have two chairs with two microphones right down here.
You know the drill. Two minutes. Your time begins once you start to speak.
Speaker 12
Good morning, chair and members. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and respectful opposition to a b twenty four thirty eight. To understand why AB 2,438 is dangerous, we must understand the history of realignment. In 2006, plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits arguing California's dangerously overcrowded prisons were preventing the state from providing constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care to incarcerated people. A federal judge three panel agreed.
The US Supreme Court upheld that finding and declared that the state needed to reduce overcrowding. And essentially, the court ordered the state to dramatically reduce its prison population. The 2011 Criminal Justice Realignment Act, also known as AB one zero nine, was California's answer to that crisis, and it worked. California came into compliance with the federal population cap in 2015. The critical point is that court order has not gone away.
Speaker 46
The state is still required to maintain a durable, lasting solution to overcrowding. As of December 2025, California's prisons are operating at a 122% of design capacity. And if passed, a b twenty four thirty eight would send a significant number of people back to the state prisons. The bill does not just reverse realignment. It risks putting California back on a collision course with the federal courts, reopening litigation that cost the state significant sums of money, and caused immeasurable harm to incarcerated people and their families.
Speaker 13
Thank you. Good morning. Elizabeth Kim, policy director at Initiate Justice. I respectfully oppose a b two four three eight. I wanna build on what my colleague just raised about a realignment in prison overcrowding.
At its core, this bill expands who is sent to prisons that is already under significant strain without addressing the underlying drivers of risk or recidivism. I also want to acknowledge the concern underlying this bill. I understand that the intent is to ensure that individuals serving longer sentences, particularly those over six years, are placed in settings that the legislature believes may better address public safety risk and accountability. But this bill does not actually solve that problem. Under existing law, individuals are already sent to state prison when there are clear indicators of heightened risk such as serious or violent prior convictions, sex offense registration, or other specified factors.
This bill does not refine that framework. Instead, it creates a bright line rule based solely on sentence length, which is not a reliable proxy for risk, rehabilitation needs, or likelihood of reoffending. And importantly, this bill moves in the wrong fiscal direction. At a recent assembly budget subcommittee hearing on CCR, the legislature discussed ongoing concerns around cost overruns and structural spending pressures within the prison system. At a time when the state is actively trying to manage correctional costs and and reduce reliance on incarceration, this bill expands the use of the most expensive part of the system, state prison, which costs a $120,000 per person annually without evidence that improves outcomes.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Now we'll hear from others hoping to register a position of opposition on the bill. Please come forward at this time.
Speaker 25
Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation. You don't have our letter yet, but we do have an opposed position. Thank you.
Speaker 42
Hananya Sundaraj at the Ella Beaker Center for Human Rights and on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.
Speaker 11
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 14
Javier Rodriguez with ACLU California action in strong opposition. Alright.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. I'd like to turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? Mister Ramos.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister, chair. And to the author, before realignment, what was the sentencing, that the counties actually would hold in those then going to the state prisons? Was it three years, particularly?
Speaker 39
I can I can I don't know if I can hear you fully, but I think the answer is one year? Because you said what was it before?
Speaker 33
So being on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, we've seen the the impact of realignment on the county, and we've seen how county jails served as more of a rehabilitation area prior to the realignment. And we're seeing the influx of at least myself on the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors seen the influx of of inmates, with, wearing red suits, and that means high level, inmates. And so I think looking at this, we have to start to look at a balance that starts to, look at counties and the state and the responsibilities that are there to justice in the state of California. So I just wanted to ask that question, that's there, and also make sure that reiterating, on the county board of supervisors in San Bernardino County, we did see the impact on San Bernardino County. So it's more of a statement.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Ramos. Are there other questions or comments? Mister vice chair?
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chair. So, opposition, you pointed out that a 122% at design capacity for the prisons. What study was that from?
Speaker 12
I can follow-up with you for the specifics. I believe it came from the an LAO report, but I'll I can happy to follow-up.
Speaker 7
Okay. Well, I just wanna point that you both pointed out that there's prison overcrowding going on, but yet I wanna say we're closing prisons. So I don't know how we could be closing prisons yet there's still overcrowding issues. I don't I don't understand that part. But my colleague made a great point as far as what censing used to be before AB one zero nine.
If you got prison, you went to prison. That's how it used to be when I was in law enforcement. And that's the way I think it should be. So, obviously, AB one zero nine has done an a big impact on the counties. Sheriff, I think I'd like to hear a little bit more about your county specific after AB one zero nine, how it impacted maybe your probation officers, how it how it also impacted your community.
Speaker 37
Yeah. It's it's actually the entire criminal justice system, from us, from law enforcement on the in the field, and specifically the probation department. And it was truly it it may have been a great idea on paper, but there was no application to real world life. And once it was pushed on to us, all it really did is shirk that responsibility from the state onto county jail. So you can talk about the state prison for overcrowding, but all this bill did, a b one zero nine, was make every single jail in California completely overcrowded.
Speaker 40
So it was it's not about responsibility. It was not about anything other than shirking a responsibility of housing these inmates. And it's like one of the things that we tried to argue was that if you if you're a family of five in a two bedroom apartment, you don't get to get rid of your kids. You have to build more rooms if you want more individual rooms for your kids. And it's and it's no it's no different.
And the overcrowding that it has done to every jail, sheriff in the entire state is I mean, it's something that we are dealing with on an everyday basis.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much, mister vice chair. Any other questions from the committee? Alright. Assembly member, would you like to close?
Actually, before you do, I apologize. Is there a motion?
Speaker 1
Is there a second? Second. K. With a motion and a second, assembly member, would you like to close?
Speaker 39
I would. Thank you, chair. A b 2438 is a modest common sense change to our criminal justice system. I thank you to my colleague who brought up that this isn't just a Riverside County issue. This is a statewide issue.
At a time when all of our state prisons are historically underutilized, we need real solutions to keep our community safe and ensure inmates are treated humanely. That is simply not possible under our current system. For those reasons, I respectfully request your I vote on this bill.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much, assembly member. I I don't mean to bury the lead. I will be recommending a no, but I mean it when I say that I appreciate you bringing the bill and raising what I think are legitimate issues. Even if we don't agree on the solution that's being proposed today, I think that the issues that have been testified to by the sheriff are real issues facing our local communities. Not long ago, as we all know, California's prisons were so overcrowded that the United States Supreme Court found that we had violated prisoners eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment and ordered the state to reduce our prison population.
Criminal justice realignment is one of the many reforms aimed at reducing these numbers to a constitutionally acceptable level. Realignment limited which persons could be sent to state prison and required more persons to serve their sentences in county jail. Now here's probably the most important thing I'm going to say. Knowing this history, I cannot today support legislation that would potentially return large swaths of people back to state prison without considering the data that has previously been requested by this legislature. And I'm referring to, and you'll find it, actually in the committee analysis on page six, assembly bill ten eighty by Republican assembly member Trita, which has a due back date by June 30.
I'm even more concerned, separate and aside from that fact, given the research that demonstrates keeping nonviolent, nonserious, and nonsex offenders closer to their communities actually improves reentry outcomes and recidivism rates. In closing, I can't support your your bill today because assembly member Ta has requested this data to study the efficiencies of realignment or the lack of efficiencies. This data is coming back in short order. And with all due respect, assembly member, I think your bill is premature. So with that, I am recommending a note today.
Speaker 6
For item 31 a b twenty four thirty eight by assembly member Johnson, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz? No. Schultz? No.
Alanis?
Speaker 1
That will remain on call. We'll let you know the outcome. Assembly member Johnson I think that brings us to your second bill this is twenty four fifty is that correct.
Speaker 1
to have a second while we're at it. I'm gonna assume mister Lackey would second the bill.
Speaker 39
Great. Thank you so much. I'm here in now switching hats to a b twenty four fifty, a bill intended to restore true judicial discretion for specific drug related sentencing enhancements. For decades, California used enhancements like the Schoolyard Act and large quantity enhancements to protect children and deter mass drug trafficking. Recent legal changes have effectively nullified these tools by requiring judges to give great weight to broad mitigating factors, essentially tying judges' hands.
This dismissal has become the default even in cases involving kilograms of narcotics or crimes committed on school grounds. AB 2,450 changes the standard for six specific drug enhancements from shall to May. It does not remove a judge's ability to dismiss enhancement. It simply removes the near mandatory requirement to do so. This bill applies to high stake drug crimes, including crimes against children, soliciting minors for drug deals on school or childcare grounds, and manufacturing drugs where children are present and injured.
The Schoolyard Act trafficking drugs in school zones, major trafficking, large quantity enhancements for the possessing kilograms of cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Drug crimes are extremely serious, especially those that involve children or vulnerable spaces and protected places. It is our sacred duty as a legislative body to protect the children of California. As a mother and a former mayor, I'm beyond heartbroken by the devastation caused by the drug trade. And for all the needless lives lost because of lax and lacking enforcement.
I want to be clear. There is absolutely no reason why anyone convicted of these crimes should get anything less than the full extent of the law leveraged against them. We have to draw a line and say enough is enough when it comes to our kids. Sentencing enhancements are a public safety tool that keep dangerous criminals behind bars and out of communities, and judges are best positioned to weigh the specific facts of a case. Rigid legislation mandates that force dismissal across the board undermine the transparency and accountability of our judicial system.
With me to testify for this bill is Desmond Young, business development director for Riverside County Resources, a nonprofit providing alcohol and drug addiction, recovery, and behavioral health services, and Rochelle Beardsley, deputy district attorney for the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office here on behalf of California District Attorneys Association.
Speaker 22
Good morning, chair. Good morning, members. I'm Rochelle Beardsley with the California District Attorneys Association. I'm here to testify in support of a b twenty four fifty, legislation that would responsibly restore judicial discretion in the application of critical, sentencing enhancements in regards to narcotics offenses. Recent changes to the law, s b six twenty, s b 81, they basically act to compel courts to dismiss enhancements whenever broadly defined mitigating circumstances are claimed.
Speaker 9
Even when defendants trafficking massive quantities of narcotics or endangered children. This shift has undoubtedly undermined public safety and accountability in some of the most serious drug offenses. AB twenty four fifty does not eliminate judicial discretion. Rather, it restores the balance by allowing courts to dismiss enhancements when appropriate rather than simply requiring dismissal in nearly every case. This bill reinforces legislative intent by preserving enhancements related to soliciting minors for drug crimes, large quantity trafficking, manufacturing drugs in the presence of children causing great bodily injury, and meth and PCP violations on church grounds.
Speaker 22
These enhancements exist to protect vulnerable communities, to ensure proportionate consequences for high risk offenders, and they reestablish meaningful judicial discretion. And because of that, I urge a passage today. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Good morning, chair Schultz and members. My name is Desmond Young, and I am the business development director and community relations person for Riverside Recovery Resources. I come before you today as someone who has been personally active in the recovery community since 2004 and as a board founding board member for Inland Empire Harm Reduction. My guiding principle in this work is responsible compassion, a balance between deep empathy for those struggling with substance use and firm accountability for their growth and for the safety of our neighborhoods. At Riverside Recovery Resources, been around, excuse me, for more than forty years.
Speaker 45
Our mission is to build stronger families and communities by providing the tools and sustainable healing. For healing to take place, our communities must be safe, yet current law has effectively erased critical protections for our most vulnerable residents. AB twenty four fifty is a measured, necessary step to restore judicial discretion for drug related enhancements that target high level trafficking and crimes against children. I personally engage with formerly incarcerated people daily, And all that I speak to will support this bill, which is amazing. I don't think people recognize that for those of us, and I'm fortunate that I have not been justice involved, but I'm working with people every day.
And many of them say, if it wasn't for judge so and so, I would not have stopped. I personally feel that I just don't understand why everyone wouldn't be in support for protecting our children. In my role, I see firsthand how open air drug sales and manufacturing disproportionately devastate disadvantaged communities and families, restoring enhancement for crimes and safe zones like schools and childcare centers is an act of equity for children living in those neighborhoods. We cannot ignore Riverside County as a major thorough
Speaker 1
Alright. Next, we'll hear from others who'd like to heard in support of the bill. Come on down.
Speaker 46
Good morning, mister chairman, members Corey Salzow on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 15
Good morning. Lieutenant Julio Delion from Riverside County Sheriff's Office and sheriff Jeff Bianco who had to step away in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you both for your testimony. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition to this bill? Okay. There are two.
Come on down. You know the drill. Your time starts when you begin to speak.
Speaker 23
Good morning. Glenn Bachus for Drug Policy Alliance. Drug Policy Alliance opposes a b two four five zero because it would encourage district attorneys to return to the failed policy of stacking enhancements onto base sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. Sentence stacking has the effect of forcing defendants to accept unjust plea agreements or be threatened with many years, even decades, of incarceration should they assert their constitutional right to a trial by jury. Sentencing enhancements have been one of the primary drivers of mass incarceration and prison overcrowding.
They've caused intergenerational harm to tens of thousands of low income families and wasted vast amounts of taxpayer dollars. The California legislature working with governors Brown and Newsom have incrementally reformed policies related to enhancements as well as policies related to drug use and drug sales to better emphasize treatment and public health approaches. This bill would degrade the requirement to dismiss certain drug related enhancements even if the court decide determines that it's in the furtherance of justice to do so. AB 2,450 would also require more severe punishment if drug sales occur within a thousand feet of a school. These drug free school zones, as they're called, encompass every inch of an urban area and most residential suburban residential parts of the suburbs as well.
I'm sure it's not the intention of the author to punish people who reside in cities more severely than those who reside in rural areas, but that would be the effect. Respectfully, the Drug Policy Alliance supports policies to invest in drug use prevention as well as drug treatment and public health programs to reduce death and disability caused by drugs. But we strongly oppose bills like this one as a waste of public dollars and a waste of human lives. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Danica Rodarmo on behalf of the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union Local one hundred forty eight. The basic premise of this bill is that allowing judges to choose to not impose an enhancement after finding that dismissing it would be in the furtherance of justice would somehow deter drug crimes, strains credulity, and would really result in absurd results. So we urge a no vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Toos who'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill. Can you please come forward at this time?
