Assembly Public Safety Committee, Tuesday, April 14, 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 1
to leave. Item three, a b sixteen twenty seven by Avila Farias, pulled by the author. Item 18, AB 2,232 by Assembly Member Patterson, pulled by the author. Item 20, Assembly Bill 2,273 by Baines, that's been pulled by the committee. Item 23, AB 2,344 by Haney, that has been pulled by the author.
Item 28, AB twenty five fifty three by Petrie Norris, that has been pulled by the committee. And last but not least, item 31, this is AB twenty six sixty nine by Gibson, pulled by the author. With that, we do have a few authors in the room today, so we're going to start with assembly member Pelerin to present a b okay. Never mind. We'll fantastic.
Then we'll go, to, person sitting in the front row, assembly member Quirk Silva, to present a b twenty four nineteen.
Speaker 46
Good afternoon, mister chair and members. Today, I'm proud to present a b twenty four nineteen, which extends body worn cameras known as BWC to the Los Angeles County Juvenile Probation Officers. A b twenty four nineteen promotes youth safety, officer protection, fiscal responsibility, and public trust. The California Board of State and Community Corrections, BSCC, has repeatedly found LA juvenile halls unsuitable for confinement, failing to meet minimum health and safety standards. For example, in 2024 to 2025, criminal charges were filed against probation officers related to alleged gladiator fights involving more than a 140 detained youths.
Speaker 4
Body worn cameras reduce investigative time and internal review costs. The objective the objective video evidence lowers litigation risk and potential settlements while helping address serious cases, including juvenile abuse, more efficiently. Avoiding even a small number of high cost lawsuits can offset body worn camera program expenses. BWCs function as a cost avoidance and a risk management tool. With me today to testify in support is Catherine Bay, president of the Professional Managers Association, AFSCME nineteen sixty seven, Shane Levine from Levine Strategies on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Speaker 5
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Catherine Bay. I serve as the president of the Professional Managers Association, AFSCME Local nineteen sixty seven, representing managers and leaders within the Los Angeles County Probation Department. I am here today in strong support of a b twenty four nineteen. This bill is about accountability, it is about safety, and it is about restoring public trust in a system that urgently needs it.
Every day in Los Angeles County, probation officers, supervisors, and managers work in very challenging environments. In our juvenile facilities, we are responsible for the care of young people who are often dealing with trauma and instability. Our youth range can range from anywhere from 13 to 25 years old. Unfortunately, violent situations do occur in our facilities. And when they do, we owe it to everyone involved, the youth, the staff, and the public to ensure there's a clear and objective record of what occurred.
Body worn cameras provide that truth. They protect youth by ensuring transparency and dignity in every interaction. They protect staff by documenting the reality of the difficult decisions they must make in real time, and they protect the public by strengthening accountability across the system. Let me be clear. This is not about punishment for anyone involved.
Speaker 24
This is about professionalism and the tools needed to perform an extremely important job. Body worn cameras are a tool that have been used in law enforcement for years. They will help us raise the standard of care for the young people we serve. AB twenty four nineteen is a proactive solution. By implementing body worn cameras with clear policies developed collaboratively collaboratively with labor, the county, and stakeholders, we can resolve complaints or allegations quickly and significantly reduce the risk of costly legal action.
Speaker 5
Members, this is a balanced and common sense approach. It protects our young people, it supports staff, and it strengthens accountability and safeguards taxpayer dollars. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And before we go on by the way, excellent timing. That was almost two minutes exactly. I'll try to give a visual cue as you're getting close to two minutes. And then just, for the sergeants as best you can, I know it's really loud in the hallway, if we can keep the door closed as much as possible?
And for our witnesses on this and future bills, if you can just bring that mic up as close as possible so committee members can hear you, that would be great. Mister Levine, whenever you're ready.
Speaker 6
Thank you. Good morning, mister chair, member Shane Levine, on behalf of, the Fraternal Order of Police and the Association of Orange County deputy sheriffs and our probation officers in strong support of this bill. You know, doing a body camera bill ten years ago was a very challenging endeavor for the law enforcement profession. The profession was under siege. We're getting attacked from all sides.
And admittedly, some reforms were needed. Some of the criticism was fair and some was not. But at the end of the day, this technology was adopted and has since been embraced. Back then, it was new technology and there were real concerns. The community and many social justice organizations wanted it, but from law enforcement's perspective, there was some understandable apprehension.
At the time, body cameras were viewed as a potential gotcha tool. But today, that perspective has shifted. What became clear is that these tools serve as an objective arbiter of truth. They show in real time what actually occurs between officers and the public. The profession realized quickly there was nothing to hide, and if there was, there would be a price to be paid.
Speaker 58
Today, nearly every law enforcement agency in California has implemented body worn cameras. CHP most recently finished deploying 7,600 cameras across all their jurisdictions. Labor has bargained for these policies to ensure proper implementation. At this point, their effectiveness is no longer in dispute, and we've seen improvements in officer behavior and significant declines in complaints. And that brings us to LA County probation, particularly juvenile custody.
Speaker 6
Year after year, bills are introduced in this legislature to dismantle the department while complaints continue to emerge from in custody settings. I'm here with president Bay and the unions I represent to take a step forward for the profession. We have said repeatedly, the profession is good. It is necessary, and many of the characterizations about LA probation are simply unfair or false. But this reform is one small important step in demonstrating that.
We respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, assembly member, for the presentation, and thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, come on down.
Speaker 7
Mister chair and members, Matt Broad, on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Fantastic. Thank you. Final call for anyone in support. I'm just doing that in case there's anyone in the hallway who wants to straggle in. Hello, Tom and John.
Alright. Next, we'll take the opposition witnesses. Anyone here to oppose the bill? Okay. I see at least one witness.
Come on down. Oh, do we have a support on this bill?
Speaker 8
Kind of. Okay. Mister chair and members, Matthew Seifreling on behalf of Los Angeles Probation Officers Union, ASME Local six eighty five. We currently have a support if amended position on this bill. This would be the very first mandated body camera program on a local agency.
Speaker 1
Support if amended. Registered. Alright. We have one opposition witness, I believe. Feel free to grab a chair and a mic, and once you begin speaking, you'll have two minutes to address the committee.
Thanks for being here.
Speaker 10
Alright. Good morning, chair Schultz and members of the committee. My name is Sheila Wilson, and I am the policy and advocacy adviser at La Defensea, and I am here in opposition to AB twenty four nineteen. Despite continuous enforcement and monitoring conditions at LA County Juvenile Halls have deteriorated. Persistent failures include adequate staffing, stemming the flow of drugs, preventing staff from instigating or encouraging youth on youth assaults, taking youth to medical appointments, preventing retaliation who file against youth who file grievances, and ensuring cameras are installed in all areas and that that video footage is reviewed.
Unfortunately, we don't believe that the use of body worn cameras will contribute to resolving any of these concerns. In addition to lackluster evidence supporting their use, the devices rely on officers to use their discretion to start and stop recording. The camera does not simply record all activity all of the time. This requires an officer to exercise appropriate discretion to activate the body worn camera prior to use of force, misconduct, a disturbance, etcetera. Given that 80% of Los Angeles' County's probation officers are opposed to this bill, it raises significant concerns about the regular, consistent, and appropriate use of body worn cameras and whether it'll actually address the reality of juvenile halls.
While we support increased efforts to make our youth safer, we believe that efforts to decarcerate youth and get into compliance with current court mandates need to be prioritized. For these reasons, we urge you to vote no on this bill. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1
And thank you for your testimony. We'll temporarily pause and establish a quorum. Madam secretary, please call the roll.
Speaker 11
Alanis? Mark Gonzales? Here. Haney? Harbidean?
Here. Lackey? Here. Wen? Ramos?
Sharp Collins?
Speaker 1
Okay. One present for hears. We have a quorum. Thank you. Next, we'll take the Me Toos in opposition to the bill.
If you'd like to be heard in opposition to the bill, please line up with that microphone. Final call. Okay. Now we'll turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee?
We have a motion by Harbetian. Alright. We'll wait for a second. Mister Lackey, you have the floor.
Speaker 12
Yeah. It's been some some time since I retired, but I I would tell you that car cameras were instigated when I was still on patrol. And I can to tell you that people are on their best behavior when they're being filmed. It encourages more professional behavior, and it prevents poor judgment. And, it's good to see that, we're moving forward on this piece of legislation that has my full support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much, mister Lackey. I will note that we have a second by mister Gonzales on the bill. Are there other questions or comments? I have two very brief ones.
First of all, for the opposition, your point about the use of body worn cameras not necessarily resolving all of the concerns and complaints, well taken. What would be your response to the observation that at least with body worn cameras, there would be the ability to, at least in theory, they're properly used, have some independent review of whether an action happened or not? Mean, do do you see any value in having the body worn camera in the facility?
Speaker 17
I mean, we we certainly do. Again, I think our primary concern is about how they are used, and and this is coming from the sheriff's department, LASD's current policy about body worn cameras, which is cited in our letter of opposition, which does state that they have to be turned on and off. And so I think we need to see some really strict requirements around when they are turned on and off so that discretion is not actually left up to the officer. I think also, you know, some of the youth facilities have major gaps in their installed cameras, which can't be turned on and off, as well as, like, reviewing that footage. So we definitely see the value in consistent monitoring, through video camera use, but we definitely need to see a lot of, like, less discretion around its use.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And then my one question for the the two witnesses in support, and, course, you assembly member if you'd like to ask, like like to answer. In reading some of the the letters that came in, I know there were concerns raised about privacy in the institution and not having them activated if someone's using the restroom, for example. I'm just wondering if either of you could speak to either any existing or contemplated policies to address those privacy concerns.
Speaker 5
Regulations require that there are no cameras, whether they're installed in the wall or body worn cameras to be used in private spaces where young people reside, like the restroom, medical. So those cameras would not be turned on. The cam body worn cameras would not be turned on in those events.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Does that draw any further questions? Alright. Assembly member Quirk Silva, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Colleagues, chair is recommending an I. We have a motion and we have a second. We'll call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item 25 a b twenty four nineteen by assembly member Quirk Silva, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Harbidean? Lackie? Aye. Lackie? Aye.
Wen? Ramos? Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. That bill is out. We'll keep it open for others to add on. Thank you, everyone. Colleagues, before we lose a quorum, I know some of you have other committees to get to.
We have the proposed consent calendar. On the consent calendar today is two items. We have item number four, a b sixteen eighty eight by Carrillo, entitled child abuse or neglect reporting. And we have item 33, a b twenty seven twenty by Schiavo, entitled human trafficking victim support coordinator. Can I get a motion?
I'll move. Okay. Motion by Lackey, second by Harbidean. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 11
For consent item, Schultz. Aye. Schultz, aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez?
Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney? Harbidean? Aye.
Harbidean, aye. Lackey?
Speaker 1
Consent calendar is adopted. We'll keep that open for others to add on. And, next, we have assembly member Pelerin here to present a b 19 o two.
Speaker 16
Good morning, chair and members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments, and I would like to extend my appreciation to you, chair, and to your incredible committee staff for their engagement on this bill. I approached this bill first and foremost as a mother and as a member of the Santa Cruz community. In 2015, our community was shaken to its core by the brutal rape and murder of eight year old Madison Maddie Middleton by her neighbor, Adrian Gonzalez, who was just three months shy of turning 16. This was not just a headline.
It was a child, a family, a community forever changed. Due to several changes in the juvenile justice system, Gonzalez's case was ultimately adjudicated in juvenile court in 2021. At 21 years old, he was committed to a secured youth treatment facility in Sonoma County. Three years later in 2024, he was back in court. This time because the Santa Cruz district attorney believed he still posed a danger to the community and petitioned for an extension detention hearing.
This marked the first welfare and institutions code section eight seven six hearing of its kind anywhere in the state of California. Santa Cruz County became the test case at the intersection of a system in transition and a case that pushed its limits. These hearings are meant for the rarest of circumstances when despite every effort, rehabilitation has not been achieved. After the hearing, I met with jurors who made the difficult decision that he was not safe to be released. I spoke with the district attorney's office about the challenges they faced, and I heard from community members whose grief and trauma were brought back to the surface all over again.
Speaker 45
For the past year, I've worked to understand what this case revealed about the gaps in our system, the limits of rehabilitation, and our responsibility to protect our communities while honoring the values of our juvenile justice system. The culmination of this year long effort is a b 19 o two, which makes several important improvements to the detention extension hearing process. First, the bill clarifies jurisdictional authority. Santa Cruz County identified that ambiguity in the existing process, which could have resulted in Gonzales being released into the community while the hearing was under consideration or even during the hearing itself. Second, the bill allows either party to petition to petition for a continuance.
Speaker 16
Third, it permits hearsay testimony but only during the probable cause hearing. Fourth, the bill extends the maximum term for detention extension to four years. It also requires courts to consider both the evidence presented at trial and the clinical assessment and to clearly explain the basis for the length of time ordered. Fifth, the bill authorizes transfer to and treatment in more appropriate facilities including a state hospital or other suitable adult facility. My office engaged with several juvenile justice organizations early in this process and has adopted multiple amendments to address their key concerns.
Joining me today to testify in support are Lauren Apter, assistant district attorney with Santa Cruz County, and Laura Jordan, a Santa Cruz community member, but most importantly, Maddie's mother.
Speaker 17
My name is Laura Jordan, and I am the mother of Madison Middleton. Madison was eight years old when her life was brutally taken by Adrian Gonzalez in 2015. She was lured, strangled, raped, tortured, and murdered in a manner that was vicious and calculated. Madison was a spitfire and filled our lives with humor and light. Her last moments were instead filled with pain and terror.
Since that day, my life and my family's lives have been a living hell. In 2017, after a grueling nine week transfer hearing, the judge stated that the crime was the most heinous he had seen and ruled that AJ would be tried as an adult. But that small victory was ripped away in 2018 when s v thirteen ninety one passed. From that point on, we've been stuck in a never ending cycle of hearings. In 2021, AJ was finally sent to the Department of Juvenile Justice, justice that was being dismantled.
Then as he approached 25, we were pulled back into court to determine if he would be released. From July 2024 to February 2025, we endured an eight month trial process. I had to listen to my daughter's sadistic killer describe her cruel death when he took the stand for eight long days. He has never expressed remorse nor apologized. His crime was a calculated predatory act, not the mistake of a child.
And the trauma continues because under current law, every two years, he has a chance of release. Preparations for trial begin months in advance. There is no real break. For the rest of my life, I will be forced to relive my daughter's murder, to defend the truth of what happened to her, and to beg the system to protect other children and families. Every court appearance, every hearing, every trial brings more pain.
I feel like a ghost of the woman I once was living a joyless life. I haven't been able to hold a job for a decade. I've instead spent months at a time prepping for trials. Madison's dad couldn't cope with the grief, self medicated, and lost his life. Both of Maddie's grandpas passed before seeing justice.
We have no resolution. Instead, we are forced to return again and again to court to fight for justice in a system that failed us. We could not we should not have to relive this nightmare every two years. No parent should. No community should.
My daughter mattered. Madison matters, and the law must reflect that. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Thank you, chair and members. Lauren Apter, assistant district attorney on behalf of the Santa Cruz County district attorney's office who are cosponsoring this bill with assembly member Pellerin who we thank. I would like to acknowledge, most importantly, miss Laura Jordan, Maddie's mother, our elected DA, Jeff Roselle, who is here in the room with us, as well as Tara George, our chief chief deputy who conducted the first welfare and institutions code section eight seventy six hearing in the state. When s b thirteen ninety one was signed into law, then governor Brown's promise to victims was that this juvenile detention extension process would permit extended incarceration if the youth is deemed truly dangerous. That is a direct quote.
In conducting our hearing of Adrian Gonzalez, Maddie's now 26 year old rapist and murderer, our community learned that changes must be made so this promise may be met both for Maddie and future families. Critically, unlike the SVP process, which is our closest analog and permits indefinite detention with annual review to determine whether actual rehabilitation has occurred, we will be having extension hearings every two years whether or not Adrian's treatment has progressed enough so that he is no longer a danger. Miss Jordan, more eloquently than I ever will, has explained that impact on families. Every hearing is a new trauma. But we have also provided letters from victim advocates and law enforcement, and our own attorneys will tell you that this is traumatizing for every member of the community.