Speaker 11
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association opposed.
Speaker 9
Lynn Berkley Baskin, justice to Jobs Coalition and La Defense in LA opposed.
Speaker 42
Hanania Sundarach at Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.
Speaker 24
Hello. Miss Serna from Saving Lives in Custody, California in opposition.
Speaker 43
I apologize. We're here in support. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers Association and Riverside Sheriffs. Was stuck over in the senate. My apologies.
Speaker 1
Not not a problem. This is the second week you almost had me you almost had me going like, what is going on here? You're gonna oppose this bill. No. Not at Thank you, sir.
Position of support registered and duly noted. Thank you. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.
Are there questions or comments from members of the committee? I believe we have a motion and a second already. No questions, no comments? Alright. My only question, but you can address it in your close.
Assembly member is just hearing some of the concerns raised by the opposition. If you could speak to that in your closing, I'd appreciate it. But unless there's any other questions or comments from the committee, I will give you a chance to close.
Speaker 39
Okay. I'll keep it pretty simple. As a former mayor and experiences at the local level and government, I have seen this devastation that drugs can cause in our neighborhoods. I actually worked alongside, my my support testimony, Desmond, here this today, boots on the ground helping those, meeting them where they were, and offering services to help them, say yes, hopefully. And, as he responded in his comments that if it hadn't been for a certain judge, they never would have said that yes, even though we had potentially greeted them 83 times in the field.
So this bill isn't about unfair or unjust. Chair, to your to your question, it's not about unfair or unjust punishment. It's about giving judges the power back to impose appropriate penalties for dangerous offenders, and it's to protect our children. Enough is enough. AB twenty four fifty is supported by California State Sheriff's Association, PORAC, the California Civil Liberties Advocacy, and Riverside County District Attorney and Sheriff.
I'm gonna keep it simple and and strongly request and urge you for your I vote on this bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member, and thank you again to all of our witnesses for your testimony today. I know two minutes is it sounds like a lot of time. It's not really a lot of time. I get it. Assemblymember Johnson, I understand wholeheartedly the desire in bringing the bill forward.
It's my view that the courts already have discretion to not dismiss an enhancement. For the sake of time, I won't read it in its entirely, but I would encourage everyone to refer to pages eight and nine of the committee analysis, and I would point specifically to a recent California Supreme Court case, People versus Walker. Citation there is 16 Cal fifth ten twenty four. This is a 2024 case. I'd like to read an excerpt, a short excerpt, if I might.
This is the court's writing. It is clear that the structure does not presume an enhancement should be dismissed whenever an enumerated mitigating circumstance is present, but instead, the ultimate question before the trial court remains whether it is in the furtherance of justice to dismiss an enhancement. And this furtherance of justice inquiry requires a trial court's ongoing exercise of discretion. Thus, notwithstanding the presence of a mitigating circumstance, trial courts retain their discretion to impose an enhancement based on circumstances long deemed essential to the furtherance of justice inquiry. In rendering their position, the supreme court was citing a prior case from 2023, people versus Ortiz.
Citation on that one is 87. CalAP fifth ten eighty seven, specifically pages ten ninety eight and ten ninety nine. The point that I'm trying to make, assembly member Johnson, is while I do understand the the the the impetus for your bill, the court has been clear. The Supreme Court of California has been clear in saying that the court, that the clause shall dismiss, is notwithstanding that, the court retains discretion to dismiss an enhancement. Therefore, and with all due respect, I find your bill unnecessary and passing a bill to suggest otherwise what is now well established, well interpreted law of this land risk jeopardizing what I view to be a very clear instruction to the trial courts that they do retain that discretion.
So I'm sorry to say that I must recommend a note today.
Speaker 6
For item 32 a b twenty four fifty by assembly member John Johnson, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? No. Schultz? No.
Alanis? Gonzales? Haney? Harbetian, Blackie?
Speaker 6
Blackie? Aye. When? When not voting? Ramos?
Ramos? No. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins? No.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure remains on call for absent members. We'll let you know the outcome.
Speaker 1
Okay. At long last, mister Patient himself, mister Carrillo, the floor is all yours, my friend. I believe you have some demonstratives that you'll be showing today. Pictures, I believe.
Speaker 27
I do for one of my bills. If it's okay with you, mister chair, can I start with a B2104?
Speaker 27
Thank you, mister chair and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to present assembly bill twenty one zero four. This bill will improve access to justice by requiring court hearings related to sexually violent predators known as SVPs, provide a remote access option for viewing. This bill will only apply to hearings that have already been deemed open to the public by a judge, And our constituents have a fundamental right to view the decision making process. As of now, courts are not required to provide a remote access option, which means that members of the public must attend in person.
Doing so can be extremely difficult for those with illnesses, disabilities, children or dependents, and without reliable childcare, the inability to miss work, and many other reasons why. Additionally, a lack of reliable transportation, which is well known issue in rural districts like mine, can make traveling to a courthouse nearly impossible. Many courts have already implemented remote access options for court participation due to the COVID-nineteen pandemic, and AB twenty one zero four will make use of this available technology. I do not have any witnesses with me today, mister chair, but I must mention a constituent in my district, Mary Geters, who has been a fierce advocate of improving this process. She would have loved to be here to be a principal witness, but she fell ill, and she's not able to be here today.
So thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assemblymember. Sorry. Thank you, assemblymember. And your constituent's name one more time?
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, Mary can't be here, but she's now on the record. So maybe that's some small token of her
Speaker 1
Thank you. Others hoping to be heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time.
Speaker 47
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Erica Short, and I am here in strong support of a b 20, one zero four. I live within two fifteen minute drives of two of the, predators that were released in the Antelope Valley. And if it wasn't for Mary Jeters, who was at those hearings, she was the only one that was able to make it. She we would not have known that these were something that happens in our community.
So it's important that we understand that this has to be a fair process for our entire community, and it's not fair that sexually violent predators are being released into our area at higher rates than more affluent communities. So I really urge you all to support and help our community out. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. And, assembly member, since you didn't have a witness, I'll her go a little over.
Speaker 22
Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Anyone else hoping to register a support position? Okay. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition?
Okay. I do see one, so come on down. You'll have two minutes whenever you're ready. Don't feel any rush.
Speaker 11
No rush until I start talking. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We are in respectful opposition to a b twenty one zero four, which seeks to mandate a one size fits all policy and strips judges of their legal discretion and rule making ability. First, proceedings under the SVP laws like juvenile proceedings are generally not open to the public.
Specifically, SVP proceedings are not punitive and are about determining an individual's mental status, which by their very nature turns on the individual's mental health records, evaluations of their current mental health. AB twenty one zero four risks tainting a jury pool for an SVP case in smaller counties where broadcasting the proceedings makes it more likely that potential jurors will be prejudiced against the individual facing commitment or petitioning for release. Courts have held that it is up to judges to determine which parts of s v SVP proceedings are public and which are not. Second, the policies of the 58 county, Superior Courts, which allow remote access or video live streaming vary widely from all public proceedings being remotely accessible to the public to none at all. For example, Alameda and Yolo Counties appear to allow public access to all public proceedings.
Other superior courts like Santa Clara and Santa Cruz appear to allow live streaming at the judge's discretion. I can go on with the counties. I won't. Even the courts like Los Angeles County Superior Court, which prominently posts no public remote policies in their website, have demonstrated that judges are best able to determine when it is appropriate to livestream hearings. However, in September 2025, LA County Superior Court judge sent out a press release inviting the public to appear remotely for an SVP hearing that generated a lot of public interest.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Appreciate it. Are there others hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill? If so, now would be the time to come forward. Okay.
I don't see anybody, so we will turn it back to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Mister Lacky. K? We have a motion.
Is there a second? K. Motion by Lacky. Second by Wynn. Any other discussion?
Speaker 20
I'm greatly appreciative to the assembly member for bringing this to the attention of this committee. Just so everybody is aware, our our we we share we live close to each other. And and I will tell you that our region is frequently targeted for the placement of, these individuals with this very severe problem. And, it strikes fear in the hearts of, those who share property nearby. And I I think that what what this bill just seeks for is a little bit more transparency so that, everybody could be aware of what's actually happening in our judicial process.
Speaker 16
I don't know what we have to hide. And I think that it it's nice that it it could build confidence in our system. And I don't know what we again, I don't know what we have to hide, and so I completely support this.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Lackey. Any other questions or comments? Alright. The only question I have is just in fairness to our opposition witness. I know you're in the middle of a point when I had to cut you off.
If there's any brief other point that you'd like to leave with the committee No.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. Alright. Mister Korea, would you like to close?
Speaker 27
I would, mister chair, and thank you for the opportunity to present this bill. And to the comments by assembly member Lackey, thank you for your support. I know that you represent our our area for twelve years this year. And as you mentioned, looking at placement of these individuals, they have to be placed somewhere. We all understand that.
But the fact that we don't have one or two, but three individuals in the High Desert is concerning to me, and it should be concerning to everybody that represents our communities. In fact, there's been talks about placing a fourth individual in our district. And one of those, personally being there right now was actually placed there ten years ago. He violated his release, and he's placed back again. So I thank for your support.
Mister chair, thank you very much. With that, I'd just simply say that AB twenty one zero four will reduce barriers to justice so that California residents can stay informed when decisions are made that directly impact them. And that that's all this bill is asking, just for more transparency in the process. And with that, I respectfully ask for an eye board. Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. I will be recommending an eye, and I'd like to take this opportunity briefly to share what we've talked about in private in my office. I appreciate your approach to this bill, notwithstanding that there are some legitimate questions and concerns have been raised by opposition, and I trust that you'll continue to work with them to the extent possible to find that common ground. But I appreciate, and I am supporting your approach today because we have designed a system in California that is wholly unfair in that we are not releasing SVPs in urban communities like my district. They're being funneled to a very narrow category of rural communities and is disproportionately impacting your communities.
But also every year, and and this is the the word of caution I share to the capital community, we see bill after bill trying to add further restriction, further limiting where we can place these individuals. Not only is it unfair in that your districts are the ones bearing the brunt of that burden of of giving them a place to go after they leave custody, it also jeopardizes rendering an entire system unconstitutional because these folks are not sentenced to life without parole. These folks do have an opportunity, a right to be released. And so my caution to the capital community is that we should be thoughtful about putting in place reasonable restrictions, but we should also be mindful of the impact that it bears on rural communities as opposed to urban communities, are largely exempt from placement right now. And we cannot have a system that becomes unconstitutional because it's so darn restrictive.
There is no place to put these folks leaving custody. So I I appreciate the opportunity there, mister Creel. I share that admonishment, that concern with the capital community. For today, I am proud to rep I'm proud to recommend an eye, and I'll be voting for it.
Speaker 6
For item 18, a b twenty one zero four by assembly member Creel, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 6
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Gonzales? Haney?
Barbadian? Blackie? Aye. Blackie? Aye.
Wen? Aye. Wen? Aye. Ramos?
Ramos? Aye. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins not voting.
Speaker 1
Alright. That measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome, and I believe you have a second bill. Someone number have
Speaker 27
a second bill, and that's the one that I like to have some prompts if that's okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Well, these pumps get placed so that you can see the severity of the issue in the High Desert again. Once again, thank you for allowing me to present assembly bill twenty three ten.
First, I would like to thank the committee for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee's amendments. The amendments were accepted. We'll make sure that lower level waste transporters are not targets of this bill and that those that use dump trucks to transport and deposit materials on contracted staging grounds will not be penalized. In other words, for those that are doing construction, like construction material. And lastly, these amendments will modify the penalty structure for the fourth and subsequent offense to a wobbler penalty in place of the original misdemeanor penalty.
Speaker 5
AB twenty three ten is a measure that strengthens enforcement against large scale and repeat illegal dumping, holds responsible parties accountable for cleanup costs, and protects communities for environmental harm. Illegal dumping has the potential to cause widespread environmental harm to the soil and water if chemicals leach down into the water table as well as in the air. Depending on the types of materials, gases, or chemicals can be found in these waste deposits. Furthermore, profit driven illegal dumping has long since been an issue for Californian communities across the state. According to the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, as well as the district attorney's office, more than two forty properties in Los Angeles County are currently under investigation or enforcement review for alleged illicit dumping activity.
Speaker 27
Areas significantly impacted include Lancaster, Palmdale, Llano, and the Antelope Valley. Additional reported cases exist in Santa Clarita, Acton, Calabasas, Malibu, the San Gabriel Valley, and neighboring Ventura County. Existing law under Penal Code Section 374.3 prohibits the dumping of waste material or rocks, concrete, asphalt, or dirt upon a public or private road, upon private property without the consent of the owner, or upon a public park or property. This allows a loophole, however, that private landowners and the bankrolling parties are able to exploit with the owner's consent to dampen property for a profit. This is why I'm here today to introduce AB two thousand three ten to protect our national environments and urban communities from being affected by the damages caused by harmful material deposits.
In order to ensure the safety of our national environment, we must bolster our productive measures relating to these kinds of repeat violations. This piece of legislation will be essential providing law enforcement tools they need to safeguard our environment, health, and discourage these repeat offenders from engaging in these illegal activities. As you can see on these props today, these are the amounts of trash that are being dumped in the high Desert in my district. You can see the pictures here, how tall they are. There's a picture that show the height of a person.
One of them is me, visiting those sites. And just the amount of trash that is dumped just on the desert, is this just something that needs to be fixed? Enforcement is one issue, but there's also a lack of enforcement capacities and also the penalties that keep getting ignored. But as you can see in these props here, if you were to a landfill, that's what you see, a legally processed landfill like waste management and any of the other ones. I would argue that this is the same thing, except that it's injuring our communities.
Like I said in my talking points, it is the environment and the health of the constituents that I represent in High Desert. With that, I joining me to testify in support and answer technical questions is Tamar Talcott with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office and Erica Schwartz with South Bay Center for Counseling.
Speaker 18
Go ahead with your witness testimony. Stay within the time frame, please.
Speaker 48
Thank you. Good morning, members, and and to the chair when he returns. I'm Larry Dreger. I'm here on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, where I'm the head deputy of our environmental crimes division. So we are proud sponsors of a b twenty three ten.
A b twenty three ten addresses a very timely, significant, and emerging environmental justice issue in communities throughout our state. The problem is the ever increasing use of lands by profiteering private entities, businesses, and corporations that are essentially creating private, illegal landfills, dump sites where many, many tons of waste material, construction debris, and trash are being dumped on open land. In Southern California, this problem became particularly acute after wildfires swept through LA County last year. Debris from the fires contain hazardous and toxic materials such as lead, asbestos, arsenic, and other heavy metals. Contractors trying to save a buck by not disposing of the debris properly started dumping it illegally in open piles in the Antelope Valley and other areas.
The illegal dumping of this fire debris was only the latest example of an ongoing problem that has been increasing in severity for many years throughout the state. Waste is dumped without any of the protections to the environment or local communities that are are seen in legal landfills. It's spread over vast acreages and left to seep into groundwater and be swept by the winds into the surrounding areas and communities. The impact is severe on areas that the public relies on to experience nature, and neighborhoods are almost always inhabited by disenfranchised and underserved communities. AB twenty three ten will fix this problem.
Speaker 25
It'll strengthen the existing statute by ensuring those who cause large scale damage are treated differently from small scale offenders, and it will allow much needed accountability for these large scale operators, corporations, and business entities that are adopting 50 cubic yards or more of waste. AB twenty three ten provides important and necessary tools to deter intentional widespread pollution to the environment and harm to the communities. Thank you so much for your attention to this bill. And on behalf of the LA County District Attorney's Office, I ask for your aye votes.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Do you have another, witness testimony, Assemblyman? I do, sir. Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 47
Hello, chairs and, members of the committee. My name is Erica Short, and I'm here on behalf of South Bay Center for Counseling as well as the community members across the Antelope Valley in strong support of AB twenty three ten. I am a resident of the Antelope Valley, specifically in the rural community of Lake Los Angeles. For nearly a decade, since around 2018, our communities have been living in ongoing impacts of illegal dumping. This is not a new issue.
It is a persistent and growing problem that has gone unaddressed for a long time. Our communities are not just witnessing the illegal dumping, but we are also its victims over and over again. First, we are penalized by doing the right thing. We pay to have our waste properly disposed of, Yet some companies pocket the money and illegally dump these materials instead of complying with local law enforcement. Second, we are victims of the direct environmental and health impacts.
Toxic waste is being dumped in our backyards. We are dealing with spontaneous fires, harmful fumes, and pollutants that threaten our soil and water. Families are exposed to conditions that should never have existed in the first place. And third, we are victims as taxpayers. We fund cities and county public work departments as well as taxes for Calt Recycle to clean up illegal dumping, yet resources are limited.
Speaker 4
Some sites are addressed while others are left behind to sit and decompose and off gas toxic humes over a period of time. Most concerning is the impact on public health, especially for our youth. In some areas, dumpings exist near schools, which kids walk through on a regular basis because we're rural communities. No community should have to accept this as their normal. California Assembly Bill twenty three ten is a necessary step forward by clearly defining what qualifies as compost, mulch, and organic waste versus solid waste.
Speaker 47
This is something that will help close the loopholes on how illegal dumping is being disguised as legitimate activity. It gives agencies the clarity that it needs to identify violations and act on it. This bill is a step in the right direction in ensuring waste is properly categorized, regulated, and no longer used to cover harmful substances. I support this, and I hope that you do too.
Speaker 22
Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, California DAs Association support. Kayla Robinson with Californians Against Waste in support. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Travis Legault with the rural county representatives of California reviewing the amendments but in support.
Speaker 4
Hello, everyone. My name is Sikhala Li Shure, and I am 10 years old. Thank you for letting me speak today. I am representing both the school, I lead Lancaster's fourth grade I am representing both the school, I lead Lancaster's fourth grade class and a youth program called SPCC Escape Room. I've been participating in community cleanups since I was three, and a big challenge is that no matter how much we clean up, the commercial trucks full of trash keep coming.
It has gotten more toxic for our community and is not safe for me to help clean up anymore. I brought with me a letter of support signed by my peers and community members from all over LA County and some from San Bernardino County. Please accept them. I urge you to stand with me in passing AB twenty three ten for more for better for better enforcement of illegal dumping in my community. I would like to grow up in an environment that is clean, but every time I see the trucks drive by, I know things are not going to change.
Please help us. Thank
Speaker 18
you for your testimony. Testimony in opposition? Testimony in opposition?
Speaker 11
Alright. Leslie Caldwell, Houston on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition to a b twenty three ten. While we're very appreciative of the author's agreement to accept amendments, we continue to have some concerns. I do want to specifically thank the author's staff member, Jalen Wise, for reaching out to us and having some discussion with me as late as 9PM last night. We remain opposed unless amended as this bill continues to expand liability to individuals who may lack the requisite intent and who may be acting at the direction of another.
Although the amendment attempts to address this by clarifying that individuals acting at the direction of an employer shall not be charged with dumping commercial quantities, this protection is likely too narrow in practice. It would require individuals to establish that the person directing them qualifies as an employer under the law. Many indigent clients work for informal or precarious, in precarious arrangements that may not meet that definition that yet their conduct would still fall within the statute's reach. Further, the bill with the amendment still risks disproportionately impacting indigent individuals while offering meaningful protection primarily to those in more formal employment relationships who are in many cases more likely to have the requisite intent. We are also concerned about the fourth time misdemeanor provision.
Additional criminalization, and penalties are always of deep concern. For the above reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.
Speaker 14
Go ahead. Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a legislative advocate with ACLU California action. While we are very appreciative of author accepting the committee amendments, we continue to have issues with this bill, increasing criminal penalties of an existing crime and expanding illegal dumping to include construction debris, which isn't properly defined. As someone who's worked on remodeling homes for many years with my dad, there's a lot of that can contain a lot of different materials.
Speaker 36
I'd like to also start by noting that for the record, if a person transporting illegal dumping materials has the specific intent to commit illegal dumping, that person can be charged for attempted dumping under current law, pending penal code 21 a. This would make the proposed provisions in this bill to explicitly include transporting these materials for the purpose of illegal dumping unnecessary. And as noted in the committee analysis, evidence shows that growing criminal fines increase recidivism, specifically among a population that has historically has faced disproportionate punishment in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, there is a great amount of study and evidence surrounding the efficacy behind increased criminal penalties and its impact on crime deterrence. Evidence indicates increasing criminal punishment fails to deter crime.
Speaker 14
Other studies find that the severity of punishment does not generally have an increased effect on deterrence. Rather, it is the certainty of punishment that has a greater deterrence effect than the severity of the punishment itself. We encourage legislators to reconsider noncarceral alternatives that attempt to get at the root causes of crime and address it there. We must reimagine our approach to our criminal legal system by moving away from the tired and old carceral solutions that plagued much of our state. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on a b twenty three ten.
Thank you.
Speaker 18
Thank you for your testimony. Those in opposition? Any in opposition? Bringing it back to the diocese. Is there a motion or a second?
Speaker 49
If I'm not already, I'd like to be a coauthor to this. I just wanna thank the author for this bill and thank the young lady for giving her testimony as well. We work with Caltrans on a lot of these issues. We work with community cleanups. Earth Day is just around the corner.
I represent Downtown Los Angeles and surrounding communities, which has become the epicenter in addition to the Antelope Valley where people are dumping couches. They're dumping furniture. They're coming from the West Side. They're coming from the South Side, the East Side, the North Side, and they're treating our community like it's absolute trash. And that's what this is about.
They are telling our communities that we are trash, and that's what this is about. And it's upsetting. It's frustrating. I know that my particular street where I live in downtown is oftentimes illegal dumping as well where they've thrown couches. And then, unfortunately, individuals have set those couches on fire, which set my apartment building on fire, and they had to deal with that situation.
Speaker 14
And so if they're not getting penalized and they're continuing to do this, they're gonna continue to do it over and over. And we sat through this committee where I had a copper wire theft that talked about how this is a part of that issue because when the lights are out, nobody's watching what's what's happening, and there are no cameras or anything that's working in that area, so they constantly dump it. And so I challenge those who have concerns about this to join me in off the one ten and the 10, off of, you know, Grand Avenue, and you see this happening time and time again. And it it's just it's really disappointing that that's how they're treating our community and just the amount of debris and trash that gets picked up from the side of the freeway. Now it does provide good jobs, but, we don't want to trash California.
Speaker 49
I just wanna thank the author to, thank the author for bringing this forward today, and I'd like to be listed as a coauthor.
Speaker 16
to say something really, really quickly. This is not the first legislative remedy that's been brought forward to this body. And I I would tell you that, all previous attempts have failed. And it's very, very frustrating being a person who lives out in these rural areas. The the desert is a target rich circumstance because we have miles and miles and miles of open desert.
And I appreciate the fact that you kinda gave a visual impact to how that's just one spot.
Speaker 16
I'm telling you, it's all over. And there is incentive because of the regulatory circumstance on how to get rid of trash and especially hazardous waste. There is a huge financial incentive for a lot of professional dumping, and that is what's happening. It's professionals. As you saw the amount of, debris that was dumped there, that wasn't somebody from their backyard.
That was very, very professionally dumped.
Speaker 16
And there's no real disincentive to to stop it. So this is what this bill is trying to do is bring attention and and express intolerance for this kind of behavior. As a society, we need to actually I mean, there is a lot of intent for regulatory circumstances with how we manage our waste. But sometimes it has a negative consequence like this because there's such a regulatory limit and it's so expensive to process that waste. They're encouraged to do this.
And right now, even if they're caught even if they're caught, it's still well worth it.
Speaker 16
So we gotta stop that. And this bill attempts to do that, and so I'm very thankful that you brought it forward, and I pray it survives.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Thank mister Member Lackey. Any other questions, comments from the diocese?
Speaker 17
Thank you. I too would like to thank the author for bringing this forward. I did not plan on speaking on this, but after even seeing the pictures and hearing more, I do want to acknowledge that I also understand the opposition's positions as it's concerned about the increased penalties and putting penalties on property owners and others who may not have been responsible for the dumping permitting and so forth. So I completely understand that as well. In one of my unincorporated areas, which is Spring Valley, they're doing exactly what what you're showing.
Mhmm. It it this this land has become a dumping ground and it is professional dumping that's happening over there. And we have a lot of unhoused population that is also there. Mhmm. And so I've taken the tour.
I've done the walk through, and I've asked how is this even possible to have I mean, when I say the pictures you showed, it's it's about that much.
Speaker 17
If not more. The smells, just all these different type of thing, and it's right in the heart of the unincorporated area of Spring Valley. So I understand where you're coming from. I do appreciate you bringing this forward. I'm in the process of addressing this now in my own district.
We're talking to our county board of supervisors and others to figure out how we can get this cleared out. But I wanted to acknowledge that I also understand the issues in regards to the penalties and so forth. But we have to do something because the ear itself is unbreathable, honestly, in those areas because of the amount of product that's being dumped.
Speaker 49
Mister chair, if I could just add something I completely forgot. Miss Sharp Collins reminded me. Many commercial properties in my area as well. I represent the Arts District and the Industrial District in Los Angeles, and many of my businesses have been complaining that their insurance is getting cut because of the legal dumping and debris in those areas. In addition, when they when they challenge the the insurance companies who don't wanna insure the properties, their insurance companies are sending, to my understanding, drones to go double check if the the commercial property owners are lying or not.
And then when they start to see the debris, they immediately cancel them, and then they can't get insured. And so many times when there's broken windows or or there is other issues as a result of the dumping, it's cheaper for them to just pay out of their pocket to replace it than it is for them to go through the insurance. That's if they're even still insured. And so to miss Sharp Collins' point, yes, I I see I agree with you and your points on that. So I'm hoping you guys can work to a happy medium on that, but but it is a fair point.
So I do wanna acknowledge that as well.
Speaker 14
FMI through the chair. Yeah. I just wanna I appreciate your comments, and I'm obviously authoring your reasons for moving this bill forward. But as the member from Palmdale mentioned that, you know, there is an incentive within the regulatory framework, and rather than trying to push carceral solutions to this problem, we should be looking at noncarceral solutions, and that's something that we should be examining more closely is trying to get rid of these incentives for people to legally dump or have this profession even. And if they get caught, you know, it's cheaper for them to do that.
So we just try to encourage members here to try to move away from these punitive approaches because we have so much in our punical already, but thank you for raising those points.
Speaker 7
Thank you, senator Ramos. Love the bill. Obviously, working in the county as the deputy sheriff and seeing illegal dumping going on everywhere. It's great to see this bill, and I I I'm obviously big on consequences, but I'm also about rehabilitation. So I think consequence parts, I'm hoping will deter a lot of this from happening or continuing to happen.
So I appreciate this, and I'd also ask to be a coauthor.
Speaker 18
Thank you so much. Any other questions, comments? Hearing none, would you like to close?
Speaker 27
Thank you. Thank you all for your comments. As you stated, this is not unique to the High Desert. It's in big urban areas like in Downtown LA. More work needs to be done, absolutely.
We need to continue working on this issue, which again is affecting not only urban areas, but rural communities, and the effects of what the environment is going to encounter is directly related to those that live nearby. So with that, I thank you for your comments. This bill will combat unlawful dumping by closing the gaps of remaining enforcement tools to address repeat offenders, large scale commercial dumping operations, and property owners who knowledge knowledgingly facilitate such activities. I respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Assembly Member Carrillo. And just to confirm, you have accepted committee amendments?
Speaker 18
Thank you. With that, chair Schultz recommends an I vote. Please call the roll.
Speaker 6
For item 28, AB twenty three ten by Assembly Member Carrillo, the motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz, Alanis.