We also have jurors who despite not choosing a life in criminal justice, who don't want anything to do with the system at all, will be retraumatized by trials, things that they never wanna hear. This two year cycle also does not result in appropriate treatment for the offender. Rather than being focused on treatment, he's being pulled out to go to trial every eighteen months while then an appeal is pending, and then he's focusing on a new trial. And he will be a 26 year old adult man housed and programming with children, which is isolating for him and a danger to the children he is housed with. This is not a common sense approach to justice, treatment, or the use of public resources.
We believe we have addressed many of the opposition's concerns where appropriate and note that this is not going to be an arbitrary
Speaker 1
Maybe you'll get a question so you can finish that statement. Absolutely. Very much. In a moment, we're gonna take the me too's. I just wanted to thank the assembly member for a presentation.
And miss Jordan, I really wanted to thank you for being here today. You've been through more than any parent should ever have to be, and there's nothing that I could say to make it better other than to say that I personally believe Maddie's here in the room strengthening you today. I really appreciate you being here and telling us a little I'm gonna ask you a question in a few moments about what she was like, but I just I really appreciate you being here so we can hear your testimony, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you.
Next, we'll take the me too's in support. Please confine your comment to name, organization, and your position, please.
Speaker 21
My name is Jeff Roselle. I'm the Santa Cruz County district attorney, and just wanna say that we support this bill.
Speaker 10
June Parvis, Madison's best friend and Tannery resident, strong support.
Speaker 22
Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in support.
Speaker 23
Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association also in support. Thank you.
Speaker 19
And Lauren Aftor on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in strong support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Final call. Anyone hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. Do we have opposition witnesses?
Okay. Come on down. We have two chairs and microphones here if we need them. Thank you. And you'll have two minutes, once you begin speaking to address the committee.
Speaker 24
Mister chairman and committee members, thank you. I'm Rachel Drazninagi, a deputy public defender in Contra Costa County where I've represented kids in the juvenile system and currently represent almost every adult who's been forensically civilly committed in my county. Youth justice advocates are grateful for the author's openness to our concerns. We appreciate the amendments that have been made, but there are several critically important problems with a b 19 o two, so we oppose until further amended. We hope for continued conversations with the author.
We have to think about the broad applicability of laws. The existing law, week eight seventy six, allows extension of juvenile court jurisdiction when a young person confined to an SYTF is determined to be a danger to the public due to a mental condition. This is civil commitment. While juvenile court jurisdiction normally ends at age 25, this law permits ongoing recurring two year periods of commitment if a judge or jury so finds. WIC eight seventy six is most parallel to the adult systems offenders with mental health disorders law, and there, the state can commit an adult past their parole period for just one year at a time, allowing a court to regularly assess the person's need for locked treatment.
AB 19 o two would double the commitment period in WIC eight seventy six from two to four years. This doesn't make sense. Young people, including those in their mid twenties, are still developing. Their brains are still changing more rapidly than other adults. Youth are more amenable to change, not less, and require more frequent assessment, not less.
Speaker 43
Additionally, the bill retains physical condition or other problem as justification for commitment alongside mental condition or disorder, and these words should be struck. That language is not in line with any adult civil commitment law, and mental condition or disorder is broad enough to capture every mental condition that could justify civil commitment. Finally, a b 19 o two would authorize treatment to occur in an undefined appropriate adult institution, and we expect that probation departments will argue that authorizes placement placement in an adult jail or prison. That's a penal setting, antithetical to civil commitment, which is only legal so long as focused solely on treatment. So that language needs to be clarified or stricken.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from others in opposition to the bill. Please come forward. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 25
Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California action and opposition, even with the committee amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Sheila Wilson on behalf of Justice Jobs Coalition and Law Definta in respect for opposition.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for California Public Defender's Office, Association. While we did not file an an official opposition, we are having some concerns and we welcome further conversation with the author's office.
Speaker 19
Laura Rodolfi really appreciate the conversations around amendments from the Burns Institute, and I also have an oppose unless amend position from the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, from the California Youth Defender Center, from the Coalition of State Tribes, from the Community United for Restorative Youth Justice, Fresh Lifelines for Youth, Human Rights Watch, National Center for Youth Law, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, and the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Jim Lindberg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed, I'm also registering opposition on behalf of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Community Interventions, Community Works, Felony Murder Elimination Project, Freedom for Youth, In Our Care, San Mateo County, Peace United Church of Christ, Silicon Valley Debug, The Collective for Liberatory Lawyering, Unlocked Futures, Urban Peace Institute, Youth Alliance, and Youth Justice Coalition. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Daphne Gazani on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law. Oppose unless amended.
Speaker 31
Good morning. Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United Forest for To Do Justice. Respectfully oppose. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. Just doing one final call for anyone else in opposition. Okay. I'm told that's everybody. Alright.
Fantastic. We'll now turn it to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Miss Jordan, I'd like to start with one question, if I might. I think the one of the hardest parts about this job, especially for someone sitting up here, is the emotional toll that it takes, hearing all of these stories.
And I think one of the things that really pains me is that all too often, we're talking about something horrible that was done to another person. We're talking about the conduct and the action. And I try to not lose sight of the fact that we're talking about human beings and all of this. And you had this amazing daughter, I imagine, Maddie, who was just a ball of energy like my two kids are. And I'd like the record to reflect just a little bit more about how we should remember Maddie.
So can you tell us a little bit about what she was like, what were her favorite things, what's she of the committee now?
Speaker 17
Maddie loved to talk and laugh, and her grandparents called her Chatty Maddie. And, they'd come to visit and put her in the car. She's talking and put her in the car, shut the door, come around, open the other door, and she's still talking to them. And she was an incredible artist, and she grew up in an artist community. And she had so much energy and so much love for people.
She loved animals. She, we went she demanded we get a dog, and I am a cat person. And I'm like, we live in an apartment. We have a cat. We you know?
So we went to get a dog and I said, no puppies, no pimples, and no poodles. That was my and I fell for a puppy and she I the puppy was taken. And she turns around and she's like, I'm not leaving here without a dog. What about that one? So that's how we have our little dog, Lucy.
And she eventually developed a love for wolves and she
Speaker 61
and she got over that. And one night, she went and was standing on our balcony looking at the moon, like, talking to it, like incantations. Like, it was so amazingly beautiful and struck me. She one day, she was she was with my friend, and they were in the supermarket. And they ran across my friend's friend, and I had never met them, but they had transitioned and never really felt comfortable or seen.
Speaker 17
And Maddie just went up to them and started talking and, you know, that person later wrote a poem about how this little girl made them feel seen.
Speaker 17
yeah, I I she was the love of our lives. She was my only child, and she was my grand my parents' only grandchild. She made me a mother, and I'm still a mother. I'm a childless mother, and it's it's been really hard to figure out what to do with my life besides this. And this is not fun.
Nobody should have to do this. Madison loved the color purple, and she used to say purple purple. She made a video a few months before she was killed, and she called it her vlog. And she starts out and she says, my name's Madison. I live at the tannery.
I did my hair purple. See? Purple, purple. Mhmm. I did my nails purple.
She also liked red and black. She went through the tannery describing all the art on the walls, whose it was. You know, she walked by and said, the tannery is for artists. You better be qualified, Doc Lips. And she did this video, and it is the last images I have of her alive.
And it's on YouTube. You can you can watch it. She made friends very easily. And in first grade, she she was very bright, and she finished her classwork right away. And her teacher said, you need to help Violet with her homework.
So she was teaching her classmate, you know, their schoolwork, and they became friends for a while.
Speaker 17
hilarious. Hilarious. And I, homeschooled her, and I am sometimes I felt like, oh, she needs to be in school. She was in school and homeschooled. But I am so grateful now that I was a stay at home mom and I wasn't at work and she wasn't in day care because those were the only that's the only time I had with her.
Those precious eight years and I spent most of them with her. Yes. She was in daycare and school. I went to UC Santa Cruz, went back and she, from two to three, she was in their early education program. She oh, she also would always wear a braid in her hair, and she hated her hair to be brushed.
She was very sensitive. And I said, if you're not gonna brush your long hair, we're gonna have to cut it shorter. And we compromised, Left a braid, left a long part, and then cut a short bob. So she she was quite an individual, very much her own person. She wasn't afraid to talk to people.
She talked to, you know, elders. She was just fearless and brave, and I'm sure she fought like the dickens when he duct taped her and strangled her.
Speaker 17
So, yeah, he picked the wrong child. He shouldn't have done anything. But, yeah. Beautiful memories. She used to say, my mom can fix anything.
And, you know, I I could. I could fix little things. Her toys broke. Her clothes you know, I could sew a hole. I could do things, but how do I fix this?
How?
Speaker 17
she went to summer camp every summer. She learned to swim when she was very young, and she loved the water. Absolutely loved the water, and we were really fortunate to live in Santa Cruz.
Speaker 17
Yeah. Yeah. She was funny. She was great. She loved to sing.
She was great at very detailed art, but she couldn't dance at all.
Speaker 17
She danced like Elaine on side of Alba. That's she hadn't taken dance lessons yet. And I talked to the head of the dance center at the Tannery, Tannery World Dance Center, and she's like, don't worry. She'll get it. She's got time.
She, you know, she's not coordinated now. She was thin and lanky, and I went to my chiropractor once and brought her, and he said, she's got your same body. Wow. That's she's my daughter. You know?
She we were like this.
Speaker 1
I appreciate you taking the time to answer that question. And the reason that I ask it is several fold, but in it I think it's important that we remember folks not for what was done to them, but for the beautiful souls that they are. And I also think that the healing process requires that we not just talk about the bad, we talk about the good too. There's nothing that I can say or do to make it better, but I hope in some small way today, as you leave this room, you choose to think about all the positive as I will when I think about Matti. All the wonderful things that you described here today.
And the last thing I will say, and then I will gladly pass it over to the committee if there's any questions or comments is this. I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe there is a life beyond this mortal plane. And no matter where Maddie is, you are still her mom, and she still loves you.
Speaker 12
Yeah. In the last twelve years, when I've I've heard a lot of testimony here, a lot, and it frustrates me because there seems to be so much offender sympathy. And I think at times, it's appropriate. Other times, it's very, very misplaced. Such inhumane actions deserve justice based on the inhumane behavior, not just age.
And all I can say is, excuse me, you talk about not being able to fix things well. Your testimony can help fix injustice, and that's exactly what it's doing, and I appreciate you. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Other questions or comments? We have a motion by Haribidian. Do we have a second? We have a second by Gonzalez. Any other questions or comments?
Alright. Miss Pelerin, would you like to close?
Speaker 16
Yes. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion today, and I wanna thank the advocates who engaged in my office early in the process. You showed up. You raised important concerns, and I listened. Where it made sense, I took amendments because getting this right matters.
Let me be clear, a b 19 o two is not about punishment. It is also not about an in response to one case. A b 19 o two is about responsibility. It is about ensuring that the small number of individuals who face an extension detention hearing are placed in the most appropriate setting to receive meaningful treatment grounded in clinical judgment and public safety. It is also about honoring victims.
Their voices, their experiences, and their trauma must not be sidelined. They must be a part of how we define justice. Maddie's mother, Laura, you spoke today with such extraordinary courage. Your presence is a powerful reminder that long after the headlines are gone, the pain remains. That lasting impact must be reflected in how our system responds.
I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member. I wanna also thank you for taking the committee amendments. I did review several times the opposition letters that were submitted, and I know that the committee amendments don't address all of their concerns. But I do thank you for addressing some of the concerns around use of the word secure in the bill as well as the prosecutorial initiation of proceedings. I think those are good changes.
As you move out of committee today, I would like you to consider I I I do as I mentioned in our private conversation, I do share some of concerns raised by the opposition about the antiquated language of a physical only standard, which I think could lead to misapplication of this law. But I also know that you will have more stops along the way, and I look forward to watching this bill as it evolves. But for today, I am recommending an aye, and we have a motion and a second. We'll conduct the roll right now. For
Speaker 11
item 10 a b 19 o two by assembly member Pelerin, the motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Harbodian? Aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackie?
Aye. Wen? Ramos? Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins not voting.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. Mister Ward, I'm sorry, but assembly member Stephanie is present and was ahead of you in line. Assembly member Stephanie, you have three bills. Did you wanna go in file order?
Speaker 1
Okay, colleagues. We're gonna start with assembly bill twenty fifty two.
Speaker 34
Thank you, mister vice chair and colleagues. I I'd like to begin by actually thanking the chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. I'm here today to present a b twenty fifty two, a
Speaker 34
designed to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our communities by making sure our justice system works for them when they need it most. And as a former prosecutor, I feel very lucky to understand how vital it is that some victims have the predictability of the same prosecutor as they're going through the criminal justice system. So this bill, really means a lot to me personally. As California's, California's population ages, we are seeing more cases of elder and dependent adult abuse. For many victims, the court process can feel overwhelming, not because they lack courage, but because they are facing physical, cognitive, or medical challenges that make participation extraordinarily difficult.
Some victims are living with dementia or other cognitive impairments that affect their memory and their ability to communicate clearly. Others rely on caregivers for transportation, medication, or daily support. Simply getting to court can be a major challenge. And once they are there, they may need accommodations that require planning, coordination, and trust. And in these moments, it's where continuity matters.
Too often, a victim may meet one prosecutor at the beginning of the case, another at the next hearing, and someone new by the time the matter reaches trial, and it's very disconcerting to the victim. Each transition requires the victim to rebuild trust, repeat painful details, and adjust to a new person who may not yet understand their needs. This is not just discouraging, disorienting, and in some cases, it can make it harder for victims to fully participate in the pursuit of justice. AB twenty fifty two addresses this problem in a practical and compassionate way. This bill allows a prosecutor handling a case involving a senior or dependent adult victim to remain with that case and when necessary, request a continuance.
That flex that flexibility ensures the victim can continue receiving support from someone who understands their situation and can anticipate their needs. At its core, a b twenty fifty two ensures that vulnerable victims are supported every step of the way and that our justice system works with them, not against them. With me today to speak in support is Andrew Mendoza from the Alzheimer's Association, and Julie Moore is here to share her personal story.
Speaker 57
Andrew Mendoza, on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association, proud sponsor of AB twenty fifty two, thank you so much. Thank you, mister chair, committee members, and staff for your work to advance this prudent measure. And I'd be remiss to say if I didn't welcome Mary Kennedy back, workplace icon. It's a pleasure to be in your space. We're thankful that the assembly member has prioritized improving services rendered to vulnerable victims, especially those living with cognitive impairment.
Speaker 42
In enabling law enforcement to dedicate a singular prosecutor for each stage of a vertical prosecution for crimes against older and dependent adults, a b twenty fifty two better facilitates a statewide approach to a crime that can be under prioritized. This bill enables a prosecutor to meet a victim, establish their independence, and spend more time with vulnerable populations when necessary, including those living with dementia. This is sensible to stabilize a procedure and provide a dedicated resource to caregivers for coordination of the necessary follow-up. Further, it would develop expertise in elder abuse cases and better facilitate accommodations for those residing in assisted living facilities or who have been hospitalized because of the crime. It minimizes the likelihood that a prosecutor would reduce charges or decline to bring them due to the fact that the primary witness of the abuse or exploitation is living with Alzheimer's disease or dementia.
As a result of the growing population of older adults, elder abuse and financial exploitation are on the rise. As the number of older adults increases, so does the number of people living with cognitive impairment. And as a preventative measure, we should adjust our systems of justice to better protect older adults and otherwise vulnerable populations. AB twenty fifty two is the support for district attorneys who have dedicated resources to serving older and dependent adult victims with vertical prosecutions, and we hope this bill encourages a comprehensive statewide approach. I am respectfully asking for your I vote at the appropriate time.
Appreciate your time, and we'll now turn it over to our advocate, Julie Moore, to provide how this bill connects to her lived experience.