Speaker 6
Alanis, aye. Gonzales. Aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney, Horbidian, Blackie.
Aye. Lackie, aye. Nguyen, aye. Ramos.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, everyone. We are gonna take assembly member Kolra's bill next, followed by assembly member Wynn. I will just note that because she has press involved, we're gonna advance that bill earlier in the day. Mister Kalra, you'll be presenting on a b nineteen fifty eight.
Correct? Yes. Alright. Whenever you're ready, mister chair.
Speaker 46
Thank you. A b nineteen fifty eight makes several clarifying changes to the procedures for establishing a disparity claim under the California Racial Justice Act to streamline litigation and provide consistent guidance to the courts. Since the RJA went into effect over five years ago, only four disparity of claims have been litigated to conclusion. And in only one of those cases, the trial court found a violation had been established. This lack of claims can be attributed to several factors that have created unnecessary delays, problematic barriers, and inconsistent application across the state.
First, defendants often face difficulty obtaining relevant data, either because district attorney's offices claim it takes years to assemble or that their data systems do not capture it. Second, defense attorneys have had to repeat resource intensive litigation to request nearly identical data sets in different cases across the county, rather than relying on already produced data. Third, courts have been inconsistent on several procedural aspects of the RJ including whether claims require both the statistical analysis and non statistical evidence, when the district attorney must present race neutral reasons and how to analyze race neutral reasons, and whether the RGA was intended to apply to the entirety of the criminal process, such as plea offers. AB nineteen fifty eight will provide procedural clarification for the requirements to establish an RJA disparity claim under penal code section seven forty five, a three, or a four. Specifically, that a defendant is not required to conduct both the statistical analysis and present non statistical evidence, which was the original intent of the RGA, and that the prosecution must produce evidence showing disparities are explained by race neutral factors.
Speaker 39
Additionally, the bill reduced delays and decreased duplicative time intensive litigation by allowing counsel to request previously produced data in comparable cases. Lastly, AB nineteen fifty eight makes it explicit that no part of the criminal process is insulated from the RGA, including plea bargains. Altogether, these changes continue to build upon the legislature's work to address racial discrimination and bias in the criminal legal system and make it so the RJA can be implemented as intended. Whether that be answering procedural uncertainties or closing unintended loopholes. Here to testify in support are Belle Yan, assistant professor and supervising attorney at the University of San Francisco School of Law and Racial Justice Clinic, and Cecilia Chavez with Silicon Valley Debug.
Speaker 52
Good morning. My name is Belle Yan, and I'm an assistant professor and supervising attorney at the University of San Francisco's Racial Justice Clinic. The clinic focuses on addressing systemic racism within the criminal legal system, including supporting the implementation of the Racial Justice Act and litigating post conviction RJA claims. In 2021, the legislature enacted the RJA to ensure that race plays no role at all in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing. And in 2022, it extended the RJA to individuals previously convicted.
Under the RJA, an individual can challenge racial disparities in charges, convictions, and sentences. This A disparity exists when people of one race are charged, convicted, or sentenced more harshly than people of other races who do the same thing. In the five years since the RJA has been enacted, only four disparity claims have been litigated to completion. This is not because racial disparities don't exist in the criminal legal system. In San Diego County alone, fourteen point nine percent of black defendants convicted of killing a white victim received the death penalty compared to three point two percent of white defendants killing a white victim.
In the past fifty years, not a single white defendant convicted of killing a black or Latinx victim has been sentenced to death in San Diego. These disparity claims are not failing on their merits. They're unheard because of the procedural paths of proving them is unclear. AB nineteen fifty eight makes three targeted changes to ensure that the RJA's original intent is effectuated. First, it clarifies that a disparity violation can be established by using either statistical or non statistical Both are not required.
Second, it requires that the prosecution, refuting a claim, must prove by preponderance of the evidence that any racial disparity is due to race neutral factors. And third, it saves judicial resources by allowing counsel to use data from prior cases, avoiding duplicative requests. AB nineteen fifty eight also makes clear that no stage of the criminal legal process, especially plea negotiations, is exempt from the protections of the RJA. AB nineteen fifty eight will provide courts consistent guidance by giving attorneys a workable framework and individuals a genuine opportunity to present their claims. We strongly urge an I vote.
Thank you.
Speaker 41
And good morning. My name is Cecilia Chavez. I'm an organizer with Silicon Valley DEBUG, a longstanding community organization based in San Jose that supports families and loved ones across California who are facing the court system. As a proud cosponsor of the bill, we see this as a vital need to clarify and make the RJA as consistent as possible throughout California. We support over 10 different directly impacted community organizations across California who are actively participating and supporting families in court who are seeking relief under the RJA.
Speaker 43
The procedural barriers that many families have faced could be solved with the clarification that is spelled out under a b nineteen fifty eight. We sat in courtrooms for the RJA hearings all the way from San Diego, Orange County, San Mateo, Yolo, Contra Costa, and especially our own Santa Clara County. And in most cases, the holdup has been access to information to sustain a claim. Although data accessibility has been addressed in another bill, its access is a timely manner continues to be prevalent. We heard prosecutors say the data collection would take years, in some cases, even up to five to ten years, while all while incarcerated loved ones wait for their day in court.
Speaker 41
Other prosecutors have stated that defense was going on a fishing expedition and wanted to limit access to data already produced. In the same county, DAs are restricting the use of data that was produced for one case to be used in another case even though the data fields requested were the same. This delay in access is just one barrier their loved ones face. If you couple that with not only needing to show a disparity with limited data, but also having to show nonstatistical evidence, we land at the current place that we're at. People having to wait years for their day for their claim denied because of the way the court interprets the RGA.
What we're saying is simple. If data already exists and has been made available to the defense, make that data accessible for similar cases. And if there is enough statistical data to show disparities, that should be enough to move forward with the claim and allow the court to analyze if a violation was committed. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both for your testimony. And assembly member Kalra, thank you for the presentation. Next, we'll take the me too's in support of the bill.
Speaker 9
Lynn Berkley Baskin, justice to jobs, Sacramento and La Defense and LA in support.
Speaker 22
Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California, proud cosponsors in strong support.
Speaker 53
Good morning. Emily Harris on behalf of Californians United for a Responsible Budget in strong support and Sister Warriors in support.
Speaker 38
Danica Rhode Island on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight and Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.
Speaker 11
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, proud cosponsors in support.
Speaker 13
Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice and proud cosponsors in support. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Kabri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in strong support.
Speaker 31
Courtney Hanson with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners in strong support and cosponsor.
Speaker 52
Morgan Zamora for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, proud cosponsor of this legislation, as well as for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in strong support.
Speaker 24
Hello, miss Cerner from Saving Lives in Custody, California in strong support.
Speaker 55
Emiliano Del Rio, representing First Life Lives for Youth in strong support.
Speaker 25
Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.
Speaker 26
Ariana Montes on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice in support.
Speaker 1
Leilani Maldonado with Fresh Life Finds for Youth with strong support.
Alright. Thank you, everybody. Next, we'll take the opposition testimony. Come on down. We have two chairs, two microphones, and you have two minutes each to address the committee.
Speaker 22
Good morning, chair members. Rochelle Beardsley with the California District Attorneys Association. I'll start off by saying that CDAA believes that any discrimination on the basis of race has no place in the administration of justice. It's because of these steadfast principles that our and our commitment to the rule of law, the fundamental principles of the proper presentation of evidence, and our obligation to protect justly obtained verdicts that we must oppose a b nineteen fifty eight. There are several issues with the current makeup of the bill.
I would borrow some words I heard in the committee this morning. It's premature. Historically, the improper influence of bias was already a means of redress in both state and federal courts. The Racial Justice Act actually provides a broader relief for for racial discrimination in the criminal justice system that is available under federal equal protection principles. It's premature because California courts are still addressing the proper measure of implementation and whether there are constitutional infirmities within its framework.
The state of the already developed jurisprudence implementing the act would be open to new questions with the fundamental altering proposed by this piece of legislation. We also cannot ignore the fiscal impacts of this bill. Statewide, these impacts can't be ignored. Based on current racial justice act litigation, Contra Costa County estimated no less than 81,000 in DA resources being consumed per case just for discovery alone. In Santa Clara, they ran a test case to measure the cost of pulling, reviewing, and properly redacting files and determined that one single case could cost up to $750,000.
There's also an issue with undefined terms and shifting standards of proof of a negative. This bill would change the basis of comparing cases for disparate treatment or impact. So under current law, claims made under the act are analyzed between cases. So you're comparing the same case or the same crime to the same crime. This would change that to a comparison of similarly situated individuals who have engaged in several other conduct.
What does that mean?
Speaker 1
But we'll hopefully get an answer when we go to the q and a portion. Alright. Next witness, two minutes.
Speaker 40
Mister chairman, members Randy Perry, behalf of PORAC. The main concern, we have several concerns that we agree with the DAs. We appreciate it. But our main concern is about the empirical data. Our our question, I guess, to the author and to the sponsors' bills, whether or not they consider the RIPA data that's by the racial identity and profiling committee to be empirical and to be used by the courts.
Speaker 56
We have constantly disagreed with the reports coming out, how they use it, their methodology. We've actually hired and used national experts on racial identity issues to look at their reports annually and to do basically an additional report using the correct methodologies. They've disagreed with them. So that that just to be clear in this committee, that body was created to help create policies, recommended policies, and training for law enforcement, not their to have their data used by in the courts as empirical data. I just want to state that for the record.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much, mister Perry. Next, we'll hear, the others hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill. Chair members, Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, also in a respectful opposition. Thank you.
Alright. Anyone else hoping to be heard?
Speaker 1
Handsome, man. I'm gonna ask you a question about that. Alright. Next, we'll go to questions from the committee. Mister vice chair, you ready?
Speaker 7
Yes, mister chair. Thank you. So as comments were being made, I was writing down some notes. So from University of San Francisco or even miss Chavez, you guys were talking about data collection will take years. Could you elaborate a little bit more on that?
Like, what what collection are you talking about?
Speaker 52
So the data collection that, I think miss Chavez was referring to is the data it's it's actually the data that the prosecution's offices already have. But the time that it's supposed to take years is the time that the DA is saying that they have to retrieve it from storage, from their computers, etcetera. We're looking, often defense attorneys are looking for charges and convictions, all of which are being, filed by the district attorney's office. And that's why we believe that they're the ones who have that data.
Speaker 7
Okay. And so in more of my notes as I was going as you guys were talking about so the data that's being requested or the data that's not being available is this is the data you're talking about?
Speaker 7
Okay. And then opposition just brought up data collected by the RIPA board. Is is that also the data we're looking for as well?
Speaker 52
I believe the data excuse me. I believe that the RIPA data is available publicly.
Speaker 52
I I believe depending on the relevance on that data, I believe the court excuse me. The judges will then adjudicate whether that data is relevant to the claim itself.
Speaker 7
Okay. And then the other thing I have and, Arthur, if you want to, you can jump in as well. But this was I thought I wrote down the year. This was what? '21, I think it was.
And since then, the courts have only done four cases or six, somewhere around there. Very low number. Do we know a little bit more? Like, can we elaborate a little bit more on that, on why?
Speaker 11
So the four cases that we're discussing are the disparity claims. There's four ways to show a violation of the Racial Justice Act, two of which is about racial disparity specifically. So there has been many more than four claims in the two other ways that the Racial Justice Act, could be violated. But in relation to the, the racial disparities showing that a group of people of one race is charged harsher excuse me, charged, convicted, or sentenced harsher than people of another group. Of those kinds of cases, there's only been four that's been litigated from the beginning to the end.
Speaker 7
So there's there's been other cases that's been brought forth to the courts. The courts have just only chosen to act on it on the four or six cases.
Speaker 46
But to to, disparity claims are one of the types of claims that can be brought. So in terms of disparity claims, only four have actually gone all the way through litigation to conclusion.
Speaker 7
And so do we think that's the judiciary's maybe lack of the intent knowing of the bill? Or do we think it's like an educational component that we need to work on?
Speaker 46
I think it's a combination of factors. I know there's a suggestion that there's a lot of, like, every year there's a an RJA bill, and the reason why is both in terms of clearing up procedural aspects of it as well as ensuring there are remedies and as as well as ensuring that, in this case here, there's race neutral reasons that are put forth as to why disparities exist. And so like any other piece well, presume, like any piece of landmark legislation, especially in the early years, it does require more guidance from the legislature to ensure that the intent of the legislation is being is being pursued appropriately.
Speaker 7
Thank you. And for opposition, know I've been asked, do guys have any comments on that as well? No. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you, vice chair. Other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. Is there a motion?
Speaker 1
We have a motion by Ramos, a second by doctor Sharp Collins. Alright. Mister Collier, would you like to close?
Speaker 46
I just wanna thank the chair and the committee staff for the work on the bill and thank my colleagues, and and would appreciate your support.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much, assembly member. Members, I am recommending an eye on a b 1958, but I would like to give a bit of context to the recommendation. I hope you'll indulge me. The racial justice act was a truly historic piece of legislation that sought to confront a reality that many of us who have practiced criminal law have long been conscious of, the systemic racism inherent in our criminal justice system. For decades, people of color, particularly black and Latino people, have suffered disproportionate charging and sentencing practices not suffered by people of other races, and that's borne by the data.
The RGA's promise was providing meaningful, was providing meaningful, judicial review of those discriminatory practices and where appropriate, providing a remedy to ameliorate the attendant harms both to the individual and community. However, a word of caution. Since it was enacted in 2020, the legislature has amended the RJA on three separate occasions, not including the proposal before us today. Courts and practitioners have repeatedly expressed concerns to this committee that the evolving changes to the act's requirements are making it difficult to develop reliable precedent. The many RJA cases before the court of appeals and the California Supreme Court may provide some clarity, but that process is complicated in my view by regular changes to the law.