Speaker 43
Thank you, chairman Schultz, members of the public safety committee for your time. My name is Julie Moore. I'm from Irvine. I'm an advocate with the Alzheimer's Association. We appreciate assembly member Stefani's authorizing this important legislation.
As a victim survivor of crime, someone living with dementia, and a former caregiver for each of my parents, I understand how bad actors target people living with cognitive impairment and see the value of vertical prosecution units offered to help seniors contend with fraud and abuse by providing the victim with one point of contact for follow-up and only having to explain their case to one person. Two years ago, I was diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment with Alzheimer's pathology. Both my parents died of Alzheimer's disease. I was the primary caregiver for my mother when she developed Alzheimer's disease at 72. Shortly after diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, my mother was robbed in the home by care providers that we had hired on a referral from a rehab after a hemorrhagic stroke from a head injury.
Those care providers also locked me out of the house and tried to get my mother to pay for a fictitious trip top for them to go to Ireland together. Just after moving to assisted living, which became necessary when in home care was not reliable, still in the stage just after moving to the assisted living, Still in this oh, She was kidnapped by a long time family friend for two weeks while this individual tried to empty out the bank accounts. 20 '52 promotes vertical prosecution of crimes perpetrated against older adults, including elder abuse and financial exploitation. Both of these were things that my mother experienced. This is important because every time you must every time you must re explain how you were defrauded or abused, you have to relive the trauma and embarrassment.
It takes you back to that place. It disorients your presence. Furthermore, it can be further disorienting to have to continually deal with new attorneys repeatedly.
Speaker 1
And I'm sorry. I'll have to stop you there because we're at two minutes, but I'm sure that we can give a chance to finish when we ask a question. But thank you very much, ma'am. Alright. Next, we'll take the me too's in support.
Please come down. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 4
Good morning, mister chairman, members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 23
Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses here? Going once, going twice. Do we oh, we do have okay.
It looks like we have one witness. Alright. Come on down. We have a microphone right here. I see.
Okay. Got it. Okay. I this sounds like it's just you. You have two minutes whenever you're ready.
Speaker 45
Good morning. My name is Alex Trantham. I'm a public defender from the LA County Public Defender's Office representing Local one forty eight in opposition of this bill. One of the core principles of due process is that a person charged with a crime has the right to a speedy trial. When someone is charged with a crime, they are often in jail away from their family and community or they have posted cast bail and are paying thousands of dollars to be out of custody.
Time is of the essence. Section ten fifty outlines the circumstances that allow for continuances and the waiver of the right to a speedy trial in very specific scenarios. The person charged can waive the right themselves for purposes of case preparation. But when a continuance is granted in spite of our client's waiver, it should be in the rarest of circumstances. Importantly, section ten fifty already outlines what is good cause for a continuance and allows for the court to consider witness availability.
Since judges already have the good cause standard to guide them in granting continuances, the amendment needlessly cards away the right to a speedy trial. For adults 65 or dependent adults, if a witness has certain transportation issues, for example, the state will often deploy a law enforcement officer as transport or an escort to court. DAs must communicate with witnesses and and victims and understand the nature the unique nature that they require in making sure they come to court. There if there are safety concerns, there would be safety measures in place. The right to a speedy trial is one of the most important rights of the accused.
The statute is overbroad and doesn't detail any specific difficulty that courts aren't already dealing with for these particular witnesses. For these reasons, we oppose.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Next, we'll take the me too. So if you're also here to register an opposition position, please come down at this time. Name, organization, and position, please.
Thank you. Good morning, mister
Speaker 46
chair members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. We are opposed but reviewing the amendments.
Speaker 25
Avi Rodriguez with ACLU California action in opposition, still reviewing the amendments. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell, Houston, California Public Defenders Association. We remain, opposed unless amended. We do thank the author for taking the amendments, but we do still have some concerns which I've expressed and hope to have further conversation.
Speaker 1
Alright. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Seeing none, Assembly Member Stephanie, with your permission. Ma'am, I'd like to ask you I apologize. To for the sake of the rules, I have to give everybody two minutes, and I know that seems unfair.
But I also can't pick favorites, and I have to be fair across the board. But I'd like to give you a chance to finish your statement. Anything else you think the committee should know, take as much time as you need, ma'am.
Speaker 50
This bill better supports senior crime victims by preventing additional victim trauma and supporting them when the process through the process. For these reasons, I've I've urge your eye, vote at the appropriate time.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Alright. Colleagues, I've done a lot of talking this morning. Does anyone have a question or a comment at all? It's okay if you don't.
Just throwing it out there. Mister Harvitian oh, wow. Mister Harvitian, mister Alonese on the first and second. The only question I would have, assembly member Stephanie, and you can address it in your close if you like, is I really appreciate your working with the committee and your movement in in in terms of taking the amendments. Just wondering if you have any response to some of the opposition, testimony we heard today.
But if you wanna address that in your close, that's okay with me.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Any other questions or comments? Alright. Assembly member, the floor is yours.
Speaker 34
Thank you. And with regard to the opposition, I believe that the bill strikes the balance with those concerns by only allowing for one continuance considering the story that we just heard by the witness, Julie, and thank you for sharing your personal story with us and how crucial it is to provide such type of prosecution in these cases. My dad was diagnosed with Lewy body dementia in January 2018. And watching the slow decline of someone you love and knowing that they are can be victimized in a way that others can't, and should they be, the fact that they need a different type of prosecution shouldn't be lost on anyone, and I encourage your I vote.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, assembly member, and and I do appreciate all the testimony we heard today. I did review the opposition letter. I know that the amendments may not address all of the concerns, but I think the bill is in a much stronger position. And you do have my eye recommendation today, assembly member. When it comes to certain kinds of cases, sometimes we do need to grant that flexibility so that someone who has come to know the victim of crime is able to continue representing their interests to the extent that they can throughout the criminal justice process.
So I am recommending an aye today. We have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 11
For item 13, a b twenty fifty two by Assembly Member Stephanie, the motion is due pass as amended. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Schultz? Aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis?
Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales? Aye.
Haney? Harbidean? Aye. Harbidean? Aye.
Lackey? Wen, Ramos, Sharp Collins, Sharp Collins, I. Okay.
Speaker 1
That bill is out. We'll allow, others to add on as they come back. Thank you all very much. And assembly member, I know you need to change out witnesses. Are you gonna be taking fifteen eighty eight next or 17?
Okay. Fifteen eighty eight, everybody. So if you're a witness on that bill, please come on down and join the assembly member. And assembly member, whenever you're ready, you can begin on fifteen eighty eight.
Speaker 34
you, chair and colleagues. Again, I would, first like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee staff for their thoughtful work and collaboration on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. I also wanna thank San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, the sponsor of this bill, for working with my office as we've, worked through the amendments. Today, I'm presenting a b fifteen eighty eight, a bill that will strengthen accountability and protect public safety in our communities. Across California, sideshows are turning ordinary intersections into dangerous zones and absolute mayhem, actually, where roads are blocked, traffic is halted, and neighborhoods are left dealing with noise, chaos, and real threats to public safety.
These events do more than just disrupt traffic. They put residents, small businesses, and first responders at risk, especially when emergency vehicles cannot get through as we have seen when the Bay Bridge was taken over completely. Sideshows have become more organized and more frequent thanks to social media, often involving repeat offenders, unlicensed dirt bikes, and coordinated crowds that overwhelm existing enforcement tools. Increasingly, these events are also associated with illegal firearms, many assault rifles on display, turning already dangerous situations into potentially deadly ones. Since February, enhanced enforcement efforts in the East Bay have led to the seizure of more than a 110 illegal guns at sideshows, underscoring how quickly these gatherings can escalate from reckless behavior into serious threats to human life.
Despite steps taken by cities and the state, enforcement has not kept pace with how these events operate today, leaving officers without clear authority to intervene early and leaving communities frustrated when the dangerous behavior continues to occur. AB fifteen eighty eight closes key enforcement gaps by updating state law to reflect how sideshows actually operate today, including adding motorbikes and dirt bikes to the sideshow framework so officers can take action when unlicensed vehicles are used to block streets and perform dangerous stunts. The bill also strengthens accountability by aligning penalties for sideshows with those already in place for speed contests. Together, these changes give law enforcement the tools they need to respond effectively and protect our communities. Here with me today is sergeant Ben Shi from the San Francisco Police Department Stunt Driving Response Unit and Jolina Voorhees with the League of California Cities.
Speaker 49
Good morning, chair Schultz and members of the assembly public safety committee. My name is Benjamin Shee star 2089. I'm a police officer for the San Francisco Police Department. One of my specialty areas is sideshow investigations and enforcement, responding to the needs of the community as they arise. I'm a sergeant of police, a supervisor, and I hold post certificates for both traffic investigations and collisions.
I'm an attorney and a member of the bar in good standing, as well as the designated subject matter expert on sideshows and takeovers in the San Francisco Police Department. I'm here today to speak in support of Assembly Bill one five eight eight, which seeks to address the worrying trend of illegal sideshows and street races taking place in San Francisco, in the Bay Area, and in the wider state of California. AB fifteen eighty eight closes loopholes in current law by adding missing vehicle classes such as motorcycles and dirt bikes and places them into state sideshow law. And these same vehicles are commonly used at sideshow and takeover events. This bill also brings sideshow offenses online with existing law related to the exhibition of speed and speed contests.
A part of my role is simply responding to community town halls. In these town halls, a recurring plea of the community is requesting action on some of these missing categories of vehicles, I e, motorcycles and dirt bikes and off road vehicles. A common question I receive is simply, is there any pending legislation to address this? The tendency of these events to result in serious bodily injury or become fatal is also worrying. The same data that we gather from CHP and we use has showed that in the five year period between 2019 and 2024, These incidents have resulted in two hundred and sixty four crashes and thirty fatalities.
Speaker 1
And I'm sorry that's your time, but I'm stick around. There'll probably be questions. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Alright.
As to the second witness, you have two minutes as well.
Speaker 5
Yes. Mister chair, committee members, I hope this is on. My name is Julina Voris. I am a legislative advocate with the League of California Cities, pleased to be here in support of a b fifteen eighty eight, which would increase penalties and consequences for operation of sideshows. As previously stated, vehicle sideshows and street takeovers are dangerous events where public spaces are taken over to engage in reckless driving behavior and stunts that pose a danger to drivers and pedestrians.
Speaker 50
These events threaten the safety of those involved as well as cause noise pollution, traffic obstructions, and property damage. Recent incidents highlight the seriousness of this issue, including the death of 16 year old who fell from an overpass during the East Bay Sideshow last September and the death of an 18 year old during a sideshow in Monterey County last November. Calcities has heard from several of our member cities across the state on this issue, and many have been forced to enact local ordinances to address the ongoing threat that slideshow has posed to some public safety. In Southern California, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and Paramount have expressed that slideshows put the residents at risk and often occur in high traffic areas where they disrupt vital, transportation corridors and impede emergency services. In Northern California, Oakland City Council reported that sideshows have frequently been linked to gun violence and property destruction.
According to the CHP, in 2021, they respond to almost 6,000 street races and sideshows issuing 2,500 citations statewide, making 87 arrests. AB fifteen eighty eight would help to address the continuation of these incidents by making sideshows equivalently street racing and allows for the impoundment of vehicles at a sideshow. Without additional statewide determinants or or funding for continuing enforcement or law enforcement, these organized incidents will continue to harm our communities and strain local resources. For these reasons, on and on behalf of Cal State University, you're in strong support of a b fifteen eighty eight, and we urge the committee to pass this important legislation. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1
Thank you. You must have practiced that. That was two minutes on the dot.
Speaker 1
Yes. Alright. I I if you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, we'll take the me twos. Come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 51
Good morning. Eileen Mariano on behalf of the bill sponsor, mayor Daniel Lurie, in support.
Speaker 15
Steven Lopez on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support.
Speaker 49
Clifton Wilson on behalf of the board of supervisors for the County Of San Joaquin and as well as the city of Beverly Hills both in support, and thank you for the measure. Appreciate it.
Speaker 9
Good morning. I read Arapichang on behalf of AAA Northern California in support.
Speaker 1
Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, and the other POAs in the analysis in support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
Good morning. Kevin Benedicto, vice president of the San Francisco Police Commission in individual capacity and support.
Speaker 23
Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association also in support.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. We'll note the the one opposition testimony. We'll add that later. Two opposition.
Oh, I'm sorry. Two. Alright. Do we have any opposition witnesses who'd like to testify? Okay.
Just the one, are there two, or one? There are two. Okay. Perfect. Yeah.
I could just get thank you so much for scooting down. We do have two chairs here. Once you both start speaking, you'll each have two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 25
Good morning, chair members. My name is Aubrey Rodriguez, and I'm a ledge advocate with ACLU California Action. Initially, we laid out our concerns in a letter around incentivizing police to create new surveillance programs that would have accelerated us towards a dystopian future of police cameras on every street corner. Constant police surveillance of public spaces is simply inappropriate in a free society and threatens our rights to association, expression, and privacy. Privacy.
Thankfully, the author has accepted committee amendments to alleviate these concerns, and we want to express our gratitude where we can. So thank you, assembly member. However, we continue to have issues with this proposal as it seeks to create redundant criminal penalties of existing crimes. If a person causes bodily injury to another while engaging in reckless driving, which can include the participating in sideshows, they can already be convicted of a misdemeanor and sentence up to six months in jail. If And a person causes a serious injury resulting in loss of consciousness, bone fracture, or serious wound, that person can be convicted of a felony.
So we are simply just opposed to this bill because of the redundancy in this bill, and I'll pass it off to Kian to give other perspective. Thank you.
Speaker 52
Thank you, Aubrey. Good afternoon, chair Schultz and, members of the committee. My name is Keon Bliss, and I'm the senior manager of policy and organizing with the Anti Police Terror Project. We are a black led multiracial organization that works every day with families navigating the impacts of state violence as well as economic hardship. And I'm here to be very clear.
We strongly oppose AB fifteen eighty eight even with the amendments. The bill, unfortunately, is not about safety. It's more about punishment. And at a time when families across California are struggling to survive, raising fines or making it easier for people's vehicles to be seized or be caught up in the criminal punishment system is simply, unacceptable. And, let's be honest about how this about who this will impact.
It will be not wealthy communities, but it will be black, brown, and low income communities who are already over policed and over penalized. And we already know that a lot of these fines and fees that we're talking about do not deter behavior. What they do is trap people in cycles of debt, punishment, and poverty. And the data is clear. Cities like Oakland, San Jose, and Fresno have already increased fines, and it did not stop sideshows.
In fact, in Oakland, incidents continued and enforcement only increased, the number of vehicles that were seized, limiting people's ability to access jobs and their livelihoods. So what are we really doing here? We're really doubling down on a strategy that has already failed. That is not public safety. That this is dangerous expansion of fines as well as also enabling surveillance and police power with very little accountability.
If we are going to be serious about safety, we really need real solutions. We need investment in community based programs. We need youth engagement, and we need infrastructure changes that actually prevent harm, particularly to our traffic safety infrastructure. We have already seen that in Oakland where simple roadway redesigns such as traffic ballers have actually reduced such activity. We do not need more punishment.
We need prevention, and we need care, and we need investment in our communities. So I really urge you, please vote no on a b fifteen eighty eight, and of let's avoid and try new strategies than criminalizing poverty.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Toos. If you'd also like to be heard in opposition to the bill, come on down at this time.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. We thank the author for taking the amendments, and we will withdraw our opposition.
Speaker 45
Alex Trantham on behalf of Local one forty eight, LA County Public Defenders Union in opposition.
Speaker 1
Okay. Final call. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais.
Are there any questions or comments from me or doctor Sharp Collins? Because that's all we got left. It's always just you and me. Okay. I just had two very quick questions.
I guess I'll start with our opposition witnesses. You know, your your your point is well taken about even enhanced tools doesn't really prevent the behavior from happening, and I get your point about application. I I guess my question is, if the answer is not fines or impoundment, could you speak a little bit more to what you think are the right tools? I mean, I know education is a big piece of it, but what are the other things to actually prevent someone from getting in the car and doing a road takeover or a sideshow? Like, what what can we do in your perspective?
Speaker 35
I mean, a lot of the things that we could be doing is redesigning our existing roadways and traffic infrastructure that, for a lot of neighborhoods, particularly in low income communities, simply haven't been updated for years or have been neglected. It looks like installing traffic ballers in the intersections that make it hard for people to take like, take them over or for vehicles to do the activities that we often see, like donuts within sideshows. It also could look like road narrow, creating more by creating smaller roads so that fewer cars actually go like, can actually fit through and occupy those sorts of spaces. But in a lot of the neighborhoods, there's like, there are basic, traffic infrastructure that makes it easy and, such as, like, the lack of sidewalks, no bike lanes, or even crosswalks, within those spaces that simply have been neglected for too long, and we could be and could actually help to mitigate some of these activities.
Speaker 25
Yeah. And I just like to add, like, there's curve extensions, and I understand this can be expensive and would there's a budget crisis right now, but a lot of times, we have this. It's an easy solution to just add more crimes, but our penal code's already oversaturated. And we need to move away from this carceral approach and try to think about more holistically or systemically rather than creating more crimes or and redundant crimes at that at that fact.
Speaker 1
Really appreciate both of you sharing that perspective with the committee. And and then in fairness, my question to the to the author and the sponsors would be having heard some of the testimony today and some of the alternatives that are being presented, Do you have any response, to those concerns that have been raised in committee today?
Speaker 49
Well, I like to think outside the box. So, two items. The first one is this, I love traffic improvements. Steel plates, bollards, construction, etcetera. We champion that in San Francisco.
I love the fact that the city and county of San Francisco likes to think outside the box, hears disparate voices, and tries to figure out a solution. But in my enforcement, what I found out is this. Sideshows, street takeovers, they're like water. So a perfect example is Barnabelle and McKinnon in the Bayview District, which was plagued for years. The city came in with the help of SFMTA, which is our city streets, and erected all of these countermeasures.
Speaker 66
The sideshow simply moved one block away. So in order for the traffic prevention devices to work, we need to basically get an agreement with the sideshow organizers that simply not to move the sideshows. In San Francisco, whenever we put up the traffic barriers, our next goal across the next quarter is to simply track where they move in the same neighborhood. So I'm not certain if that's a viable solution. The second one is simply this, regarding the vehicle classes.
Speaker 49
Right now, fourteen six zero two point seven merely addresses cars. In my enforcement experience, over 50% of the sideshows and takeovers are actually dirt bikes, off road vehicles, and motorcycles. The current state of the law, what we have is kinda almost like a if the assembly sponsored a little league hockey team, but we only gave hockey sticks to half of the teammates. We're simply missing 50% or greater of the activities that happen in the city.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the answer. And then just to be clear, assembly member, did you or your other witness have anything to add? Or if not, that's okay. I just wanna make sure.
Speaker 1
Okay. Very good. Seeing no other questions or comments, assembly member, I'll give you a chance to close.
Speaker 34
Thank you, chair. And, again, I wanna thank the committee for working on with me working with me on amendments to remove some of the opposition. And, you know, I find it impossible to believe in, you know, two things that were said that don't really make sense by the opposition that they are both redundant and yet a dangerous expansion. So I don't understand how that actually works. And I believe that this bill is about treating repeat offenders appropriately and holding people accountable for their reckless behavior and the harm they cause to our communities.
And as far as rebuilding all our intersections, I I think, you know, rebuilding the Bay Bridge isn't an option. Putting things in place on the Bay Bridge, not an option. It's so expensive. And the transit funding that we're fighting for in the Bay Area alone just to keep Muni and everything running, going intersect intersection by intersection, like, a $100,000 or more per intersection is not an option. What is an option is to make sure that people are held accountable for the reckless behavior.
These sideshows are causing real harm. And the message is that you can if you can find a place to do it, just go ahead and do it. And so we worked on this bill to make sure that we came up with something that works and that is going to be a real deterrent, and I think it's necessary, and I urge an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. Before I proceed, I, we do need a motion and a second. I don't like to motion myself, but given there's only two of us okay. Fantastic. I'll second.
Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins. So, yes, I just doctor Sharp Collins, I'm recommending an I. Really appreciate the work of I I know it's so weird. This is just you and me to hear it today. Appreciate the work of the author.
I think that the amendments do improve the bill substantially. Sounds like there's some continued conversation to happen, and and and I know that, as somebody member Stephanie, in my time working with you, you're very collaborative. You have an open door. Not that we're gonna all agree on everything all the time, but I do encourage those continued conversations. And I would just leave you all with this.
I think this is an it's not an either or, it's an and. I think that these are tools that will be helpful to our our local officials trying to get this sort of conduct off of our streets and off of the Bay Bridge, for example. But I also think that education and roadway design are things that we don't talk about nearly enough in this committee that can also make it difficult to do the very things that we're trying to guard against. So I just encourage all of us to think of it in that regard. I think we can do both.
We can walk and chew gum at the same time. So I really appreciate all of you being here today. We have a motion and a second. We'll call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item one a b fifteen eighty eight by assembly member Stephanie, the motion is due pass as amended to the Transportation Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz? Aye.
Alanis? Gonzales? Haney? Barbadian? Lacky?
Wen? Ramos?
Speaker 1
Okay. That measures on call. We'll let you know the outcome. And assembly member Ramos with the moment of the day walking in just in time to cast that vote. I love the swagger.
Okay. Assembly member Stephanie, I think you have one more bill. Yes. AB1753.
Speaker 34
Yes. Okay. Great. Hi, all. Okay.
I'll get started. Thank you again, mister chair and colleagues. And today, I'm presenting a B1753, the survivor pathways to safety act. I am accepting committee amendments and would like to express my deep appreciation and thanks to chair Schultz and Dustin Weber, for all their important work on this bill. We went, rounds and I'm really I I really cannot express my gratitude enough for hanging in there with me, and, thank you.
It it means a lot. As I've stated before in front of this committee, when a survivor walks into a courthouse and asks for protection, they are not just simply asking for a piece of paper. They are asking for safety and to be protected. They are asking for peace of mind and are placing their trust in a system that promises to protect them and their families. But too often, we know that that promise is not fully kept.
A survivor goes through the difficult and sometimes very dangerous process of seeking a restraining order. They follow the rules. They show up in court. They take the steps that the law requires. And when that order is granted, some of them believe they are finally safe.
Yet in too many cases, the person who threatened them still has access to a firearm and the danger remains. We know that people who are legally required to surrender their firearms do not always do so. In one investigation, only one out of 25 armed abusers provided proof that they had turned in their guns as required by law. That is not just a compliance issue. It is a public safety failure that puts lives at risk.
Just two years ago, a couple who had gone to court to extend a restraining order were targeted and killed by the very person they were seeking protection from. They had done everything the law asked of them, yet the system failed them. That tragedy is a painful reminder that a protective order must be more than a promise on paper. It must be backed by a system that works every time, nothing less. That is why a b seventeen fifty three that is what a b 50 seventeen fifty three is designed to do.
Our protective order system must work hard stop, end of story. This bill closes critical gaps in how protective orders are enforced and how firearms are kept out of the hands of people who pose a threat to others. First, it strengthens firearm prohibitions for individuals who have demonstrated dangerous behavior, including those convicted of hate crimes or criminal threats against schools, houses of worships, or medical facilities. When someone targets a community or makes credible threats of violence, we should not allow them easy access to weapons. Second, it improves coordination between courts and law enforcement so that when a protective order is issued, there is a clear and reliable process to determine whether the restrained person has firearms and whether those firearms have been properly surrendered.
Third, it makes the system more accessible and safer for survivors by allowing remote court appearances, strengthening enforcement of protective orders issued by tribal courts in other states, and ensuring that victims are promptly notified when protections are put in place on their behalf. Taken together, these changes make our protective order system more consistent, more accountable, and more focused on safety. At its core, this bill is about closing the gap between what the law promises and what survivors actually experience. A restraining order should never create a false sense of security. It should provide real protection backed by real enforcement.
Because someone takes a courageous step of asking for help, the system has a responsibility to respond with action and provide that help. Every survivor deserves to live free from fear, everyone. Every family deserves to know that the law will protect them, and every community deserves to be safe from preventable gun violence. And AB seventeen fifty three moves moves us closer to that goal. Today, I have with me a dream team of gun violence prevention advocates, Ethan Murray with Giffords and Ari Frylek with the California Department of Justice.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. Gentlemen, nice to see you both again. And I said I'd see you this morning. Good morning. Did I not?
Alright. Good to see you again. Who's going first? Alright. Very good, sir.
Two minutes when you're ready.
Speaker 8
Chair Schultz, members of the committee, my name is Ethan Murray. I am a state policy attorney at Giffords, the gun violence prevention organization founded by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. In 2023, nearly 290,000 protective orders were reported to the California Department of Justice. Whether it's domestic violence or workplace harass or workplace violence or civil harassment, these protection orders are one of the most important legal tools available to Californians seeking protection. For the past several years, the California state legislature has worked to improve the implementation of these protection orders.
Speaker 37
One by one, this body has has passed laws this body has passed have brought new innovations and consistency to how the firearm relinquishment process is handled regardless of which protection order type a person seeks. Since 2021, the legislature has created a consistent court process for the relinquishment of firearms that involves a referral to local prosecutors if a person fails to relinquish them, and it created a standard policy for the service of protection orders. AB seventeen fifty three takes the next step by ensuring that prosecutors have a policy for dealing with noncompliance. Many authors have expanded remote hearing access in protection order cases. AB seventeen fifty three takes the final step to allow for remote hearings in workplace violence and school violence restraining order cases.
Speaker 8
This legislature has recently created new offenses relating to firearms, including threats to schools. AB seventeen fifty three makes the firearm prohibition with those laws consistent with similarly situated laws. A
Speaker 8
13 or a b thirty eighty three by assembly member Lackey requires judges to check California's automated firearm system in domestic violence cases. A b seventeen fifty three gives judges the authority to check that system in all protection order cases. This is a capstone project. Respectfully urge your I vote.
Speaker 10
Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Ari Freilich. I serve as director of the California Department of Justice's Office of Gun Violence Prevention. Our office was, proud to work with Assembly member Stephanie Giffords and other survivor advocates, to develop this package of reforms, about a dozen provisions to address various implementation gaps in our protective order processes to better prevent gun violence, armed intimidation, and hate crimes. Attorney general Vonta is proud to cosponsor this measure.
Speaker 53
A high profile gun violence case before the United States Supreme Court in 2024, United States v Rahimi, highlighted the dangers that survivors of violence and abuse face when our protective order systems, when our courts, our local law enforcement, our prosecuting agencies do not effectively and proactively coordinate to ensure fire management compliance and accountability. In that case, public reporting indicates that a domestic abuse survivor provided testimony to a Texas court that her ex boyfriend had brutally battered her, fired his firearm at her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone. The court found that he was likely to commit domestic violence again after committing this act of gun violence, issued a protective order against him that ordered him to relinquish that firearm that he had used to threaten her life. He did not comply. He remained in unlawful possession of firearms for about eleven more months during which time he committed six more shootings in his community.
The that case focused a lot of attention on the second amendment issues. It stuns me how little attention went to the underlying facts of the case and what it means for survivors at the heart of it. California's policy making and investments in farm lynched programs seek to prevent those outcomes and promise much more to survivors navigating the most dangerous days of their lives. Accordingly, in recent years, as, has already been mentioned, California has enacted nation leading legislation requiring courts, law enforcement, and prosecuting agencies to take a proactive role in ensuring that people who become legally prohibited from keeping firearms under a protective order follow the law and comply. We're making progress, but gaps remain.
These efforts seek to replace passive, siloed, and reactive honor systems with coordinated partnerships invested in proactive safety for our survivors. We urge an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. You practiced too. You're right on the mark. It's pretty good. You aren't you're, like, a second off.
Don't worry. Was pretty good. Team. Others in support of the bill, please come forward at this time.
Speaker 47
Good morning, chair and members. Rebecca Marcus representing the Brady Campaign, Brady California, the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law, as well as my colleagues at Everytown. Thank you in support.
Speaker 23
Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, also in support.
Speaker 49
Clifton Wilson on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco in support. Thank you. Kevin Guzman of the California Medical Association in support.
Speaker 7
Ken Benedicto, vice president of the San Francisco Police Commission individually in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Next, we'll see if there's anyone here hoping to testify in opposition to the bill. Do we have any opposition to witnesses? Anyone from the California Rifle and Pistol Association?
Okay. Anyone else hoping to register a position on the bill? Okay. Over to the dais. Questions, comments, Coffee orders, mister Gonzalez?
No? Okay. We got a motion by doctor Sharp Collins. We had a second by mister Gonzalez. Thank you.
Alright. Would you like to close?
Speaker 1
Alright. I recommend an aye. We'll make this one quick. Please call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item six a b seventeen fifty three by Assembly Member Stephanie, the motion is due pass as amended to the judiciary committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Schultz, aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye.
Haney? Barbadian? Lackey? Wen? Ramos?
Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, aye. That's on
Speaker 1
call. Okay. That measure's on call, but I think that bill will get out. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 1
Alright. Quick programming note. Mister Ward is up next who's been patiently waiting. You can come on down, Chris. Next up in sign and order is assembly member Kalra on 2122.
So if staff can send mister Kalra to Room 126, we'd love to take him next. After him, I have assembly members Johnson and El Harari on the list. So feel free to start making your way back to Room 126. Mister Ward, when you are ready, the floor is yours.
Speaker 33
Well, thank you, and good morning, mister chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present a b seventeen thirty nine. I wanna thank the committee for their work on the measure, and I'm very happy to take the committee's amendments as well. A b seventeen thirty nine strengthens California law by close closing a dangerous gap in protections against sexual exploitation by individuals in positions of therapeutic authority, including when those services are provided by members of the clergy. At its core, this bill is about protecting people in vulnerable trust based relationships where power imbalance is profound and well established.
Today, California law already recognizes that certain professional relationships, such as those involving physicians, psychotherapists, and substance use counselors, create an inherent imbalance of power that makes sexual contact exploited exploitative, not consensual. However, gaps remain when similar therapeutic services are provided in a religious context. Many individuals seeking counseling, emotional guidance, or mental health support from members of the clergy can be vulnerable. In those settings, congregates may rely on spiritual leaders in the same deeply personal independent way that they would a licensed therapist. AB seventeen thirty nine ensures that when clergy are providing therapeutic services, they are held to the same clear standard as other therapeutic professionals.
Speaker 71
Specifically, this bill makes it a crime for any member of the clergy providing therapeutic services to engage in sexual intercourse or sexual contact with a current or former patient or congregant within two years after termination of those services when their relationship was ended primarily to facilitate that conduct. The two year standard in AB seventeen thirty nine is not new. It is well grounded and well established precedent in both state law and professional ethics governing therapist patient relationships. States like Minnesota and Colorado already prohibit sexual relationships between a provider and a former client for at least two years after the treatment ends, and this bill mirrors that widely accepted framework. Similarly, leading professional standards, including those from the American Psychological Association, established a minimum two year prohibition recognizing the power dynamics and influence of a therapeutic relationship persist well beyond its formal end.
Speaker 33
AB seventeen thirty nine aligns with this widely accepted baseline, ensuring consistency with existing norms rather than creating a new or an outlier policy. It also makes clear that consent is not a defense in these circumstances recognizing the inherent power imbalance in therapeutic relationships. AB seventeen thirty nine applies only in the narrow context where clergy are acting as therapeutic service providers, not in ordinary religious or pastoral activities, and that's that is thanks to the committee staffs and your, very thoughtful amendments that we are accepting. The bill also ensures that appropriate protections for confidentiality and limits the scope of disclosure and investigations safeguarding sensitive patient and congregate information. Importantly, this bill reinforces that accountability must be consistent across all forms of therapeutic care.
And whether care is provided in a clinical setting or a spiritual counseling context, the standards should be the same. No exploitation of trust gained for sexual gain. The bill includes graduated penalties based on severity and pattern of conduct, including multiple for, victims or repeat offenses, ensuring proportionality, accountability under the law consistent with current law. AB seventeen thirty nine is about protecting vulnerable individuals, maintaining the integrity of therapeutic relationships, and ensuring that positions of trust are never abused. With me to testify in support of AB seventeen thirty nine are doctor Emina, Nidolasco, a neuroscientist, advocate, survivor, and Ivana, Trinidich, a survivor of abuse at the hands of a clergy member providing therapeutic services.