So I offer this as a comment of the perspective of the chair as we approach next year in the legislative session. I think we would be wise to give this important law a chance to breathe and to develop the precedent that we need before making making major programmatic changes. With that said, I wanna thank you, Assembly Member Kalra, for your tireless commitment to fairness and equality in our criminal courts. I believe that your efforts as well as those of your sponsors and everyone speaking in support today have made a better criminal justice system for Californians. With that, I do recommend an eye.
We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 6
For item 10, a b nineteen fifty eight by assembly member Kalra, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 6
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? No. Gonzales?
Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Haney? Barbadian?
Lacky?
Speaker 6
Lacky? No. When? When not voting? Ramos?
Ramos, I. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, I. The measure's on the
Speaker 1
That measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome, mister chair. Thank you, everyone. And next, we have assembly member Nguyen presenting a b twenty seven twenty seven. And then before the lunch break, we will hear assembly member Soria's bill.
For mister Gonzalez and any other bills outstanding, we will probably take those up after the lunch break. Mister Jeff Gonzalez. Correct.
Speaker 57
Great. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair and members. I first wanna thank you and the committee for working with us through many of these amendments.
Speaker 1
I'm sorry. One moment. So, remember when if we can, to the best we can, keep that door closed just to keep the, hallway noise out. That's great. Okay.
Assemblyman, please restart whenever
Speaker 57
Thank you, mister chair. And members, I wanna first thank you and thank your team for working with us through the amendments and strengthening this bill. I will be accepting the committee's amendments. I'm here to present a b twenty seven twenty seven. It is to it's about making sure elderly parole system reflects the seriousness seriousness of certain crimes.
Speaker 1
Okay. Excuse me. I'm sorry. If we could have the sergeants please inform folks we're not gonna let them in the room for a period of two to three minutes so we can all hear assembly member Nguyen. The committee is telling me they're having a difficult time.
Okay? Please hold everyone out in holding. We'll bring them in in a moment. Assembly member Nguyen
Speaker 57
Thank you, mister chair. I'm here to present a b 20Twenty's 2727. It's about making sure our elderly program system reflects the seriousness of certain crimes, especially when it comes to sexual offenses against children. When predators prey on our children, the impact is devastating, and it stays with victims for life. These are real people and real families who carry that harm long after the crime itself.
We've seen cases that raise serious concerns about how this program is being applied to individuals convicted of violent sex offenses, and it's clear we need to draw a clearer line. AB twenty seven twenty seven takes a targeted approach. It will be clear this bill is focused on the most serious cases, especially those involving children and multiple victims. It raises the threshold so that individuals must be at least 65 years old and have served at least twenty five years before they can even be considered for release. It also strengthens the review process by requiring that these individuals are screened before release, and if concerns are identified, referred for further evaluation.
This adds an important layer of review to make sure these decisions are being made carefully and consistently. This bill addresses a real gap in the system and ensures we are getting this right for the most serious cases, especially when it comes to protecting victims. At the end of the day, this is about protecting our communities and making sure the most serious crimes are treated with the seriousness they deserve. Members and mister chair, here in support today is Sacramento District Attorney Tim Ho, a cosponsor of the bill along with Orange County District Attorney's Office and a crime survivor, Terina. I'd like to turn it over for Terina to speak.
Speaker 51
Good morning, chair and committee. I'm here to tell you a story, regarding the worst one of the worst days of my life. While I was seven years old playing outside, I I was approached by a man named David Allen Funston. He approached me with a necklace trying to get me close to him. He then asked me to take pictures.
I knew better, so I did not go close to him. He left and came back approaching me with candy, trying to get me to come close to him again. He will leave again, approaching me with more candy, open candy, touching me. I fastly moved away from him. He was able to eventually lure me into a laundry room where he asked to see my bottom and attempted to pull down my pants.
Speaker 10
I quickly ran away from him. I was able to do that and returned to my mother. I was only seven years old. I testified in the trial where he was convicted and sentenced to life. Now thirty years later, I am hearing that my real life boogeyman is able to get released early.
Speaker 51
Now thirty years later with children of my own and a daughter that is the mini me. Sorry. How
Speaker 51
I'm so sorry. Thirty years later, with a daughter that is mini me, I'm hearing that my real life boogeyman can get released early because someone believes that that he is old enough, elderly. He is only 64. He will never he will never stop hurting children. He is dangerous.
He is always, always be dangerous. He please fix this terrible law. I know it affects my case and many others. Please help assembly member Nguyen passed the bill and protect the children. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. Thank you. Mister district attorney, the floor is yours. Yes.
Speaker 55
Thank you, mister chair and members. I also wanna thank assembly member Stephanie Nguyen for her courage and dedication in bringing this measured, balanced, and necessary bill forward. At its core, AB twenty seven twenty seven is about keeping our communities safe, but also honoring the promises we make to victims. Because right now, those promises are being broken. When we prosecute violent sex sex offenders, victims step forward.
They testify. They relive the trauma. They endure hours of cross examination. And when a sentence is finally imposed, they trust that that sentence means something. They believe that the person who harmed them will never see the light of day again and remain behind bars.
But when the sentence is shortened by elderly parole, we are breaking that promise. And the damage is not just abstract. It is personal. It is lasting. And it undermines the confidence, the very system that we have in place to protect victims.
I've heard directly from victims. This is about justice. It's about public safety. Many of the individuals being released have not completed the programs necessary to make sure that they are rehabilitated. And in many cases, these programs aren't even in place to be able to assist those individuals.
Speaker 54
AB twenty seven twenty seven addresses that. By raising elderly parole to age 65 requiring at least twenty five years of continuous incarceration and expanding the eligibility to include sexually violent predators designation. It will protect victims and uphold our promises. It closes the gap, and we have seen the gap. Most recently, we have David Funston in this case that we're talking about.
Speaker 55
We also have Paul Vogelsang who molested six little boys between the ages of four and 11, who was sentenced to three hundred and fifty five years to life, and yet the parole board initially recommended release. We oppose that. And right now, we are asking that you vote yes for a b twenty seven twenty seven because it ensures that we keep our promises to victims. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. And, ma'am, thank you very much for your bravery and your courage to be here today and to share your story with all of
Speaker 1
Of course. Alright. Next, we'll take the me twos. Please come forward at this time. Next, Perry, on behalf of the California Police Chief Association in strong support.
Speaker 46
Mister chair members Corey Szozova on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association support.
Speaker 1
Robert Messman on behalf of the Orange County District Attorneys Association, proud cosponsor support.
Speaker 15
Julio De Leon on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office in support.
Speaker 9
Ivy Fitzpatrick on behalf of the Riverside County district attorney in strong support.
Speaker 22
Rochelle Beardsley, California DA's Association, Sacramento County DA's Office, strong support.
Speaker 58
Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in support.
Speaker 30
Admiral Bay Rubio, therapist and survivor of decades of sexual violations and trauma, strong support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill? K. I see a few folks coming forward.
Once you take your seats, and begin speaking, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee. Oh, I apologize. You you can come forward and take your seats, but I'm told we actually have more folks hoping to be heard in support, so we'll bring them in at this time. But if you're testing in opposition, you can definitely grab a seat and get ready. Okay.
And if you're walking in and you wanna be heard in support, please use the microphone over here by mister Weber. Mister Bullock, are waiting for you.
Speaker 1
David Bullock, SFP Alliance in strong support of this legislation. Thank you. Alright. Thank you. I believe that completes the support testimony.
Now to our opposition witnesses. Great.
Speaker 31
Thank you. My name is Courtney Hanson, and I'm here representing the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. We've worked with people in California women's prisons for over thirty years and have supported hundreds of people through the life or parole process. In March, we released No Time to Wait, a report with the Policy Advocacy Center at UC Berkeley on the aging population in the women's prisons and the need to release more elders from these facilities. Elders in prisons face unique and often severe health care issues that go unaddressed.
Speaker 22
The costs to their health are magnified by higher rates of pre existing health conditions, Inadequate, or in some cases abusive health care in prison exacerbates conditions associated with aging. Research proves that people age much faster in prison. Chronic illness, long term stress, and limited health care mean incarcerated people often experience serious health conditions similar to people 10 to fifteen years older in the general population. In reality, most people are far older than 50 by the time they are actually released because many are denied parole multiple times before their grant. As just one example of the impacts of aging in prison, two of our members who are in their 60s and living with dementia don't even know where they are, and they are unable to receive the assistance they need.
Speaker 31
Many of our members have been in specialized medical beds for years, unable to take care of themselves. California is paying an astronomical amount to keep older people in prison who are safe to bring home. Without the custody costs, CDCR health care for one elder per year costs as much as $237,000 With custody costs, that's well over $300,000 per year, and these costs continue to rise. Before long, we'll be looking at half $1,000,000 per year to incarcerate a single elder. Between 2014 and 2023, an average of only 12 people per year from both women's prisons were approved for elderly parole.
We strongly believe that California should be strengthening, not undermining, the elder parole program to address the crisis of its rapidly aging prison population. And on these basis, we respectfully oppose.
Speaker 54
Good morning. I'm Keith Watley from Uncommon Law. We represent survivors of harm who are incarcerated. One of our complaints about the parole board is that it hasn't come close to complying with the statutory mandate to normally grant parole, So we oppose this effort to further limit access to freedom for those who've been locked up for decades. Now what do sponsors of AB twenty seven twenty seven mean when they call this early release?
They don't mean earlier than public safety will require. There have been zero cases of sexual reoffense for those released on elderly parole. So don't they really just mean releases earlier than some survivors would prefer for reasons of their fear and anger? Penal code section eleven seventy says, quote, the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation and successful reintegration in the community, end quote. In other words, punishment driven solely by public outcry is officially not who we say we are.
Instead, we say we believe in rehabilitation. We also have one of the strictest processes in the world for assessing risk. And although I believe we could safely release a lot more people, we do have one of the lowest recidivism rates in history. This bill seeks to capitalize off the anger of survivors instead of offering the healing most would prefer. Imagine how our policies would support a different response to violence if we embraced a universal right to heal.
Nearly every person you would deny relief with this bill was a survivor of sexual violence long before they harmed anyone else. Well, we think those survivors matter too. Lastly, part of this bill seeks to extend the sexually violent predator law, but existing law allows civil commitment only when, quote, it is likely that the person will engage in a sexually violent criminal behavior, period. End quote. No person is ever granted parole by this board if they believe the person is likely to engage in violent criminal behavior.
Therefore, this bill is redundant, expensive, and serves no public safety purpose. Please vote no.
Speaker 26
Ariana Montes on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice in opposition.
Speaker 12
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the San Francisco Office of the Public Defender in respectful opposition.
Speaker 11
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Speaker 53
Good afternoon. Emily Harris on behalf of Californians United for a responsible budget and Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in strong opposition.
Speaker 14
Javier Rodriguez, what they sell you California action and strong opposition?
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you everyone for, your testimony today. Just checking. Hopefully, there's no one else out in the hallway hoping to be heard. I'm just gonna give that a second.
Okay. I think we're safe to move forward. Turning it over to the dais. Assembly member Lackey.
Speaker 16
Yeah. Thank you. First of all, let me begin by saying I would love to be a co author on this particular bill. And I heard from the opposition a very critical term, and that's heal. We have a hyper focus on offender forgiveness and healing.
But what we just saw today, just a few moments ago, was the fact that many, many, many years ago, something very terrible happened, and an offender engaged in behavior that is completely societally unacceptable. Did you see healing? I leave that up to you. The pain, the suffering, and the impact of such egregious behavior deserves consideration. Our system of justice is based on fairness.
It becomes a very delicate, delicate issue when you talk about fairness. Because what is fair about certain behaviors? And how do we remedy that? And how do we forgive? Or do we forgive?
And when do we forgive? One thing that I will clearly state is a 50 I don't care if you age a little more in a a difficult environment. I don't argue that that's that's a reality. But there's a reason they're there. And I I would tell you that they are not elderly at 50.
They're not. Not by any reasonable assessment are they elderly. They might be older, and they might have had difficult circumstances. I'll agree with that. But come on.
We we we just saw before us the reality of a victim who suffered dearly. But yet we're we're quick to have these arbitrary determinations of when someone should be considered for release. When an a judge and a jury have already imposed a sentence based on facts. But all of a sudden, we wanna relax those judgments based on arbitrary decisions by public policymakers. Shameful.
Thank you for bringing this forward and clearly has my support.
Speaker 18
Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, Assembly Member Nguyen for bringing this bill forward and to your witness, your voice does resonate and does matter here at least here within this diocese and in this room and with that, I'd like to be added as a principal co author to your bill. Absolutely.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Ramos. Other questions or comments from members of the committee? Mister vice chair.
Speaker 7
Thank you, mister chair. I too also would like to be a coauthor if I'm not already. I was also disturbed by the comments made by the opposition. Actually, my colleague had brought up, actually underlined it, saying universal right to heal, you said. But yet we had a victim right here, a survivor here telling this.
Speaker 27
Unlike most in this room, I've probably investigated more child cases than most in this room. And dealing with my survivors and and working with them and making sure that they're in a safe place is really hard to get to. And when you're in the court process and they do take they get the sentence that they think they're comfortable with and they were able to live with and then to find out years later that it meant nothing, all those days, weeks spent in court testifying, finding out what what charge or what sentence they were gonna get just to find out that years later, they're just gonna get out and they're gonna be there wherever they wanna be and enjoy themselves. I came up here four years ago, and I've noticed, as was pointed out today, that the victim's voice doesn't really matter so much. It's usually the the responsible, the abusers that are normally getting the voice up here.
Speaker 7
And and I am happy to say that, yeah, I do hear more victims' voices are being heard now and are hopefully getting louder and louder to help make sure that they ensure that justice continues and that the ability to deal with what's going on up here hopefully, makes sense to some people. I, for one, hope to see more bills like this, and I'm very happy. I mean, I I wouldn't mind raising that level up a little bit more than what you're asking for, but I'm good with what we have for now, and I'll take it. So thank you, and I'll be supporting this bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister vice chair. Anyone else hoping to make a comment? Okay. I believe we we need a motion and a second. Second.