Speaker 6
Chair Schultz, members of the committee, it is an honor and duty to be here today. My name is doctor Hermina Nedalescu. I'm a neuroscientist at Scripps Research and president of Prosopon Healing, a new five zero one c three organization supporting victims of clergy perpetrated sexual abuse. In my research, I found that twenty five percent of people of faith seek counsel from clergy before turning to a therapist because of the trust placed in their authority. Clergy abuse begins with trust, not force.
Speaker 54
In 2023, a Greek Orthodox priest came to my laboratory as Scripps Research and sexually assaulted me, resulting in permanent injuries. I reported sexual assault to law enforcement. Despite this, the clergyman remains in ministry today at the same parish with no real accountability. Currently, California does not have a structure to hold criminally liable sexually abusive clergy as many other states do. As a consequence, my experience of being sexually assaulted by a priest is unfortunately common.
One one survivor in California told me she was victim number 64. Her abuser is still in ministry. Another Californian, a mentally ill man, was sexually exploited for years by a priest with AIDS. In fact, research shows that perpetrators abuse on average between seventy and a 150 victims before they get caught and are held accountable. Clergy abuse is a major public safety concern and a human rights violation with its own particularities because of the immense power differential whereby victims take a long time to realize that the perceived, quote, God's representative on earth, unquote, is sexually assaulting and raping them rather than healing them.
New research from neuroscience shows that sexual abuse causes an irreversible negative impact on the brain and the nervous system. It reorganizes the brain at the neurobiological level and survivors become a patient population often requiring long term medical care. I hope you support this bill. Thank you. Good
Speaker 74
morning, chair and members of committee. My name is Jovana Trinic. Today, I stand before you not just as a survivor of clergy sexual abuse, but as a witness to the profound pain and injury caused by this abuse of authority. In 2021, I moved to California by myself without family as a single Serbian woman looking for a safe community, and I assumed Serbian Orthodox Church in California was a safe place. What began with trust and faith turned into confusion, fear, and trauma that still negatively affects my life today.
Speaker 55
The priest who was guiding me slowly crossed boundaries over time. He knew I was in California alone. The sexual abuse affected my mind, my health, and my ability to trust others. I developed PTSD and felt shadow from the world around me. Parishioners cannot give true consent because of the power clergy have over them.
This power imbalance between a clergy and parishioner creates a trap where forgiveness is weaponized to silence victims. After connecting with doctor Hermina Nedelescu through her advocacy and support at Prosper on Healing, I found hope and strength that lifted the heavy burden of the of this pain. As a single woman, this trauma made it painful to scare and trust men, which is crucial for building a meaningful relationship. I urge you to protect others from this pain and trauma. The priest who sexually sexually assaulted me is still in ministry today without accountability.
Nothing is worse than being victimized and denied justice. If this bill had existed when I was abused, this priest would have been held accountable. I respectfully urge your support for a b one seven three nine. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the presentation, and thank you both for testifying today and being so patient to to get up here and have your moment. So thank you. Next, we'll hear from others hoping to be heard in support of the bill. If there's anyone else, come on down.
Speaker 25
Morning, chairman and members. My name is David Bunn. I'm a volunteer with SNAP, the survivors network of those abused by priests. We strongly support the bill. I'm also here to represent my stepson, Trevor, who was raped by a priest for two years and by a priest who was found guilt found to attack kids at a previous parish before moved to the parish where he raped Trevor.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony, sir. Alright. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? One or two? Okay.
Just the one. Alright. Feel free to grab a oh, maybe there's two. Is there another opposition witness? I guess so.
Alright. Just you today. Just me. Alright. Whenever you're ready, sir.
Alright.
Speaker 25
Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a ledge advocate with ACLU CalAction. While we appreciate the committee amendments and the author accepting those to limit the scope of the bill, we continue to have issues. This nation has a long history of legislating people's sexual lives, which we have long advocated against as it is a blatant violation of a person's autonomy. While consensual sexual activity between a clergy person and adult parishioner may be unadvisable, it does not rise to the level of being a crime.
Attempting to legislate this intimate part of our lives is a clear example of massive government overreach in which the government has no business legislating when these acts are consensual. It is important to underscore the amount of people that belong to any recognized religious denomination or religious organization in this nation. There are hundreds of distinct denominations across numerous faiths, many that may have different customs and practices to that of the dominant Abrahamic religions we tend to center these sorts of conversations around. Applying a uniform policy that attempts to legislate the inner workings of every religious denomination may be problematic as not every religion operates the same way as the dominant religions religions in this nation. As was raised in a committee analysis, certain religions permit sexual relationships between clergy and their congregants.
Consensual sexual relationships, including marriage, are not uncommon between worship leaders and congregants in some religions. This proposal, as amended, can force a couple to choose between partnership and faith, which threatens one's right to freely associate and potentially their right to marriage if they are married and have this spiritual, relationship. Ultimately, we believe religious congregations can adopt their own rules concerning a clergy member's sexual activity with a parishioner. That is a matter best handled by each religious sect, not the government. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on a b seventeen thirty nine.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else who'd like to register an opposition position? Great. Come on down to the microphone when you're ready.
Speaker 27
I did. Leslie Colesville, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. We'd like to thank the committee and the author for taking the amendments, and we will withdraw our opposition.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you very much. And just glad everyone was okay. I don't know why we have a door right there, but apparently, do. Okay.
Anyone else hoping to register position on the bill? Seeing none, we'll turn it to the dais. Mister Gonzalez, would you
Speaker 14
go further? Just curious. I was asking our team yesterday when we were going over this. What what's the definition of therapeutic services? Like, is confession considered that or couples counseling within, in my case, a priest or if anybody else can answer that, how do
Speaker 33
I appreciate that. No. It is a work in progress to make sure that we are getting a more concise definition of what these therapeutic services are. We want to align them to every extent that we can with sort of more like non religious therapeutic and counseling services and how it's defined there.
Speaker 33
would not mean, I think, you know, our common understanding of what a therapeutic service would be.
Speaker 14
And any other the sacramental pieces that people do like oh gosh, first early communion or when you go to, like, on a retreat and you have to do like, I'm Catholic in that sense,
Speaker 33
What I think that we're gonna continue to improve on is trying to make sure that the definition here is consistent with a bona fide therapist therapy therapist client relationship.
Speaker 18
Okay. You you took my my other question because you and I spoke about this already.
Speaker 18
First off, before I start, let me thank you both for coming to share your story. What happened to you both should have never happened. Okay? So I wanna make sure that I'm clear and that I'm not supportive of of people being taken advantage of, people being preyed upon. Not at all.
What I will speak to is that the the idea of this bill is something that I do understand. And I spoke to pastors within my district as we've talked about, and they understand the aim of this bill, and they believe that some merits of the bill is valid. However, when you think about the black church, the structure is completely different. And I'm saying that because the black church occupies a unique space within the black culture. And to have a one size fit all approach and model was something that is concerning to me and also concerning to the members, or other clergy that I have actually spoken with.
There's a difference between a priest and a pastor.
Speaker 18
You know, the pastor is preaching, is teaching. There's different types of structures that's there. But another, concern besides the difference goes into when you're lumping everyone into a category of a therapeutic process as a therapist, we already know that the pastors are not licensed. The therapists are licensed. There's a contractual agreement.
You're not to disclose any of these other types of things, and there's all the legality things that is there. But they're not licensed mental health professionals. One way to hold them to the standard from what you're putting out there is to now then regulate them and make them become licensed. That's that's the only other way to hold them to a standard of what you're saying of a two year and have them be in that in that area. When when you are a pastorial counselor, you are ordained with a theological training, which is not the same as being a licensed counselor.
Speaker 13
So that was one concern that was brought up by a pastor of if you're doing this, then there would have to be a different structural change. It also begs the question of, going into what assembly member Gonzales was was talking about, the question of defining what services is actually is going to be. And that was also something that was discussed because the way the black church structure is is not just confession, but different things that that we do whether it's premarital counseling, whether it's divorce counseling, where it is, you know, grief counseling. There's all types of other things that that they do. But in the end, if there is something that's consensual, something that have happened a year and a half later, they will be punished for that based on the different types of counseling structures that they have that that they partake in.
Speaker 18
So I would like to have and and talking to my pastors, that definition of treatment is still so broad because it's if it's one on one, I get it from a therapeutic, you know, a process. I have a, a master's in counseling. So I get the one on one. I I I understand. But in some cases, it's not always just the one on one because the bill doesn't say one on one.
The bill does not specify. So that area is a little bit broad. I'm hoping that you would consider, still working on
Speaker 18
more, having a deeper dialogue and to understand the different cultural structures that exist for different types of churches, and understanding the complexity of of clergy relationship within the black community. This bill is not connecting to that. And, so even considering the two year from a one year, this came from pastors who said, maybe just do the one year. They understand exactly what your aim is. But I just have some concerns.
So to get me to get to a certain space, I would honestly need that commitment from you to work with other clergy to get a better understanding of culture and and religious differences to be able to address that because they operate as a separate board, five zero one c three and all these other things is totally different than dealing with the the other Catholic structure that currently exists. So I didn't really have as much as a question because we spoke about this, but I wanted to put it on record that this is a totally different process for, for the black church. And it could have some impact, but the pastors that I spoke with understand they are they are supportive of the idea, but there are some structures that we still need to work on because there's no one size fit all model approach. They were concerned about sermons being
Speaker 18
Included in that as, you know, as, a form of of therapy. They were concerned about even our online platforms of the faith room or online platforms or others. Those are considered forms of services. So I'm just highlighting that. So is there, would you care to respond, or can I get a commitment from you to continue to work on this bill but also, be able to speak with other ethnic groups that provide services in the district or or or in the state?
Speaker 33
Through the chair. Thank you, doctor Sharp Collins, as well for, having this conversation with me prior to the committee hearing. And so I'll just jump to the end and say, yes. Absolutely. Full commitment to be able to continue our growth.
I'm glad you're my neighbor. I'm glad you're my colleague. And I'm glad and I would like to hopefully even meet with some of those individuals or others that they recommend back at home in our in our districts and everything to have that direct conversation. I think that perspective is critically important because I have a lot to learn. And I wanna make sure that we are not invoking or creating a law that somehow is gonna disproportionately impact any of our communities greater than what we intended.
I think that there is a common thread here. It sounds like there's some understanding that, yes, there are very, direct and intimate relationship, moments that, have an imbalance of power present, where somebody is vulnerable, is getting through that trust, and and that that that that guidance and that advice, important, self improvement and important, therapy, I guess. And and how we define that is something I've already and we'll continue to commit to work on that, and I wanna make sure that passes, muster as well, for how it is might be applied in other community settings as well too. I believe my witness wanted to add a little bit more context as well from
Speaker 54
Oh, yeah. I'm, I teach regarding drug abuse and mental illness with the black community in San Diego, I'd be happy to connect them with, assembly member Chris Ward to to further narrow that relationship and maybe, yeah, work with him. He's the expert.
Speaker 18
Thank you. Thank you very, very, very much. My last point was, when it when it comes down I mean, sometimes people do meet their partners in church.
Speaker 18
But that doesn't mean that they were preyed upon or anything of that nature. And so we just, once again, thank you for that commitment. Let's let's connect back home and see what we can do to, make sure that we are not, impeding any of any of the penalties on communities that are already marginalized and underrepresented as we move forward in this process. So thank you. So with that, I will be able to support today with that commitment.
Speaker 14
I apologize. I think in the updated documents we got here, therapeutic services means counseling, mental health guidance, spiritual counseling involving the treatment of emotionally, psychological, behavioral conditions, or other services that are substantially similar in nature to psychotherapy, whether or not the provider is licensed by the state. So I just wanna make sure for the record I I have the update, so I apologize for that. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Alright. Mister Ward, would you like to close?
Speaker 33
Thank you, mister chair. Of course, I recognize the deep importance of working with all of our community stakeholders as we think about how this could actually be implemented intent and the very important intent of what the bill is seeking to do. California has long led the nation in recognizing and preventing sexual exploitation in therapeutic settings, and this bill, a b seventeen thirty nine, continues that leadership by ensuring that those protections extend to all who provide therapeutic services regardless of setting and respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Assembly Member Ward. I'd like to just briefly so so I will be recommending an I today. Appreciate you taking the amendments. First, to our two witnesses in support, thank you very much for your bravery and courage and your expertise in being here today. It feels like all too often, as of late, we have been talking about people with positions of incredible power, misusing that power and exploiting people.
And I think everyone in the if we all in this room agree on one point, it is that that is absolutely unacceptable, and there ought to be and should be and is, in fact, a zero tolerance policy in our state for that sort of behavior. So sorry for what you two have been through, but thank you for being here today so we can hear from you. To the opposition witness, I would say I I thank you for your testimony and your letter. This is a tough bill, mister Ward, as you know, because you are walking a fine line as it relates to the First Amendment, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom to worship the religion of our choosing. I appreciate you taking the committee amendments.
I I guess that I am recommending an eye. I would just flag for you as you navigate the committee process, and I'm really glad to hear that you'll be working with Doctor. Sharp Collins to further understand and explore those issue areas. I think the the definition of rendering therapeutic services as I understand it would arguably not include catechism or marriage counseling in my faith, but I think that really honing in on what it that definition and what does fall within it and what does not is really going to be crucial as you navigate the the coming committees that you'll be presenting for. But with that said, first house, first committee, I think the bill is strengthened with the committee amendments.
Appreciate your work on it. We have a motion. Oh, we do not have a motion. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second?
Second. Okay. Motion by Gonzalez, second by Ramos with an I recommendation. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item five, a b seventeen thirty nine by Assembly Member Ward, the motion is due pass as amended to the Business and Professions Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Schultz, aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzales, aye.
Haney? Barbadian? Blackie? Nguyen? Ramos?
Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharpe Collins? Sharpe Collins, aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure remains on call as we wait for absent members, but we'll let you know the outcome. You should be in good shape. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.
Appreciate it. Okay. I see we have two authors that have arrived. However, the first in sign in order is assembly member Krell followed by assembly member Bauer Kahan. Assembly member Krell is presenting a b eighteen fifty four.
Great. Alright. Assembly member, the floor is yours whenever you're ready. Just confirming, do you have any witnesses in support today? Okay.
And I take it you're an opposition witness,
Speaker 58
Okay. I did have witnesses in support earlier, but they may have had to leave. Anyways, good morning, everyone. My name is Maggie Krell. This is Assembly Bill eighteen fifty four.
The purpose of this bill is to do one simple thing, and that is to clarify and fortify California's existing shield laws that protect patients and medical providers who are receiving and providing, reproductive health care and gender affirming care. In light of what's happened in other states, doctors and patients involved in legally protected reproductive health care services in California are being increasingly targeted by aggressive out of state laws. This ensures that law enforcement will not arrest anyone who has not had a governor's warrant of extradition signed, and it will also ensure that companies that receive subpoenas notify the attorney general's office that they have an opportunity to intervene if information is sought that relates to reproductive health care or gender affirming care services. With me today is the freedom for all, as well as the attorney general's office, the sponsor of this bill. Respectfully ask for your I vote and happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 41
Good morning, chair and members. I'm Martin Rodosovich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All as a proud supporters of a b 54 a b eighteen fifty four crawl. For more than fifty years, reproductive freedom for all has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels, including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy, postpartum care, and paid family leave. We're powered by more than 4,000,000 members from every state in the country, representing eight in 10 Americans who support legal abortion. California's existing shield laws were a critical step forward after the Dobbs decision, but the threats have escalated.
Speaker 59
Out of state actors are now using subpoenas, criminal investigations, civil actions, and extradition requests to target California providers for lawful care. We saw this firsthand in other states like Louisiana who sought to extra extradite a California physician for prescribing abortion medication at a a Louisiana resident. 18 AB eighteen fifty four responds directly to these tactics by expanding shield law protections to more California business and individuals who receive legal demands. It creates a notification process so the attorney general can inter intervene before improper disclosures occur. Our members and patients and providers and advocates across the state depend depend on California to be a true safe haven, and this bill strengthens those requirements.