K. Motion by Alonese, second by Lackey. Seeing no further question or comment, some member Do
Speaker 1
Sir, I'm sorry. I understand your desire to speak. I'm happy to ask you a question, but it is wholly inappropriate to have an outburst like that. So I will ask you, if you have a brief response, maybe a minute or less, to any questions, please, at this time, I would like to hear it.
Speaker 54
I appreciate that. It's about the universal right to heal. I mean that. Universal. Everyone should have a right to heal.
Speaker 47
Imagine if we embrace that. If we embrace that, we wouldn't have thirty years from now survivors who are in prison trying to find their way home. We also wouldn't have survivors who are coming to this hearing, to this committee, seeking relief from the harm they experience and seeking it from a system unable and undesigned to deliver it. Universal right to healing would would fix all of this. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the answer. Okay. No other questions? Assemblyman Bourguin, your chance to close.
Speaker 57
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair and members, for your words. I wanna thank Terina for finding the courage to come here and testify today. She has lived this trauma and this nightmare for over thirty years now. And I agree there needs to be a universe to heal, that we all need to heal.
But some people, when this trauma happens to them, they use it as a way to fight back, and they use it as a way to be able to spread the word about what had happened to them and don't want it to happen to any other child, especially their own. Others use it in other ways to be able to harm others. Those aren't the ones that I feel I have healed in the way in which we should continue to release them out in the community to cause more harm. I wanna be clear that I am in no way trying to take away the elderly parole program. I believe in it.
Speaker 49
I believe that there have been individuals that are incarcerated that have rehabilitated that deserve to be released out here and be contributors to the community. But when you create or when you harm children as young as four years old multiple times and when you have had multiple victims to where you have found a way to lure kids in and be able to violently sexually molest or rape them, then no. I don't believe those individuals deserve an opportunity to come out here without guardrails, without experts, without a clear line to decide whether or not these individuals are going to continue to exercise these horrible, horrible, horrible offenses again and cause harm to other little children or other individuals. This is my second attempt at running this bill, and I've worked really hard in ensuring that we not only protect families and children that made it so that way those that qualify for all to April still do qualify for this. With that Mister chair and members I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member. I'll be brief in my comments. I really mean it when I say that I understand and respect and appreciate the passionate testimony that we hear from all sides on this issue. There was a reference to eleven seventy of the penal code, and I wanted to briefly cite it because all too often in this committee, we talk about what are we doing here. What's the purpose of the public safety committee and our criminal justice system?
And I actually think what's been codified in law says it pretty clearly. The legislature finds and declares that the purpose of sentencing is public safety and not either or, but and to reduce recidivism achieved through punishment, rehabilitation, and restorative justice. Point that I'm not I'm trying to make is that as you come as all of you who will come back before me in this room, I encourage you not to think of it as an either or. It's a three legged stool. It's all the above.
The purposes of our justice system is to punish and deter criminal conduct, but it is also to promote rehabilitation, to seek restorative justice, and to allow for those who will reintegrate into our society a true pathway to have a second chance in life. You don't get to come in here and say it's one or the other. It is both. It is all the above. The last thing I'll say, mister vice chair, in in piggybacking off of your comment, in my short time here, I believe that every voice is being heard.
I take pride in the fact that a lot of you walk out of this room probably unhappy with me to some degree, but happy in other ways. That shows the process is working. Every voice matters here. The scales of justice should be balanced. It shouldn't be weighted so heavily that one side feels they have no voice at the table.
I believe this bill furthers that purpose purpose, balances the scales. And for that purpose, I do recommend an eye for today.
Speaker 6
For item 36 a b twenty seven twenty seven by assembly member Nguyen, the motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 6
Alaniz? Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye.
Haney, Parvidian, Blackie, Wen? Aye. Wen? Aye. Ramos?
Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins. That bill
Speaker 1
is out. It remains on call for absent members to be added in. Thank you, everybody. Sincerely, thank you. Colleagues, we are gonna stay a little bit late.
We're gonna hear one more bill before the lunch break. We have assembly member Soria, who's been patiently waiting to present a b twenty two seventy six. Staff for assembly member Jeff Gonzalez, if they're listening in, he will be reporting right after the lunch break, to Room 127 across the hallway to present his bill. All absent members will need to report at 01:30PM promptly. Assembly member Soria, thank you for your patience.
We appreciate it. The floor is yours.
Speaker 1
And I will note, Assembly member, you did ask for prior permission to use a visual. Thank you for asking for prior permission. That is granted.
Speaker 58
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair and members. I would like to start by accepting the committee's amendments, and I thank the chair and committee for the work that you guys did with us to get this bill to the place it is today. AB twenty two seventy six, as proposed to be amended, establishes a targeted five year pilot program in seven counties for the installation of active intelligence speed assistance or ISA, devices in the vehicles of those convicted of severe speeding and reckless driving offenses. California continues to experience a traffic safety crisis.
An average of twelve people killed on our roads every single day, and one third of those fatalities are speed related. Speeding doesn't just increase the likelihood of a crash, it dramatically increases the severity of injuries and the likelihood of death when a collision occurs. These are not just statistics. Behind every one of these preventable behind every one of these preventable deaths are devastated families and communities. While existing traffic fines influence the behavior of many drivers, they have proven insufficient to deter super speeders.
License suspension is likewise flouted by approximately seventy five percent of drivers with suspended licenses. To address this problem, the American Association of Motor Motor Vehicle Administrators released model legislation earlier this year supporting the use of active ISA for drivers convicted of serious speeding offenses, an approach also supported by the National Transportation Safety Board. Active ISA is an aftermarket device which can be installed on vehicles to directly prevent the driver from accelerating beyond the local speed limits. States across the country are advancing policies requiring the installation of active ISA devices for those convicted of serious driving offenses. It is time that California adopts the use of life saving technology.
Speaker 18
AB twenty two seventy six creates a framework for courts to order the installation of the active ISA devices for offenders convicted of speeding over 100 miles per hour, reckless driving, or engaging in an exhibition of a speed. This is a targeted evidence based intervention focused on drivers convicted of serious speeding offenses, not a broad mandate for ordinary Californians. Judges would have the discretion to order ISA device installations for up to six months for a first offense with longer mandated installation terms for repeat offenders based on the number and severity of prior convictions. Costs for the ISA device are structured on an income based cost schedule to ensure fairness and accessibility. In the end, a b two twenty two seventy six will save lives and hold those who recklessly speed accountable in a way that directly addresses their dangering driving habits.
Speaker 58
Here with me today to testify in support of AB twenty two seventy six are doctor Julie Nicholson, a member of Families for Safe Streets, and Larissa Cespedes on behalf of SteerSafe partnership.
Speaker 30
morning, chair and committee. I'm Julie Nicholson, and I'm a crash survivor. I'm also the mother of three. I'm an educator. And as introduced, I'm a member of San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets.
On 01/04/2020, I was running in the Panhandle in San Francisco. And I want you to imagine being me because I was just running along listening to music and enjoying myself when a speeding driver ran a red light and was so reckless that he ricocheted off another car and came into the park. Or I saw him coming at me. He crashed into me head on and threw me about 20 feet. Now I broke my neck and my back, and I survived.
Speaker 34
And I'm here as a survivor, one of the lucky ones. I wanna show you the picture of this beautiful human, Paul Martinez, who is the son who was tragically lost by one of our Families for Safe Streets members, Joe Martinez, who's here with us today. Speeding kills, and we know that is it is the single most common behavioral factor in crashes. And we also know from the data that a very small group of extreme and repeat speeders are they're the ones who disproportionately cause the most harm. We can't rely on fines and license suspensions.
Speaker 30
We need a system level guardrail, and that is what intelligence speed assistance is. It directly prevents speeders from speeding recklessly like the one who hit me. It will immediately improve public safety for all of us. And we have strong evidence that it works. I'll just share that in New York City with ISA, these people stayed at or below the speed limit 99% of the time.
In Washington DC, speeding incidents dropped by 91%. Active ISA is targeted. Its court ordered. It's focused on the most dangerous speeders.
Speaker 16
Thank you, chair and members. And in the interest of timing, I'll I'm gonna cut my comments. I just wanna say one, I'm Leti's assessment is here on behalf of the SteerSafe partnership, which represents advocacy organizations, including manufacturers of active ISA devices. So I'm happy to answer any questions with regards to the technology. I want to express our sincere appreciation to your staff for working on amendments to approve the bill.
Speaker 61
I also want to thank Assembly member Gibson and some of the local advocates who introduced a very similar bill that was passed unanimously out of this committee last year. This bill includes some important improvements based on the model legislation that assembly member Soria referenced, including a clear definition of active ISA. This bill will stop a crash before it happens. This is something that is going to prevent the punitive measures that have been debated, in prior bills. So I want to, sincerely, express our support and ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you for the presentation. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll hear the me too's. Anyone else who'd like to be support in heard in support of the bill, please come forward at this time. Good afternoon, committee and members.
My name is Mark Klicksovich, director of state policy for Streets for All. Proud to support the bill and also proud to be a sponsor of the the bill last year that was referenced by somebody Mara Gibson. Appreciate some of your story picking up the mantle.
Speaker 11
Thank you, committee members. My name is Ali Geller in strong support from Families for Safe Streets National Organization and San Francisco Bay Area Families for Safe Streets Organization.
Speaker 27
Hello, members. I'm Paul Martinez's dad, Joe Martinez. Thank you for your support of today's bill. I am a constituent of Esmeralda Soria, also a member of Families for Safe Streets, and strongly ask for your support. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 22
Good afternoon. I read a repeat on behalf of triple a Northern California in support.
Speaker 1
Missus chair, members, Tim Chang with the Auto Club of Southern California. We support the bill and urge your I vote. Thank you all very much. Next, we'll take opposition testimony. Okay.
Great. We have two seats with your names on them.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon. Glenn Bachus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We respectfully oppose to a b two two seven six. We wanna state that Ella Baker supports efforts to improve road safety because after all, we share the same streets and highways as everyone else. We thank the author's office for meeting with us and addressing some of our concerns through amendments.
Speaker 30
This bill, as proposed to be amended as we understand it, would create a pilot, but it's a pilot that covers over 19,000,000 Californians, almost half the state population. It contemplates for that half of the state higher penalties for drivers who exceed the speed limit, engage in reckless driving in any location, or participate in speed contests in abandoned parking lots or the middle of a busy highway. It treats them all the same, so therefore it's overly broad, overly punitive, and it's incredibly expensive for families. This bill, in addition to existing fines for speeding and other traffic infractions, imposes additional financial burdens on low income families. While the income levels were adjusted in amendments, the costs are still too high for many.
Speaker 23
It doesn't seek to reduce current fines in exchange for what may be a promising technology. It would add additional cost burdens onto low income families. The bill relies on installers to assess fees based on a sliding scale for which they have no incentive to administer well. The state does not pay for the devices or the installation or promise to make the manufacturers and installers whole for putting those devices in poor people's cars. It hasn't worked well for interlock ignition devices for alcohol detection.
We don't believe it will work well for this new technology either. Note that there is no state board or agency with the capacity to ensure compliance with the ability to pay standards. Lastly, if the state wants to require IEDs and speed suppression technology, it should fully cover the costs, enforce clear vendor standards, and ensure that the inability to pay never leads to a loss of driving privileges. With changes that address the high cost of families, Ella Baker Center would consider removing their opposition, but sliding scales seldom work and increasing penalties are anathema to the administration of justice. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition to a b twenty two seventy six. While we are very grateful to the author for accepting the amendments, we have remaining deep concerns. First, mandatory active ISA systems may inadvertently undermine driver safety. In real world world sorry, world driving conditions, motorists occasionally need to accelerate beyond postage limits to avoid collisions, merge safely, or respond to immediate threats. A system that automatically restricts vehicle speed removes this critical layer of human judgment and could place drivers in dangerous situations.
Second, ISA technology is not yet sufficiently reliable for universal deployment across California's diverse roadways, variations in terrain, frequent construction zones, and inconsistencies in digital speed limit data creates a significant risk of system error. Incorrect speed restrictions may disrupt traffic flow and increase collision risks rather than reduce it. Third, mandatory ISA systems raise significant privacy concerns. These technologies rely on continuous monitoring of vehicle location and speed, potentially generating sensitive data about driver's movement. Without robust, statutory safeguards, this data could be vulnerable to misuse or accessed without appropriate legal protections, raising concerns for California's strong privacy framework.
Fourth, such a mandate may exceed appropriate regular regularity regulation authority. If not, clearly authorized by the legislature. Sweeping requirements affect all vehicles and should be carefully evaluated to ensure they remain within constitutional and statutory limits. Fifth, the economic impact on consumers and manufacturers cannot be overlooked. Increased vehicle costs and potential retrofit fitting requirements would disproportionately affect low and middle come income Californians raising equity concerns.
Speaker 1
Okay. We fit all that in in time. Perfect. Alright. Next to the me twos in opposition to the bill, please come forward at this time.
Speaker 14
Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California action and respectful opposition. Looking forward to review the amendments and reassess our position. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much, everybody. Now to the dais. Questions, comments, mister Haney?
Speaker 35
I appreciate the author and and and your your leadership on this important issue. I know there was initially put forward as a statewide bill and then a number of counties were were chosen as as pilots. I've since had a significant amount of outreach from San Francisco leadership including elected officials this morning asking whether they could be included whether San Francisco City and County could be included. What what was the the the the process in terms of determining which counties would be included and is that a has that been finally decided or what is the sort of openness to that dialogue if there are counties who would wanna be included in the initial pilot?
Speaker 58
Thank you, assembly member, for that question. So just obviously, this initially was a statewide bill. We worked very closely with the chair and the staff to select a representation of counties, both rural and urban, where we can pilot this program. I would love to include San Francisco. I think that's something that I'm open to discussion, but I do want to respect the fact that the work that the committee did, the chair and the staff in agreeing to move this bill forward.
But obviously, we would like this bill to be statewide, but understand, obviously, the desire to include San Francisco. I wouldn't be opposed, but, again, being respectful of the work that the staff and the chair did to get this bill to this place.
Speaker 62
of course, and I understand that the desire to have it be a pilot and I hope that's something that we can we can we can discuss and and hopefully the chair will be amenable to that that conversation if that is something that you know, there's there's broad support from the board of supervisors and our county transportation folks. So thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Assembly member Haney. Any other questions or comments or motions? K.
We got a motion by Gonzalez, second by Ramos. Seeing no other discussion, assembly member Sori, would you like to close?
Speaker 58
Thank you so much, mister chair. I just respectfully asked for a night vote.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much. In the interest of time, I do recommend, and I appreciate the author working with us to take amends. Conversations will go on. With that, let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 6
For item 25, a b twenty two seventy six by Assembly Member Soria, the motion is due passed as amended to the Privacy and Consumer Protections Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz? Aye.
Alaniz? Mark Mark Gonzales? I, Haney, Haney, I, Harbetian, Blackie, Nguyen, Ramos, Ramos, Sharp Collins. That measure's on call.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome when absent members add on. Alright, everyone. When we come back from the lunch break, we'll be in the room across the hallway one twenty seven, only one bill up.
Jeff Gonzalez, a v 2701 for staff for mister Gonzalez. Please have him there at 01:30PM sharp. And for anyone who's not checked in for committee today, please show up so we can be out of there by two. Alright. I'll see you all at 01:30.
Alright. Welcome back to the greatest show on Earth, Assembly Public Safety Committee. Thank you to assembly members Lackey and Wynn for being here. Mister Gonzalez, you can have your witnesses come up at this time. You can sit in those two chairs.
You might need to rearrange when the opposition witnesses come up, but we can deal with that at that time. Just a call out if you are staff or a member of this committee who is not in the room right now. If you can't see him on screen, please have them report to Room 127. This is our final bill of the day, and then we'll be doing add ons, and I'd like to get everyone out of here as soon as possible. So please send your member here post haste.
Mister Gonzalez, I believe you're here to discuss a B 2701. Is that right? That's correct. Alright, sir. The floor is yours.
As a reminder, I once you're done with your presentation, your two witnesses will have two minutes apiece. I'll give a a signal as you're getting close to, like, thirty seconds remaining, and we'll go from there.
Speaker 43
afternoon, mister chair and member members. I'm honored to present a b twenty seven zero one, which would create a publicly available registry for those convicted of the most serious domestic violence offenses. Let me repeat. The most serious domestic violence offenses. I wanna start by clarifying that this bill does not change the requirements for convictions.
It does not include low level domestic violence offenders. I repeat, it doesn't change the requirements for for convictions, and it does not include low level domestic violence offenders. Registration is only required for those who are convicted of specified, aggravated forms of domestic violence, and this does not include victims who are simply defending themselves. Additionally, given the importance of protecting survivors, a b twenty seven zero one specifically prohibits all information identifying the victim from the publicly available website. Protecting victims and preventing future abuse is really the goal of this bill.
As domestic violence continues to be a multifaceted public safety issue, a b twenty seven zero one is a preventative measure seeking to stop abuse before it begins. Oftentimes, the early signs of abuse are not recognized for what they are. Victims are not to be blamed as without proper context and knowledge of someone's history. Certain behavioral patterns may appear to be harmless. However, those behaviors often evolve into more pronounced forms of abuse, thus perpetuating the cycle of dependence and harm.
Many survivors remain dependent on their abusive partners, making truly ending domestic violence difficult. This is complex. This is not not an easy thing that we're trying to tackle here. AB twenty seven zero one recognizes this struggle and seeks to prevent those dependent relationships from forming in the first place. So social awareness is one of the main focuses of domestic violence prevention.
Recent efforts through social media and networking have highlighted the need and want for some kind of public awareness and education tool. However, these efforts have lacked concrete and legally backed support. AB twenty seven zero one codifies such a support system and a statewide legal framework upon which public social awareness can be based. Importantly, a b twenty seven zero one includes criminal and civil penalties for the misuse of registrant information, thus preventing the registry from being used by vigilantes to target registrants. Members, this is about protecting victims and ensuring that the public can be properly informed and aware of the signs of domestic violence.
This awareness and early prevention will help prevent abusive relationships from even forming and will help break the cycle of of abuse. To protect victims and increase public awareness, I respectfully ask for your I vote. I have with me today chief deputy district attorney William Robinson and assistant director of victim services Patricia Cardenas to testify in support.
Speaker 59
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is William Robinson, and I'm a chief deputy district attorney at the Riverside County District Attorney's Office. I'm here today in strong support of AB twenty seven zero one. Domestic violence is one of the most dangerous and persistent threats to public safety in California. Each year, law enforcement in our state responds to over 160,000 domestic violence related calls for service.
And while some reporting has declined over time, the severity of these incidents is increasing with more cases involving weapons and serious violence than we've seen in decades. At its core, domestic violence is about patterns, patterns of escalation, control, and repeated harm. Yet currently California lacks a centralized accessible tool to track and identify the most serious and repeat domestic violence offenders. AB 2,701 addresses that gap. This bill creates a registry similar in concept to our sex offender registry that is narrowly focused on the most dangerous domestic violence offenders, including those with repeated convictions, those who use weapons, and those who cause great bodily injury or worse.
Speaker 12
This is not about low level offenders. This is about individuals who have demonstrated a pattern of serious violence. This registry will provide critical real time information to law enforcement responding to volatile domestic violence calls, which would give officers the context they need to assess risk and protect themselves and others. It will also provide victims and communities with increased awareness helping to prevent future harm before it happens. And importantly, this bill includes strong safeguards.
Speaker 59
It protects victims' privacy. It creates penalties for misuse of registry information, and it allows individuals to petition for removal if they demonstrate rehabilitation. This is a balanced, thoughtful approach that prioritizes safety while respecting fairness. We know that domestic violence often escalates. We know that repeat offenders pose the greatest risk.
And we know that earlier
Speaker 1
I'm sorry, sir. That's your time. I'm I'm sorry. I know two minutes goes quick. So sorry.
Alright. Ma'am, you have two minutes as well.
Speaker 50
Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Patty Cardenas, assistant director for the division of victim services at the Riverside County District Attorney's Office, and I'm here in strong support of AV twenty seven zero one. Every day, we meet survivors who entered a relationship believing they were safe only to learn often too late that their partner and documented had documented history of violence. Too often, survivors only discover that history after the manipulation, the fear, and the violence have already taken hold.
I think of a woman whose case we prosecuted who later contacted our office to tell us that her former abuser went on to murder a new girlfriend. And in our own community, a man recently shot his girlfriend in front of her children and abandoned her body in the desert. That case too revealed a prior pattern of domestic violence, warning signs that were hidden until tragedy struck. These incidents reflect patterns of escalating of escalating harm. Prior domestic violence, strangulation, stalking, and violent assaults are amongst the clearest predictors of homicide.
Speaker 15
Research shows that victims who have been strangled are up to seven times more likely to be killed by their abuser. Individuals who commit strangulation are also more likely to assault law enforcement, posing a broader threat to public safety. AB twenty seven zero one provides access to critical information so people can make informed decisions about their safety. This bill is narrowly tailored to focus on the most serious and repeat domestic violence offenders with strong safeguards to protect privacy and ensure fairness. In 2024, California recorded a 163,000 domestic violence related calls for assistance, many involving weapons, more than 9,000 involving strangulation, the very behavior most associated with future homicide.
Speaker 50
AB twenty seven zero one is about prevention, transparency, and saving lives. For the survivors we serve, it represents awareness, accountability, and the possibility of safety. We respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you for your time and your commitment to protecting survivors.
Speaker 1
Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me twos. Come on over to this microphone by doctor Sharp Collins whenever you're ready.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon. Julio Del Deon on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office in support.
Speaker 22
Good afternoon. Michelle Beardsley, California DA's Association in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? We do. Okay.
So can I maybe get the two of you, if you don't mind, just to, okay? Great. And we'll if there's questions, we'll call you back up. But alright. So if you two don't mind, I think you can take these chairs and these microphones right here.
Yes. And if one of you wants to sit next to assembly member Gonzalez, one of supporting witnesses, we do have a chair there.
Speaker 60
I know. Well, good afternoon, chair Schultz and members. I'm Grace Glazer on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, California's DV coalition, representing the 140 agencies across the state that support survivors. The partnership strongly opposes a b twenty seven zero one. This bill will have negative and long lasting consequences for survivors of domestic violence and their families.
A b twenty seven zero one would result many survivors of domestic violence being listed publicly on a registry with severe repercussions for their lives. Frequently, survivors themselves are arrested for domestic violence. Whether it's for self defense or because abusive partners manipulate the systems designed to protect them, many are unjustly accused and incarcerated for domestic violence. Surveys have suggested that as many as one third of survivors who call the police for domestic violence have been threatened with arrest or have been arrested. Many of these unjustly criminalized people would be listed on this registry publicly shaming them, hampering their employment prospects, and impeding their road to healing.
Speaker 50
A related fear is that a registry would be dangerous for immigrant survivors and their families and would facilitate the targeting of these individuals by immigration enforcement. At a time when ICE has ripped through our communities and torn families apart, we do not need to give them more access to information to seek out individuals. Survivors are already experiencing an unprecedented wave of fear and threats of being deported. Listing people who commit domestic violence on our registry, including citizens who may have victimized immigrant survivors, could result in increased risk of arrest and deportation for survivors. A registry would be duplicative and by no means comprehensive.
Speaker 60
It's already possible to conduct background searches to find individuals who have been convicted of domestic violence. And outside of convictions, a large number of DV cases go unreported. Domestic violence offenses are also often pled down and charges are frequently dropped, and many offenders have no prior criminal record. A registry would capture capture none of these nuanced situations. It would not prevent domestic violence.
For all of the reasons outlined, we strongly rest request a no vote. Thank you.
Speaker 35
Thank you, chair and members. My name is Kate VanderTeig, and I'm here on behalf of Futures Without Violence in strong opposition to AB twenty seven zero one. This bill creates a DV registry, but in practice, it will harm survivors. Firstly, this bill will actually discourage many survivors from seeking help. Survivors may depend on their partners financially or not want them on a public list.
If reporting abuse could result in their partner losing access to housing or employment through a registry, survivors may not want to seek help at all. We've seen this with other registries. Families lose stability and are pushed further into crisis even when there are protections in the law against such consequences. At a time when tens of thousands of survivors in California already face homelessness, we should not be doing anything that increases that risk. Second, though this bill is poorly framed as a prevention bill, there is no evidence that domestic violence registries prevent or reduce violence.
This would, however, be a costly new system, and it is unconscionable to invest scarce public dollars for violence prevention in something unproven. While survivor services like housing, counseling, and actual violence prevention remain underfunded. Finally, as the partnership explained, this bill will harm survivors directly because many are wrongly arrested and labeled as perpetrators. A quick story. The Sacramento DV advocate program we've worked with a survivor recently who, after being threatened with a knife by her partner, pushed him in self defense.
Speaker 6
When law enforcement arrived, language barriers led them to identify her as the primary aggressor. She was arrested, charged with domestic violence, and nearly lost custody of her children. Under a registry like this, survivors like her could be listed when abusers orchestrate survivors getting multiple arrests against them, deepening the harm they've already experienced. As a DV advocate, I can think of many clients with a very similar story for whom even before trial being listed as on a registry would be both financially and emotionally disastrous. Survivors tell us that safety comes from stability and support, not from dangerous policy that has no evidence behind it.
Speaker 1
this call. Time. Thank you. Alright. Thank you all very much.
Next, we'll take the Me Toos in opposition. Please come on down.
Speaker 44
Anisa Ali from Futures Without Violence and strong opposition to this bill. I'm also registering Me Toos, on behalf of the following anti domestic violence organizations, strong hearted native Native Women's Coalition, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Community Resource Center, American Nurses Association of California, Mirror Memoirs, the Collective Healing and Transformation Project, Los Angeles LGBT Center, Felony Murder Elimination Project, Peace Over Violence, Project Sanctuary, Lumina Alliance, La Defensea, Victims Empowerment Support Team, YWCA of Glendale and Pasadena, Real Life Potential, Public Council, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Shelter from the Storm, Community Solutions for Children, Families, and Individuals, Asian Americans for Community Involvement, and Californians for Safety and Justice. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Javier Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and Strong Opposition would also like to register opposition for California Public Defenders Association.
Speaker 8
Danica Rodarmeld, the LA Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight and Western Center on mom poverty in opposition.
Speaker 58
Mister chair and members, Micah Doktarov on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.
Speaker 18
Hi. My name is Henry Ortiz. On behalf of Community Healers Initiate Justice and, all of us in the Sacramento chapter, we're in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay. We're gonna turn it back to the committee.
Are there questions or comments from committee members?
Speaker 1
Okay. We have a motion by Lackey. Is there a second? Asking one more time, is there a second? Okay.
Mister Gonzalez, I'll give you a chance to close.
Speaker 43
Thank you, mister chair. I'd like to address some comments in my closing and a perspective that I think is important for us to take a look at. I look at my colleagues on on the on the diocese, and what if there was a a a registry that narrows down specifically the area geographic area where missing, murdered, and indigenous people were at, would we spend the money for that? I know I would. As an indigenous person, absolutely.
If we if we took the victims' perspective first and really worked on trying to make this something where we protect victims first, then we can do something. If we work together to advance this, we can utilize our collective effort to try and protect further victims. I appreciate the the the the the discussion as we as I'm in this closing. I just wanna emphasize that this bill is about protecting and preventing harm. It's about breaking the cycle of harm, and ending domestic violence will be difficult, but it begins with with increased awareness.
Now I'm committed to working with the opposition and addressing their concerns so we can get closer to the goal of ending domestic violence for good. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. I I look at some of the comments, and it says that it the the comments that the opposition has made saying that it discourages survivors, yet survivors are the ones who who talk to me about this. The comment that this bill was poorly framed, we had legal experts that looked at this bill, reviewed this bill, and created this bill. The comment that was the registry registry domestic violence registries don't work.