For these reasons, we're proud to support a b eighteen fifty four. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you for the presentation and you, sir, for your testimony. Before we go to the opposition witness, we'll take the Me Toos in support of the bill. If you'd like to be heard in support of the bill, please come down at this time and state your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 19
Good morning, chair and members. Natalia De Silvatelis with Greenberg Tarek on behalf of Equality California in support. Thank you. Alright.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. I see we have one opposition, witness.
You'll have two minutes whenever you're ready.
Speaker 57
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jamie Reed. I hold a master's of science in clinical research management. I am a lesbian, and I run a national gay and lesbian organization dedicated to evidence based medicine.
I spent nearly five years working inside a pediatric gender center, the Washington University Transgender Center at Saint Louis Children's Hospital. That center is now closed, not because of political opponents. It is closed because I, a liberal lesbian, came forward as a whistleblower and documented that the interventions you were trying to protect were harming the very children I was responsible for protecting. LGB Courage Coalition stands in opposition to a b eighteen fifty four. We oppose this bill because we know directly what pediatric gender medicine does to gender nonconforming young people.
Speaker 29
The children who in an earlier area era would simply have grown up to be gay or lesbian. Medical transition pathways are being placed in front of children who are proto gay, proto lesbian, and gender nonconforming. This bill would further insulate the providers of those interventions from accountability. This is not a fringe concern. Hernan Gratick, the former president of GLAAD, the organization that helped build the architecture to support these interventions, stated publicly just last month, I just think that we should completely stop doing anything that might harm children, even if it means that we admit that we got something very wrong.
Speaker 57
And my understanding is that we have. Finland was among the first countries to adopt the pediatric gender medicine protocol, now practiced in California. This very week, a bombshell study came out of Finland, found no psychiatric improvement in youth following gender transition treatment. Sweden and The United Kingdom have done similar. The international scientific reckoning is already underway.
What Gratik does voicing is what I know from direct clinical experience. I was there. I was inside a pediatric gender center. I saw it. I had the courage to say so at significant personal cost.
California should not be in the business of shielding from scrutiny the medical practices that are currently producing the international reckoning. I welcome any questions, and we firmly are in opposition to bill a b eighteen fifty four.
Speaker 1
Thank you for your testimony. I see we have a second witness in opposition. Sir, you will also have two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 3
Chair members, my name is Greg Bert. I'm the vice president of the California Family Council. A b nineteen fifty four turns California into a legal fortress for abortion and gender transition industry, punishing any Californian who cooperates with another state's lawful investigation even when the activity happened outside our borders. This is a sweeping attempt to export the culture of death while shielding those who harm children and take innocent life. This bill does not protect, it punishes.
Any person or entity in California that complies with a lawful subpoena from another state could face fines of 10 to $15,000 for our from our own attorney general. That is not protecting health care. That is compelled obstruction of justice. And who pays the price? Families and children.
Speaker 1
Our witness here already mentioned the Finnish study that simply came out a couple weeks ago. 2,000 adolescents found that severe psychiatric problems were already high before these interventions, and critically, they did not improve after medical treatment with gender treatments. In fact, mental health disorders remained elevated or even worsened over time. These findings should give every member of this committee pause. The evidence is increasingly clear these sex rejecting procedures do not involve resolve underlying distress.
Speaker 3
They often deepen it. AB nineteen fifty four doubles down anyway, shielding these interventions from scrutiny and accountability even across state lines. It tells providers, no matter what harm is done, California will protect you, And it tells parents in other states, California will obstruct your efforts to protect your own children. This bill also places California organizations, including ministries and nonprofits and businesses, in an impossible situation, obey another state's lawful order or be punished here and refuse and face consequences there. It is not centrality
Speaker 1
or disinformation. To cut you off there, but thank you. Thank you. Stick around, there might be a question and more opportunity to add. Great.
Thank you both. Next, we're gonna take the Me Toos in opposition to the bill.
Speaker 60
Aaron Friday, president of our duty, the group behind the Maribelli decision, the title nine and FTC investigations in California, and soon the investigations related to this bill because it violates the Minors Protection Internet Act. We oppose.
Speaker 61
Hi. David Bullock representing Ellett County Mountains for Liberty, SFB Alliance, TOPS Taxpayer Oversights for Parents and Students, and LOCA Leave Our Kids Alone. We are all opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Final call for those hoping to register an opposition view with the committee. Okay. We had two opposition witnesses. I see that the second support witness arrived, so I will allow you to two minutes to address the committee, and then we will turn it over to the committee for questions and comments.
Okay.
Speaker 40
Thank you very much. Tiffany Brokaw, deputy attorney general in the office of legislative affairs here on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta, and he is the proud sponsor of a b eighteen fifty four, and we'd like to thank assembly member Krell for carrying this piece of legislation. AB 15 54 clarifies and expands California's reproductive shield laws to protect patients, health care providers, and others involved in reproductive health care and gender affirming care that is legal in California. Since California's shield laws took effect, anti abortion states have increased efforts to investigate and prosecute California providers, and some states have tried to extradite or take adverse legal actions against California doctors. AB eighteen fifty four addresses these issues by expanding shield law coverage to more California businesses and individuals who receive legal demands.
It creates a notification process so that the attorney general can intervene and stop improper disclosures, and it clarifies that law enforcement cannot arrest someone if the California governor refuses an extradition request. As the legal landscape continues to change nationwide, a b eighteen sixty four ensures California will remain a safe haven for reproductive access. And I have here with me deputy attorney general Haley Pennant to answer any technical questions. Thank you. We are stuck to ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much for your testimony. Now I'll turn it to the dais. Are there any questions or comments or motions from committee members?
Speaker 1
Then, assembly member Krell, I just have one question, but perhaps you could address it in your close. Having heard some of the opposition testimony here today, I'm just wondering if you have any response that you'd like to leave with the committee. I don't see any other questions or comments from staff sorry, from committee members, so we'll allow this your opportunity to close. But anything you'd like to add would be great.
Speaker 58
Thank you so much. Appreciate the opposition's concerns. I do think they're outside the scope of the bill. This bill merely deals with how sensitive information is shared. We have a subpoena process.
Speaker 11
We have an arrest process. There's criminal investigations. There's civil investigations. This ensures that sensitive California information is protected, that our providers are protected, that our patients are protected from out of state investigations and criminal prosecutions that are increasingly targeting people who are receiving and providing health care that is legal here in California. This simply deals with how information is shared.
Speaker 58
We appreciate the opposition concerns. I will say we've also heard some concerns from the California Hospitals Association, and we're working with them on amendments to ensure that, our timelines are consistent, with federal law, and that this bill is easy to implement. So, appreciate all the comments and respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, assembly member. And, again, thanks to everyone who testified today. Now would be the appropriate time. Is there a motion?
Is there second? K. We have a motion by Ramos, a second by Gonzales. Colleagues, the chair does recommend an aye. Think I it's a good bill.
An assembly member, should it pass out a committee today, would be honored to jump on the bill in a coauthor capacity. With that, let's take the roll.
Speaker 11
For item nine, a b eighteen fifty four by assembly member Carell, the motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Schultz?
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure will remain on call as we await absent members. Thank you, everybody. Okay. Assemblymember Bauer Kahan, I'm so sorry.
But assembly member El Hawari had signed in earlier, so she is up next. As long as mister Kalara or miss Johnson don't show up, you will be right after her, though. So thank you for your patience. Assembly member El Hawari, I have you listed here to present AV 2318. Is that correct?
Speaker 62
Yes, sir. And I also apologize to my colleague, and I will be quick. And we will all be quick. Correct. Okay.
Good morning, mister chair and members. I am proud to present a v twenty three eighteen, which makes it clear that when someone is under law enforcement control, officers cannot deny, delay, or obstruct access to medical care when it is safe and reasonable to provide it. It also requires documentation when care is delayed or denied. This bill comes from a real tragedy. Renee Nicole Good was shot, and win eyewitness video shows that agents delayed medical aid.
That delay matters. In those moments, access to care can mean the difference between life and death. This bill is about setting a clear standard. If someone is in custody, their access to medical care cannot be treated as optional. And if care is denied or delayed, there should be transparency around why.
Speaker 16
AB twenty three eighteen ensures that law enforcement facilitates medical evaluation or treatment when it's safe to do so and requires documentation within seventy two hours when that does not happen. This is about accountability, about making sure medical professionals can do their jobs, about protecting people, especially in communities that already experience harm in their interactions with law enforcement. We've been working with opposition throughout this process, and we'll continue to collaborate with them moving forward. With me today is doctor Jennifer Villas from the union of American Physicians and Dentists and Kevin Benelito, vice president of the San Francisco Police Commission, who is testifying in his personal capacity as a member of the commission.
Speaker 12
Hi. My name is doctor Jennifer Villa, and I work in correctional health. A law enforcement officer's role in society includes, one, law enforcement enforcing criminal laws, two, public safety and protection, safeguarding lives, protecting property, and ensuring constitutional rights. Three, crime prevention and response, which includes emergency response and being a first responder. And four, community policing and service, which is addressing social conditions that contribute to crime.
Speaker 63
The fourteenth amendment of The United States constitution granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in The United States and prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process. The eighth amendment to The United States constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment that is excessive or disproportionate to the offense. As a physician in correctional health, I work very closely with law enforcement every day and have consent consistently experienced a deep commitment amongst officers for protecting lives. However, in the in the case of Renee Nicole Good, a physician identified themselves and requested permission to check her pulse, but they were prevented from doing so. When EMS was ultimately allowed to intervene about fifteen minutes later, she still had a pulse.
This raises a critical question. Could earlier intervention have changed the outcome? As a physician, I can tell you seconds matter. In cases such as cardiac arrest or trauma, delays in care mean the difference between life and death. And there have been other incidents which delayed in which delayed access to medical care has resulted in preventable harm.
California Assembly Bill twenty three eighteen would help ensure that these situations, in these situations, providing medical care remains the top priority whenever possible unless there is a clear and immediate safety concern. This is consistent with both the role of law enforcement and the principles of our constitution.
Speaker 7
Mister chair, members, good morning. My name is Kevin Benedicto, and I'm the vice president of the San Francisco Police Commission, a former civil rights attorney, and a founding partner of the law firm of Benedicto and Simonovich. In my role as a commissioner and a criminal justice reform advocate, I've written policies for SFPD and advised law enforcement agencies across the country on best practices. I'm here today in my individual capacity in support of assembly bill two three one eight. Access to medical professionals, including following critical incidents, is key.
Speaker 8
I've seen dangerous situations prevented from turning deadly, thanks to timely medical aid and coordination between law enforcement and EMS. Since the 2016 revision to SFPD's use of force policy, included medical access provisions, San Francisco has seen deaths from officer involved shootings drop significantly. But while some departments have clear policies on this topic, standards can vary at the over 500 law enforcement agencies across California, and some are long overdue for update. This bill would standardize a best practice statewide, increase transparency and accountability, and could save lives. Additionally, this bill could encourage more proactive cooperation between law enforcement and medical professionals.
Speaker 7
In San Francisco, SFPD has partnered with the Department of Public Health to operate an innovative co responder crisis response model. These specialized teams for mental health crises are composed of licensed clinicians and police officers trained in de escalation. These crisis intervention teams have seen great success cooperating, de escalating, and responding to critical incidents. I hope more departments use this bill as an opportunity to explore crisis intervention and co responder models. As assembly member Elawari said, we're here for Renee Nicole Good.
We're here to honor her memory and to prevent more tragic deaths like hers.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the presentation and both of you for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos also in support of the bill. Gary Cooper representing UAPD in very active support of the bill.
Speaker 64
Tim Madden, excuse me, Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians in sport.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell, Houston on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defenders Office in support.
Speaker 42
Good morning. Glenn Bachus for Drug Policy Alliance, Angela Baker Center for Human Rights in support.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you all very much. Do we have anyone here hoping to testify in opposition? Oh. Oh, that's okay.
Speaker 20
Come on. Just a slow support. Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Wonderful. Thank you. That's on me. Final call. Anyone else hoping to register your support?
Okay. We'll take the opposition. Could we open up that second chair for our other I I do have two opposition witnesses. Thank you all so much. I know it's tight quarters in here.
Gentlemen, whoever would like to begin, you'll each have up to two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 44
Thank you, mister chairman members. Corey Sozilow on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition to the bill. Your analysis does a fantastic job of pointing out that California peace officers are already required to be trained in assessing emergency situations and initiating appropriate emergency medical care. Statute also guides the policies that exist, for police agencies that guide how officers are expected to respond in situations where a person may require medical assistance on scene. In in this regard, the bill is, at best, unnecessary.
This bill makes it unlawful to deny or obstruct or fail or whatever verb you wanna choose, to fail to facilitate access to medical evaluation or treatment for an individual who's in custody. If a medical professional is present or has been requested, this means that a peace officer could violate this law by denying access to a person by a medical professional who just happens to be present at the scene without providing a reason in writing. The peace officers expected to know who this person claiming to be a medical professional is. They would be required to give access even if there were already other medical professionals on scene. This is an unwarranted intrusion into law enforcement authority based on a case that happened outside of California that would apply in situations far less dynamic than the scenario from which the bill originates.
So for those reasons, we'd oppose the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And mister Bullock, you have two minutes as well.
Speaker 61
Thank you, mister Schultz. Chairman Schultz. Dave Bullock, SFA Alliance. The gentleman from the Sheriff's Association already talked about what I was gonna say, but let's just remember what happened in that situation with Renee Good. It was very chaotic.
The law enforcement agents were being attacked and have a random person come up and say, hey. I can help. They don't know who that person is, and he already stated that. So I will save some time for the committee and opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll take the Me Toos in opposition to
Speaker 1
If you'd like to register a position of opposition, please come forward at this time.
Speaker 23
Chair members, Max Perrin, behalf of the California Police Chief Association, appreciate the amendments to the bill and look forward to working with the author. But at this time, still opposed to the bill respectfully. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you. Final call if you're hoping to register a position on the bill with the committee. Seeing no response, I'll turn it back to the committee, mister Gonzalez.
Speaker 14
I just wanna thank the author for bringing this forward. I know this is a Latino caucus priority bill, and I like to be added as a coauthor. You and I both shared Downtown Los Angeles have seen time and time again as a result of protests and others that we did not incite, others have, from the federal level. And so I just wanted to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I look forward to working with you on that as well.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, assembly member Gonzales. Are there other oh, mister Lackey, please.
Speaker 12
Yeah. First off, I would like to say that I know that the author means well in this, but it is kind of an insulting inference that the law enforcement doesn't already do this. I I will tell you in twenty eight years with the California Highway Patrol, we were the medical people that were first there and very proud of that. As a investigator for the officer involved shooting investigation team for ten years, I never see the inference here where, law enforcement would not only be part of providing that medical assistance, but would ever interfere. It's, I I just find it to be frustrating that there seems to be a a belief that we would not do everything to facilitate medical assistance.
And so I I will not be supporting this.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you, mister Lackey. Are there other questions or comments? Mister mister
Speaker 14
clarify for mister Lackey. I I I think this bill you're the author, but the the the bill I don't think is going after local or state. I think this is more about the federal folks who, taking advantage of the situation. And I've seen it firsthand at these protests who do not, provide that medical aid immediately. I think there was the video of the person who lost their eye recently as a result of that.
So I I thank you for your service, and I I don't necessarily think it's it's particularly, and you and I have talked about this. It's local law enforcement has been incredible to work with on some of these issues, especially on the state side. It's the federal level that I think has been extremely problematic for us.
Speaker 12
I I would just tell you that that may be the intent, but it'll be interpreted much differently and be applied much differently. And so therefore, I'm not gonna be able to support it.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you both gentlemen for your comments. The only thing I would just clarify in response to the the back and forth there is that while I I completely understand and agree that the impetus for the bill was the treatment of misgood by federal officers, The law as constructed and before us today would apply to local, state, and federal. You know, it it is it is across the board is my understanding. So with that said, seeing no other questions or comments, I assume there's a motion by mister Gonzalez.