We don't have a domestic violence registry. So how is that possible that it doesn't work if we don't have that? Not a single DV program is in favor of this. I would push back on that because DV programs are the ones who came up with this. So to be a, in opposition and speak for the entire, community of DV people, is unfortunately a disservice to the entire community.
Now I can understand if if the opposition wanted to say with respect to their community, but to say the entire DV community is a false statement. And it's unfortunate because we can work through this versus trying to close this down. So, mister chair, as I as I as I close, every bill every bill requires a collective effort. Every bill requires members from all sides to come together. But by choosing to advance this bill, we're saying that we are willing to take part in moving this forward.
And if we choose to not advance this bill, it's a slap, I believe, my opinion, in the face of victims who have come up and spoken to me personally about this. So with that, mister chair, I ask for, and I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member. And I apologize to you and to my colleagues. I missed mister Ramos who, I believe, wanted to make a statement. So
Speaker 43
I think, mister chair, the point of personal preference or point of preference is that normally the you you you run things a certain way and Yes. Because I've I've mentioned indigenous people, I think my colleague is is asking to speak on on that behalf. So, I would ask the chair to maintain his consistency in in the way he he runs that if if it if it be your barrack.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, mister Gonzalez. I'm happy to give you the final word as a chance to close, but I am gonna afford mister Ramos an opportunity to speak. Mister Ramos.
Speaker 18
Through the chair, certainly, comments were made about missing indigenous women. And as long as I've known the chair, he's been eloquently running these meetings professionally. So I wanna make sure that that truly understands. So you mentioned missing and murdered indigenous women. Yet those that are on the front line, some stand up in opposition to this bill.
So if you truly were moving forward in that, you would have had dialogue with them before you presented here today. I'm hoping that you continue to have dialogue with them because this is an area that shouldn't be left alone. But trying to be a voice of those that are oppressed also is not the right way to move forward. So thank you for that.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Mister Gonzalez, in fairness, I'll give you a chance to respond, but I would ask you to limit it to a response to that comment. Don't wanna have a back and forth.
Speaker 43
Thank you, mister mister chair, and thank you to my colleague. The the the voice of the oppressed, there are many oppressed, and we can we can all agree to that. And it's it's my contention through my heritage, through my background, through my experiences, both on the pastoral side and through my family, Chinon Deco people, and the Taino people that I speak from, and this is not a back and forth. So speaking for them as an outsider is not where I'm coming from. It's speaking with them as someone who is them is where I'm coming from.
So that being said, mister chair, I I I do know your your consistency, and I do believe you are a professional. So there was nothing with respect to that. Merely pointing out that you always stick to a certain game plan, and I appreciate that. And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, assembly member. My wife would agree with you. I am a creature of habit. I even have my suits lined up every day of the week, and I was really upset because I couldn't pick up my dry cleaning yesterday. So I'm wearing yesterday's suit.
It just has thrown me off all day. I'm not kidding. This is a 100% true. I'm going to take I was supposed to match him. Mister vice chair, I'm gonna assume that you are seconding mister Lackey's motion.
Very good. I'll now make my recommendation. Mister Gonzalez, I agree that domestic violence is a serious problem in California, and we must do more to prevent it in our state. That is why and I'm sorry to talk about another bill, but it's important. That is why I have supported bills this year in this committee to help with the enforcement of restraining orders and to increase penalties for repeat DV offenders, most recently in the form of Assembly Bill two ninety two by your colleague, mister Patterson.
Speaker 41
However, after listening to the testimony here today and considering the letter submitted, I'm not convinced that a statewide public registry will have the intended effect that you I do believe that is your genuine intent, but I don't believe it will have the desired effect, and let me explain why. The bill would, in my view, create a potentially unwieldy new database that both DOJ and locals would be responsible for updating and maintaining. What we learned when we reformed our sex offender registry, which is I what I believe the when there was a reference to other registries, think that's where the comment was directed. When we when we reformed it, there were such high numbers of people required to register that local agencies were inundated with registration duties and paperwork and, yes, cost, although that's probably more in the purview of the appropriations committee. Now some have argued that this bill is narrowly written to only address the worst of domestic violence offenders.
Speaker 1
I respectfully disagree with you, sir. While infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or partner is included, clearly, there's also a long list of registerable offenses in the bill, the triggering factor being if the crime, quote, involved domestic violence, end quote. But there's no clear indication in the bill for how involving domestic violence would be determined. Who would make the determination? Would this finding need to be pled and proved?
And what standard of proof would be required to make this showing? In my view, mister Gonzalez, while I don't doubt your your clear and good intention of bringing the bill forward, it's the lack of clarity to these answers that I believe would lead to wildly inconsistent results across the state. I will also mention as, as a follow-up to the some of the testimony we heard, I too share the fear that there could be a chilling effect on those seeking help from law enforcement if a victim knows that their partner may end up on a public registry. So with nothing but absolute respect for you, mister Gonzalez, I am recommending a no today. We have a motion.
We have a second. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 6
For item 35, a b twenty seven zero one by assembly member Jeff Gonzalez, the motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Schultz? No. Schultz? No.
Alanis?
Speaker 6
Harbodian not voting. Lackey? Aye. Lackey? Aye.
When? When not voting? Ramos?
Speaker 1
That that bill fails, mister Gonzales. Reconsideration. Reconsideration granted through at the discretion of the chair. Unless there's any objection from a member of the committee. Seeing no objection, I'll grant the reconsideration, mister Gonzalez.
We'll see you in two weeks. Alright. Thank you to everyone who came and testified today. We are not yet done with our business. I believe we are missing mister Haney.
If mister Haney could make his way to Room 127, I'm sorry to call him out, but we do need mister Haney back. Colleagues, so I can let all of you go home, we are gonna go through the agenda. So we'll have our fabulous secretary call through and folks can add on. We'll start at the at the top. For
Speaker 6
consent items. Harbidean? For consent items. Harbidean? Harbidean, I.
When? When? I. Item one, AB fifteen eighty eight by Assembly Member Stefani was pulled by the author. Item two, AB sixteen twenty eight by Assembly Member Michelle Rodriguez.
This measure was on call. The motion is due passed to the Human Services Committee. Haney, Harbidean. I. Harbidean, I.
Lackey. This is item two AB sixteen twenty eight.
Speaker 6
Lackey not voting. When? When? I. Sharp Collins?
I. Sharp Collins, I, and we'll be added as a coauthor. That measure passes.
Speaker 6
Item three, a b seventeen fifty three by assembly member Stephanie. This bill was pulled by the committee. Item four, a b seventeen fifty nine by assembly member El Huwari. The motion was due passed to the appropriations committee. This item was on consent.
Item five, a b eighteen sixty seven by assembly member Tongipa. This measure was pulled by the author. Item six, a b eighteen ninety seven by assembly member Haney. This item was pulled by the committee. Item seven, a b nineteen twelve by assembly member Hadwick.
The motion was due passed. This item was on consent. Item eight, a b nineteen thirteen by assembly member Soria. The motion is due passed as amended to the transportation committee. This item was on consent.
Item nine, a b nineteen twenty two by assembly member Lone Thall was pulled by the author. Item 10, a b nineteen fifty eight by assembly member Calra. This motion was or this item was on call. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Haney, Harbidean.
Aye. Harbidean Aye.
Speaker 6
Item 11, AB nineteen fifty nine by Assembly Member Patel. This measure was on call. The motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Haney, Harbidean. Aye.
Harbidean, I. Lackey?
Speaker 6
For item 12, a b nineteen seventy four by assembly member Stephanie, the motion is due passed as amended. Harbet Haney? Harbetian? Aye. Harbetian, I.
Lackey?
Speaker 6
For item 13, a b nineteen ninety four by Assembly Member Alvarez, the motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. This item was on consent. For item 14, a b 20 o one by Assembly Member Stephanie, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. This item is on consent. For item 15, a b twenty fifty two by assembly member Stephanie was pulled by the author.
Item 16, a b twenty seventy three by assembly member Johnson was pulled by the author. Item 17 AB twenty ninety seven by assembly member Borner, that measure was pulled by the author. Item 18 AB twenty one zero four by assembly member Creo. This measure is on call. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee.
Alanis.
Speaker 6
Alanis, I. Gonzales. Aye. Gonzales, I. Haney.
Harbidean? Aye. Harbidean, I.
Speaker 6
For item 19 a b twenty one twenty two by Assembly Member Kalra, this measure was pulled by the author. Item 20, AB 2,147 by Assembly Member Schiavo, the motion is due passed. This item was on consent. For item 21, AB twenty two zero four by Assembly Member Gabriel, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. This item is on consent.
For item 22, AB twenty two thirty two by Assembly Member Patterson, this measure was pulled by the author. For item 23, AB twenty two seventy three by Assembly Member Baines, this measure was pulled by the author. For item 24, AB twenty two seventy four by Assembly Member Baines. This item was pulled by the author. Okay.
For item 25, AB twenty two seventy six by Assembly Member Soria, This measure was on call. The motion is due passed as amended to the privacy and consumer protections committee. Alanis?
Speaker 6
Alanis? Aye. Harbidean? Aye. Harbidean?
Aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey? Aye.
When? This is item 25 a d twenty two seventy six by Assembly Member Soria. When? I. Sharp Collins?
Sharp Collins? I.
Speaker 6
For item 26, a b twenty two eighty six by assembly member Bryan, the motion is due passed. This item is on consent. For item 27, a b twenty two ninety seven by assembly member Stephanie, the motion is due passed. Haney? Harbodian?
Aye. Harbodian, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye.
Sheriff Collins? Sheriff Collins not voting. That
Speaker 6
For item 28, a b twenty three ten by assembly member Carrillo, the motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 6
For item 29, a b twenty three eighteen by assembly member El Huai, that measure was pulled by the author. For item 30, a b twenty three forty seven by assembly member Aaron's, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. This item is on consent. For item 31, a b twenty four thirty eight by assembly member Johnson, this measure was on call. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee.
Gonzales?
Speaker 6
Gonzales, no. Haney? Harbideon? No. Harbetian, no.
Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, no. That
Speaker 6
For item 32 a b twenty four fifty by assembly member Johnson, this measure is on call. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee.
Speaker 45
For item 33, a b twenty five fifty six by assembly member foreigner, the motion is due passed. This item was on consent. For item 34, a b twenty six ninety eight by assembly member Ellis, this measure was on call. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Vote change.
Speaker 6
For item 35, a b twenty seven zero one by assembly member Jeff Gonzalez. This the motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Gonzalez. Gonzalez not voting. Haney.
For item thirty five twenty seven zero one by assembly member Jeff Gonzalez.
Speaker 1
Okay. It's granted. Alright. Yeah. Measure fails reconsideration previously granted without objection.
Speaker 6
Item 36 a b twenty seven twenty seven by a family member Gwen. The motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney? Aye. Haney?
Aye. Harbidean? Aye. Lackie? Lackey?
I. Aye. Sheriff Collins? Sheriff Collins, not voting. Okay.
Speaker 1
That bill is out. And I'll note that item 37 has been pulled. To all of my colleagues except the fine member from San Francisco, thank you very much for being here. I will just note, next week, colleagues, we have 46 items. So do plan for a long day, and, we'll find out.
We'll know the consent calendar closer. It's all up to Tom and Juan. Thank you all very much. We're gonna go through one more time for mister Haney.
Speaker 6
Item one, b fifteen eighty eight was pulled by the author. Item two, a b sixteen twenty eight by assembly member Michelle Rodriguez. Haney? I. Haney, I.
Item three was pulled by the committee. Item four was on consent. Item five was pulled by the author. Item six was pulled by
Speaker 6
committee. Item seven was on consent. Item eight is on consent. Item nine is pulled by the author. Item 10, AB nineteen fifty eight by Assembly Member Kalra, Haynie.
Haney I. Item 11, AB nineteen fifty nine by Assembly Member Patel, Haney.
Speaker 6
Haney I. Item 12 but item 12 AB nineteen seventy four by Assembly Member Stephanie, Haney.
Speaker 6
Haney, I. Item 13, AB nineteen ninety four was on consent. Item 14, AB two two zero one was on consent. Item 15, AB twenty fifty two was pulled by the author. Item 16, AB twenty seventy three was pulled by the author.
Item 17, AB 2,097 was pulled by the author. Item 18 AB twenty one zero four by Assembly Member Carrillo Haney. Aye. Haney I. Item 19 AB twenty one twenty two was pulled by the author.
Item 20, AB twenty one forty seven is on consent. Item 21, AB twenty two zero four is on consent. Item 22, AB 22, 32 was pulled by the author. Item 23, AB twenty two seventy three was pulled by the author. Item 24, AB twenty two seventy four was pulled by the author.
Item 25, AB twenty two seventy six by Assembly Member Soria has been dispensed with. Item 26, AB twenty two eighty six was on consent. Item 27, AB twenty two ninety seven by Assembly Member Stephanie Haney. Haney I. Item 28, AB twenty three ten by Assembly Member Cario Haney.
Aye. Haney, I. Item 29, AB twenty three eighteen was pulled by the author. Item 30, AB twenty three forty seven is on consent. Item 31, AB twenty four thirty eight by Assembly Member Johnson, Haney.
No. Haney, no. Item 32, AB twenty four fifty by Assembly Member Johnson, Haney. Haney, no. Item 20, oh, 33, AB twenty five fifty six is on consent.
Item 34, AB twenty six ninety ninety eight, Haney. I. Haney I. Item 35, AB twenty seven zero one was just dispensed with. Item 36, AB twenty seven twenty seven has been dispensed with, and item 37 was pulled by the committee.
Speaker 1
Alright. That concludes our business for today. Just as a reminder, we'll reconvene back over in Room 126 on Tuesday, the fourteenth at 08:30AM. We'll see you all then. We stand adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.