Is there a second? I will second. With that, would you like to close, assembly member?
Speaker 62
Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your I vote. I look forward to having you on as a coauthor and definitely appreciate and respect the work of our law enforcement. And sometimes they need a little extra support to make sure that they're doing everything they can to support our folks.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much, assembly member. I am recommending an eye today. I appreciate you bringing the bill forward. I wanna be clear that, you know, I I don't think that all things being equal, we're seeing the same problems from local and state law enforcement as we are from federal officials. What happened to miss Good was entirely preventable and tragic.
It was fundamentally wrong. And you have some challenges ahead of you, but I think this is the right fight. And in addition to recommending an eye, I'd love to come on as a coauthor as well.
Speaker 11
For item 21, a b twenty three eighteen by assembly member El Huwari, the motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Gonzalez? Aye. Haney? Harbetian? Lacky?
No. Lacky? No. Wen? Ramos?
Aye. Ramos I. Sharpe Collins? Okay. Is on That
Speaker 1
call as we wait for absent members. After incredible patience and fortitude, assembly member Bauercan is here on three bills. I assume are we are we gonna start in file order? Assembly member?
Speaker 36
Gonna start with twenty six sixty four because my witness needs to leave, if you don't mind.
Speaker 1
Very good. And colleagues, it's 2664. Assembly member, the floor is yours.
Speaker 36
Thank you so much. And I wanna thank my witness for bearing with us on this crazy day for all of us, especially you guys. You are hearing a lot of bills. But thank you, mister chair, members, and committee staff. I wanna thank you for your work on this bill, and, I'm accepting committee amendments today.
I'm proud to present a B 2664, the Safe Worship Zone Act. This is a simple bill that ensures that all people can attend their place of worship without fear or harassment. And as many people honestly may not know, when I take my kids to synagogue, I drive up. I have to have a button I press to open a gate. The gate then opens.
On the other side of that gate is a security guard who is there whenever my children are at Sunday school or at synagogue. The doors are locked. They are main they are locked at all times. Someone has to stand there to open the door. And, honestly, all of this is because my community, the Jewish community, isn't safe right now in their synagogues.
And I know this is not unique to just the Jewish community. There have been moments, and there continue to be moments where this is true in other communities. We know Islamophobia is an issue that is a deep concern in my community as well as other faith based communities. But when I go to synagogue, it's where I should feel safe. It is where I should feel like I can go.
It should feel like my second home. It shouldn't feel like a place where we have to be spending more and more money every year to buy new locks on doors.
Speaker 36
a shooter walks in, they can't get to my children. But that is the current condition at synagogues here in California. And so this bill really starts to address some of what we've seen in some of our more urban synagogues. They can't have the gates that we have in my community, where people are approaching and attacking people on their way into their houses of worship. And so it does what has been done in other states.
This is not a novel idea. It creates a bubble zone around an individual entering their place of worship. Within a 100 feet, they will have eight feet of space, their personal bubble of safety where people cannot harass them. And I think this is a small step California can go in protecting those of us that choose to practice our religion and wanna do so with safety and security. And with that, I wanna turn it over to, my witnesses.
We have Jeff Rosen here from the Santa Clara County. He is the Santa Clara County district attorney, and rabbi Joel Nickerson, senior rabbi at Wilshire Boulevard, and we'll start with the DA.
Speaker 65
Thank you, committee chair and committee members. I'm Jeff Rosen. I'm the district attorney in Santa Clara County. This bill addresses a very real and growing public safety challenge. Across California, law enforcement is increasingly called to respond to protests outside of places of worship that can quickly escalate into intimidation, obstruction, and sometimes violence.
When that happens, people are left unsafe simply trying to enter or leave a house of worship. Last year, a man outside of a Morgan hill Morgan hill mosque started yelling at a group of people leaving prayer service after Ramadan. He called them effing Muslims and asked if they were members of Hamas. Then he dropped his shoulder and knocked into a 76 year old man. It's true that my office charged this man with a hate crime, but why didn't law enforcement escort him away from the mosque before the violence?
Why are we waiting for the next tree of life in Pittsburgh? The mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis or another attack on Mormons like the one at the Church of Latter day Saints in Michigan. No one should have to navigate a hostile and unsafe environment to attend religious services. But right now, officers on the ground lack clear practical tools to manage these situations before they escalate. Without a defined standard, they're left to make difficult case by case judgments about when conduct becomes harassment, intimidation, or obstruction.
Speaker 52
That ambiguity can delay and increase the risk that situations escalate, leaving people unsafe simply trying to access a house of prayer. AB two six six four changes that. This bill provides law enforcement a clear and narrowly tailored framework to prevent problems before they start. By establishing a defined space around entrances, it allows officers to ensure safe and orderly access without having to make subjective case by case judgments in the moment. That clarity is critical.
Speaker 65
It helps officers deescalate tensions, apply the law consistently, and protect everyone involved, including worshipers, protesters, and the broader community. AB two six six four establishes a reasonable balanced approach by creating a limited buffer or bubble zone around houses of worship in which protesters may not intentionally approach individuals.
Speaker 1
I apologize, but that's two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. And for our next witness.
Speaker 66
Hi, chair and members. Rabbi Joel Nickerson. I'm the senior rabbi at Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Los Angeles. On December 3, I was at our campus in Koreatown, for an interfaith gathering of Jewish and Korean American leaders. It was supposed to be a day Of Bridge Building.
Instead, protesters surrounded our building, lit smoke canisters at our doors, blasted hateful, even anti Semitic slogans through megaphones, and blocked cars and people from entering our facility, which houses a preschool, an elementary school, and a social services center. I was there. Parents could not reach their children. Inside a synagogue in Los Angeles, parents couldn't reach their children. And if it can happen at Wilshire Boulevard Temple, which has a large and sophisticated security operation, imagine what it means for smaller churches and mosques and synagogues and temples that have far less protection, and I'm here to represent them as well.
AB twenty six sixty four does not ban protest. It does not silence dissent. It simply says that when Californians enter or leave a house of worship, no one should be allowed to approach them at the door to intimidate, obstruct, threaten, or harass them. No Californian should have to face that. Houses of worship must remain places where people can come together across deep difference, but openness should not mean vulnerability to fear.
Speaker 21
In my tradition, we call it pikuch nefesh, the protection of life. A b twenty six sixty four protects two constitutional rights at once, the right to speak and the right to worship. And so I respectfully ask for your I vote on a b twenty six sixty four. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the presentation, assembly member and gentlemen. Thank you both for your testimony today. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos in support of the bill. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chairman. Cliff Burke here on behalf of Jewish California, formerly JPAC, the largest coalition of Jewish organizations in the country, is pleased to be the sponsor of this legislation. Also here today in behalf of the following organizations in support of this legislation, thirty years after, Adat Shalom Los Angeles, a Geduth Israel of California, AJC San Diego, AJC Northern California, AJC Los Angeles Anti Defamation League, Bay Area Center to Counter Antisemitism, Bay Area Coalition Education and Advocacy, Beverly Hills Synagogue, Board of Rabbis of Southern California, California Jewish Democrats, Hai Marin Contra Costa Jewish Democrats, Hadassah, Haleel of San Diego, JCC Federation of San Luis Obispo, JCRC of the Bay Area, JCRC of Long Beach, Jewish Community Relations Council of Sacramento, Jewish Center for Justice, Jewish Federation of the Desert, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys, Jewish Federation of Ventura County, Jewish Silicon Valley, National Council of Jewish Women, Northern California Jewish Labor Committee, Oakland Jewish Alliance, Palo Alto Jewish Alliance, Progressive Zionists of California, San Francisco Jews in School, Northern California Stand With Us, Ballet Beth Shalom, Jewish Coalition of Berkeley, Jewish Family Services of the Desert, Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco in the Greater Bay Area, Jewish Family and Community Services of East Bay, and many other organizations that I
Speaker 1
the committee's time. But you have our letter. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Hello, Yuval Berenstein, your honor.
On behalf of the Anti Defamation League and our five regions within California in strong support. Alright. Thank you all very much. Final call if you would like to register a position of support on the bill. Okay.
Do we have any we have, one, possibly two opposition witnesses. Come on down. We have two chairs and a microphone for you to share, and you'll each have two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 25
Thanks. Thanks, assembly member. Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez, and I'm a ledge advocate with ACLU CalAction. The ACLU advocates for the principle that free expression for ourselves requires free expression of others even if we vehemently disagree. The US Supreme Court emphasized that public ways and sidewalks occupy a special position in terms of the First Amendment protection because of their historic role as sites for discussion and debate.
Speaker 20
This proposal seeks to undermine this long standing democratic practice by restricting speech within 100 feet of places of religious worship, which would needlessly include our public sidewalks and in many place in places even a person's private residence or business. In McCollin v Coakley, the supreme court ruled that Massachusetts law in its 35 feet buffer zone, which is much smaller than the buffer zone proposed in this bill, constituted an extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers. The court made clear that buffer zones around specific locations within public fora satisfy the First Amendment only if the government has compiled a substantial record justifying the need for such a buffer zone. And even if the government can establish a sufficient record of problems at all places of religious worship across the state, it would still need to demonstrate that it attempted to employ other more narrowly tailored methods to address them without success. For instance, if there's a record of people being harassed or assaulted near their place of worship, the government would need to show that it has attempted to enforce generic criminal statutes without success.
Speaker 25
Even then, if the government were to identify problems that particular religious faces, it could pursue the more narrowly tailored remedy of an injunction at these locations rather than an overly broad statewide policy that would apply to over 41,000 religious buildings in California. Lastly, this bill is clearly modeled on the statute at issue in Hill v Colorado. California would be ill advised to rely on Hill given that the composition of the Supreme Court has changed significantly with none of the six justices justices in the majority opinion still on the court. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on a b twenty six sixty four. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Good morning. Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, a faith based public interest group founded by members of the Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as Quakers. Friends have a long history of religious persecution, believing that everyone should follow their conscience, that conscience cannot be coerced, all of which imply freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly. You might say reverence for the First Amendment is a big part of Quakers' DNA. It's very unfortunate that so much of the speech we hear these days is toxic, and we all need to ensure that this does not become the new normal.
Not so long ago, we were all repulsed by the actions of a particular congregation, I won't say their name, the hatred they directed towards homosexuals, transgender people, women, people of color, people of faith, the list goes on and on. And yet, the Supreme Court held that their speech was protected by the First Amendment. And I wanna be very clear that we are talking about speech. History has not been kind to this group. Many of its followers, including several prominent family members, have left and have become powerful advocates for equality.
Sometimes we think it's better to let the fire burn out, so to speak, to let the words of those who attempt to harm us with their words collapse under their own weight. In summary, these are very difficult times we are in. Our society has become so polarized. Now more than ever, people need to talk to each other rather than to legislate out of existence speech which we find offensive. Rather, we should call out hatred and engage it constructively with love and compassion.
My right to speak is predicated on your right to use language that I may find offensive. Enforcing government prohibitions on speech is a very slippery slope, and for these reasons, we oppose this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you both very much. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos, also in opposition.
Speaker 42
Glenn Bachus, Verella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.
Speaker 67
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. We remain opposed unless amended. I do wanna thank the author and her staff for working with us so, willingly and readily. I'm also here to represent the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and they are in opposition as well.
Speaker 45
Alex Trantham from Local one forty eight, LA County Public Defenders Bill, and separately as a former congregant of rabbi Joel's at Temple Isaiah in opposition of the bill.
Speaker 10
Sheila Wilson on behalf of Lotta Finta and the Justice Jobs Coalition in opposition.
Speaker 61
David Pollock practicing Catholic and free speech absolutists in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all for your testimony today. Colleagues, we'll turn it back to the Deus. Questions, comments? Oh, mister Lackey, you're up.
Speaker 12
Yeah. I find myself a little bit conflicted here on this particular issue, but I gotta remind myself that this is the Public Safety Committee. It's not judiciary. I'm not an attorney, and I do see that there are some difficulties there for you to address. But, initially, I was just going to lay off, but I'm not going to do that.
I'm gonna support this bill because it's real. The threats are very, very real, and they lead to violence, and they lead to heartache and lasting damage. You know, I'm I'm pretty disheartened by the anti Semitic expressions that are so alive and well in our culture in this modern age. I don't understand it. But it's real.
It's the hard right, the hard left, both have rallied together on this particular aspect, and I've never really understood it. But I will I'll tell you this. I will stand against it. And this deserves protection, and I know speech is a very delicate matter. And that's why judiciary will will have to wrangle that out.
But on the public safety aspect, you have my support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, assembly member Lackey. Other questions or comments or motions at this time?
Speaker 1
Oh, boy. That was a tough one. I'm gonna give that one to Ramos, but a second by Lackey. Next one goes to you, Tom. Alright.
Any other questions or comments? Assembly member, would you like to close?
Speaker 36
Yes. I wanna thank my colleague for his comments. I had the privilege of sitting on this committee with him in my first few years in the legislature, and we agreed more than people thought we would. That's for sure. And I think I wish what the opposition said was true, that we were just talking about words.
But I know too well that it's not just words. Just recently, actually, I believe in the DA's jurisdiction, two men were sitting outside of a restaurant speaking Hebrew, and they were attacked for sitting there having a conversation because of who they were. And that is not the California I wanna live in. And I know that this body believes deeply in the freedom of speech. I also know this body believes deeply in the freedom of religion.
Both of those are enshrined in the same part of our constitution. And I know those two things are meeting in this bill, and we have worked hard to make sure that we are doing it in a way that allows for both to exist because our faith, as the rabbi said, believes deeply in dissent. It's actually what Jews are built on. We're supposed to disagree with one another. And so we don't have a problem with that.
We have a problem when parents are trying to get to their children inside of a place of worship, and they can't do it safely. And that's what this bill is trying to get at. And so we've worked hard to get the constitutional piece right. We will continue to work. This is our first stop in a long process.
But I am really grateful, for those that will support today because I truly believe that my community and, like both of the witnesses said, other communities of faith, whether it be Muslims or Christians. We had a incident in my district where there was a church that took a stand on abortion that another church didn't like, and all of a sudden there was violence breaking out in front of a church. So this can happen to any community, and I think it's critically important that we should, protect them on their way in. And so with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much for your testimony today. We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll. Thank you.
Speaker 11
For item 30, a b twenty six sixty four by assembly member Bauer Cahan, the motion is due passed as amended to the judiciary committee. Schultz? Schultz. Aye. Alenise.
Gonzales. Haney. Harbetian. Blackie.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure remains on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you, everybody. Very quick programming note as the assembly member gets ready for her next two bills. We are gonna take up three more bills, hopefully, before lunch, both of, assembly member Bauer Cahan's bills, and then I see miss Johnson is here.
If you are not one of those two authors, you will be heard after lunch in this room. If you're a committee member or your staff for committee member, please start sending them to Room 126 now. And colleagues, we have a hard stop at the direction of the leadership by noon. We need to get everyone to caucus on time. So with that in mind, assembly member, the floor is yours.
We're taking up, 2164.
Speaker 36
for indulging me on that one so my witness could go to his next meeting. We'll wait for come up. Okay. The opposition is faster than the support.
Speaker 36
we go. Okay. Thank you, mister chair and members. I am proud to present a b twenty one sixty four, the care without fear act. I know that we're all familiar, and in fact, you've already heard a bill while I was sitting here about this issue with a threat posed to legally protected health care by the federal administration and more specifically by states that have banned the care and wanna criminalize access to life saving and medically necessary care here in our state.
Just earlier this year, Louisiana attempted to extradite a California abortion health care provider. Luckily, we have an incredible governor who swiftly stopped the extradition and protected that provider. However, as we look to the future, it is imperative that California providers of both reproductive health care and gender affirming care are protected against threats of extradition rather than case by case analysis, which is how it's currently done. I believe 17 states, if I got that number right, have firm extradition clauses, and California, by passing this bill, would just add to that list. AB twenty one sixty four codifies current protections and ensures that regardless of who our governor is, our brave health care providers are protected.
The bill has been narrowed in scope and will continue working with all the stakeholders to ensure that the bill strengthens our shield laws in the most effective manner. AB twenty one sixty four is sponsored by the abortion coalition for telemedicine who is here with me today and supported by Planned Parenthood, Equality California, the American College College of OBGYNs, and I'm proud to say that the LGBTQ caucus is also supporting it. With me today in support are Lizzie Hinkley, senior state legislative counsel for the telemedicine the abortion coalition for telemedicine, and doctor Deborah Dolan, who's a family's position of over twenty years with expertise in reproductive health and a volunteer with the National Miscarriage and Abortion hotline based here in California. And I will turn it over to them.
Speaker 53
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. My name is Lizzie Hinkley, and I am the legal director for the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine. ACT is an advocacy organization at the forefront of advancing comprehensive shield laws, enabling telemedicine abortion providers to meet the access needs of patients across the country. AB twenty one sixty four strengthens California's existing shield laws by prohibiting future governors from honoring extradition requests for individuals who provide or assist in reproductive health care or gender affirming care that is legal in California.
Speaker 69
By removing discretionary authority, the bill ensures California health care providers cannot be extradited to states seeking to criminalize essential health care. This legislation is urgently needed as states across the country seek to enforce abortion bans by criminally targeting abortion providers and increasingly patients themselves. This is not hypothetical. Two doctors providing abortion care pursuant to shield law protections have already been indicted. In the years since Dobbs, shield laws enacted in California and across the country have protected these providers from being extradited to states that have criminalized abortion.
Absent statutory protection, if left to the discretion of a different governor, those abortion providers could be sitting in jail awaiting criminal trial. California providers should not have to practice under the uncertainty of shifting political winds. AB twenty one sixty four provides the stability necessary to ensure California remains a safe place for patients and providers. The abortion coalition for telemedicine thanks assembly member Bauer Cahan for championing this critical bill and respectfully urges a yes vote. Thank you.
Speaker 23
Good morning. I'm doctor Deborah Donlin. I am a native Californian and have been practicing family medicine here in California for more than twenty years. And I also volunteer for the miscarriage and abortion hotline where I have the opportunity to speak with patients from all over the country. Many of these patients have recently been prescribed and have taken medication that allows them to manage either miscarriage or an abort abortion safely at home, and they are calling the hotline to speak with a doctor and make sure that their bodies are responding to the treatment appropriately.
Speaker 70
Sometimes these patients are in states with abortion bans and have secured the medication from a clinician or doctor who is out of state. These doctors and other clinicians, many of whom are shield law providers, are an essential part of the fragile reproductive health care system. While some states work to ban care and target patients and providers, these shield law providers take on great risk to ensure patients can access the care that they need. I work as a physician in California because I know that our state will always protect health care access. AB twenty one sixty four, the Care Without Fear Act, is the next step in protecting this care.
The bill strengthens our existing shield laws. It prohibits future governors from honoring extradition requests for providers who assist with reproductive health care services that are legal here in California. Protecting providers from prosecution should not rely on shifting political winds or on a single person's decision. By removing discretionary authority in these circumstances, this bill ensures that California health care providers cannot be arrested or extradited to states seeking to criminalize care. This is a crucial protection, and I strongly urge you to support the passage of a b twenty one sixty four.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you again for the presentation and both of you for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from the Me Toos in support of the bill.
Speaker 19
Good morning again, chair and members. Natalia De Silva Tejas with Greenberg Charc on behalf of Equality California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 64
Tip Madden representing the California chapter for the American College of Emergency Physicians in support.
Speaker 30
Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in support.
Speaker 27
Kathy Van Austin on behalf of the American Association of University Women of California in support.
Speaker 47
Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in support.
Speaker 59
Martin Rodosovich on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All California in support.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, everyone. Final call if you're hoping to be heard in support. Okay. Colleagues, before we hear from the opposition witnesses, I'll just note that we were handed a a handout.
I have approved that dissemination to all of you. So on all of your desk, you have this handout that was provided by the opposition witnesses. With that, you each have two minutes to address the committee.
Speaker 60
Thank you. Erin Friday, our duty attorney. We oppose this bill that will restrict every California governor from extraditing anyone to another state who has violated another state's prohibition against the mutilation and sterilization sterilization of children, a thing you call gender affirming care, but what really is body destroying care. Our opposition sets forth the legal issues with this bill. I have been testifying for five years now, getting up at five in the morning, driving five hours for two minutes of testimony, warning of the harms of gender interventions.
I have put up a number of detransitioners from Chloe Cole to Johnny Skinner who testify about their sexual dysfunction, sorrow over losing body parts, physical ailments from years on puberty blockers and wrong sex hormones. But you continue to advance the world's biggest medical scandal, offering protection for medical providers profiting off of people's misery. Scott Wiener often says that I wanna erase so called trans kids. Since I'm a mother of a formerly identifying trans kid, let me tell you about her. She was an insecure girl who was told by all of the adults around her but her parents that she was imperfect.
Speaker 15
She was told to hate that reflection in the mirror. She was told that her body was wrong and that only gender doctors who charge up to $200,000 for puberty blockers could fix her wrongness. She was told I didn't love her because I refused to poison her. She was told she would commit suicide. I make this journey year after year because I saved my daughter, and I am begging you to save other people's daughters too.
Speaker 57
Good morning. My name is Jamie Reed. I hold a master's of science in clinical research management. As I said earlier, I am a lesbian. I run a national gay and lesbian organization dedicated to evidence based medicine, and I spent five years working inside a pediatric gender center.
I have testified in nearly 17 states across this country, and I've been in your state for a few hours. I am shocked at how far behind your state is, not just politically, but on the evidence. Every single independent systematic review of the evidence for pediatric gender medicine has reached the exact same conclusion. The evidence base is insufficient. Every single one without exception.
This week, the Finnish study tracked over 2,000 young people through gender clinics, their psychiatric morbidity did not improve after medical transition. It increased markedly. I have watched this committee today engage issue after issue. You acknowledge the opposition. You work towards common ground, and that is not happening when the word gender is said.
Your colleagues will not even speak to us. They are paralyzed. Ask the sponsor, why is abortion tied up with gender? Why and why are we forcing these two issues together? The international evidence base is crumbling regarding gender, so why have you tied it to abortion?
Country by country, review by review, it is con crumbling. I want the heterosexual members know to know that there is a civil war right now happening on this issue within the very community this bill is purporting to protect. The LGBTQIA is currently at war. When you refuse to gauge with engage with the evidence, you are not staying neutral. You have chosen the side that is going to harm gender nonconforming children.
You are harming future homosexuals, and you have done it without the courage to even look at the data. We got this so wrong. We were so determined to protect gender nonconforming kids because we didn't wanna repeat the problems of how we treated the LGB in the past. The kids who reminded us of ourselves that we sent them down a medical pathway and hurt them. Every single country who has had the courage to look at the evidence has already begun the reckoning.
I am asking you to simply begin it here, at least open up some dialogue within the opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both for your testimony and for making the effort to be here today and for the resources as well. Next, we'll take the Me Toos in opposition to the bill.
Speaker 61
David Polagas with the Alliance Taxpayer Oversights for Parents and Students, Leave Our Kids Alone, Truth Exchange, and the LA County chapter of Moms for Liberty in opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 37
Good morning, chair. Apologies. I missed the support line. Karen Stout here on behalf of the California Nurse Midwives Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council in strong opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 68
Beverly Talbot, lesbian, longtime democrat from San Francisco on behalf of the LGB Courage Coalition, LGB Alliance, and Women Are Real in very strong opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. I'll turn it back to the dais now. Are there questions or comments by any members of the committee? We have a motion by doctor Sharp Collins. Is there a second?
I will second. Any other discussion? Okay. Assembly member, your opportunity to close. I would just ask if there's anything that you have in response to the opposition that you think the committee should know.
If you could address that in your close, that'd be appreciated.
Speaker 36
Yes. Thank you, mister chair. And I'm actually one of one the first thing I wanna address is one of the comments that was made about us not I guess not me. I haven't spoken yet today, but the body, not addressing you or engaging with you. I think that one of the most important parts of this process is engaging with the opposition whether we agree or not, frankly.
And I think there's a lot we don't agree on, and perhaps there's a lot of common ground in other places that we could find. And I think it is absolutely my obligation as the author and as a public servant to listen, and that's what I'm doing here today. I will say this bill, does not address the evidence because that's not the bill. The bill focuses on if you are engaging in acts that other states have a right to find criminal. They get to pass their own laws.
They get to make their own decisions. That's state's rights. And California deems these to be fundamental protections to make decisions with your own health care provider, and a choice that when you walk into your health care provider as a parent or as a individual that you get to make, and we have protected those. They are not criminal here. And so as a result, there is no question in my mind that we should be protecting the physicians that engage in these protected acts here in California.
And so I think it's a simple bill, frankly, and one that I hope this, committee will support. And I think, you know, there are other places to have conversations around the science. I am a believer that, you know, I'm a mom as well. Think, you know, you said your mom. I can't recall if you said your mom.
Speaker 36
system. So we're all moms. And, you know, I think I will make decisions for my children that feel right for their health care, their mental health, their mental well-being. I know every parent that's not true. But most parents will make the decisions that they believe are best for their child's mental health and well-being, And they will consult experts to do so, and I think that is their job.
And I have there are children I have loved for whom parents have made the decision to help them get gender affirming care, and it was absolutely the right thing for those children. And I think that we need to respect that and, you know, continue to support that, but this bill is merely about the extradition of physicians who provide that care. With that, I respectfully ask you why vote.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you all very much. Colleagues, I do recommend an eye, and I'd like to come on as a coauthor should it pass out of committee. We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item 17, a b twenty one sixty four by assembly member Bauer Cahan, the motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Haney?
Harbetian? Blackie? No. Blackie? No.
Wen? Ramos? Aye. Ramos? Aye.
Sharp Collins?
Speaker 1
Okay. That measures on call as we wait for absent members. Thank you, everyone. Assembly member Bauer Cahan, I think you have your final bill up, $26.31. Do you wanna take that up at this time?
Speaker 1
Absolutely. If your staff or committee member, please send them to Room 126 now. We need them to add on.
Speaker 36
And this should be the fastest of the three, I hope. Okay. Still morning. Good morning, mister chair and members. I wanna thank the committee staff for their work on this bill.
Speaker 69
And with this, I'm proud to present a b twenty six thirty one. This is a simple bill. We did a bill a couple years ago in the wake of Dobbs, related to, subpoenas that were being sent to some of our tech companies around activity, related to abortion care, and we wanted to because it's a constitutional fundamental constitutional right in California, ensure that our California based companies were not responding to those subpoenas. This expands that to another fundamental constitutional right here in California, which is first amended first amendment protected activity. And it is a really important piece because we know right here in California, administrative subpoenas have been sent to our tech companies trying to get at people's first amendment activity.
Speaker 36
And it's shocking, and it's not what is protected at democracy. And we absolutely have the right, as we have done in previous bills, to, ask our companies not to respond to those administrative subpoenas. There absolutely still will be process to seek criminal subpoenas through the courts, for other you know, if criminal behavior is sought, but this is merely activity regarding speech that is being sought by the federal government. And we know that not only is exposure detrimental, but the fear of exposure can in and of itself have a chilling effect. And with that, I respectfully ask for vote.
Speaker 1
All good. Any me too's? Any me too's? Going once? Going twice?
Okay. Any opposition witnesses? Going once? Going twice? Anyone else with a position whatsoever?
Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you.
Motion and second. Would you like to close?
Speaker 1
And I'll recommend an aye, and I'd like to come on as a coauthor to this one as well. Thank you, mister. Alright. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item 29, a b twenty six thirty one by assembly member Bauer Cahan, the motion is due passed through the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 1
Remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome. Last but not least, assembly member Johnson. Again, if you're a staff or committee member, please, please get them here. We do need them.
We miss them. Assembly member Johnson.
Speaker 47
Alright. Thank you. This will be very quick. Mister chair and committee members, I am here today to present a b two zero seven three, a simple measure that permits local governments to install infant safety devices commonly known as baby box at a safe surrender location. This bill represents a straightforward update to California's safely surrendered baby law focused on infancy infant safety, and parent privacy.
Speaker 34
It authorizes the optional installation of baby box devices for communities that choose to provide this service, keyword. We are simply giving local agencies the permission to use technology that is already successfully operating in 23 other states. While California has many excellent programs to support mothers who would like to keep their babies despite financial hardships, once a parent in extreme crisis decides they must give up a child, the only remaining question is how they will do it. Current law requires a face to face handoff to an on duty personnel, but national data shows that this is a significant deterrent for parents who fear judgment, legal repercussions, and honestly, a lack of privacy. By authorizing a 100% of anonymous surrender option, we ensure that choice made in that moment is safe, legal surrender instead of tragedy in a dumpster or a park.
Speaker 47
Installing these devices provides tangible assurance to local communities that are safe options available for birth parents in crisis. This shift reflects the high value California places on the right to privacy, offering a dignified alternative to those for whom face to face encounter is a bridge that is too far to cross. Overall, this bill is simple, common sense change to mirror what is already working in other states. This is an infant safety and birth parent privacy bill, not an anti abortion measure. The impact of these devices is clear.
For example, Arkansas has reported not a single illegal abandonment since passing passing similar legislation in 2019. Indiana has seen a significant decline in illegal abandonment since their program launched. Local government and nonprofits are asking for this change, and the program requires no state reimbursement because these devices are traditionally funded by private donors and charitable organizations when municipalities choose to install them. They are climate controlled, equipped with dual alarm systems, and subject to twice a day visual checks to ensure newborn is protected and retrieved within minutes. I do want to end and close by saying I appreciate the chair's commitment to working with me on this bill in the fall.
We look forward to a productive discussion, a b two zero seven three, and as we move forward for next year.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. And just to confirm our understanding, and I appreciate your point, it is your intent to present the bill today. We will not be voting on it with the express commitment that I will be working on it with you in the interim. Is that your understanding?
Speaker 1
you, sir. Very very good. And colleagues, I apologize. I should have mentioned for presentation only at the beginning. However, we will take testimony as we normally do.
Do you have any witnesses in support?
Speaker 1
Alright. We have at least one me too. Come on down to register your support.
Speaker 1
say me too. You got it. Thank you. Do we have anyone, in opposition? Anyone who wants to register a position on the bill?
Any questions from committee? Would you like to close?
Speaker 18
It's not a question, but wanted to thank you for agreeing to still work with our committee in regards to this particular, bill. And it it it reminds me of another bill that we just actually, worked on with the assembly member, Michelle Rodriguez, in regards to this as well. So I do hope that the two of you can get together as well to have a deeper dive conversation in regards to this process. But thank you for bringing it forth, and I look forward to the continued dialogue when it comes back. Yeah.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much, doctor Sharp Collins. Alright. We actually don't need a motion. Presentation moment.
I appreciate that. I I have a brief closing comment, but would you like to add anything first?
Speaker 47
I just wanna say thank you for helping us work towards a path forward. It's important, and the the work is more important than the message. So not a messaging opportunity, but really about doing something in the district that matters. So thank you, sir.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much. I wanna just say I share in your desire to ensure that we provide safe and reliable means of surrendering one's child to qualified personnel. As we know, existing law provides for the safe surrender of an infant up to 72 72 old or three days, if you will. To doctor Sharp Collins' point, I believe in our last hearing, actually, we passed a bill extending the safe surrender period from three days to thirty days, which is something safe surrender locations are already doing on the ground. As noted by the firefighters in committee last week, it is extraordinarily rare for a parent to surrender their child.
Nevertheless, when a parent makes that really difficult decision, we as legislate legislators have an interest in ensuring that it's done safely. I really respect and admire your commitment to the issue. And while the bill will be held today, I look forward to working with you in the fall. Happy to come out to your district, talk to your stakeholders, and hopefully advance something next year that we can all be on board with. So I appreciate your work, assembly member Johnson.
And with that, the bill will be held in committee, and conversations will continue.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. That brings us to the close of business. If your boss isn't here, I'm very sad about that and very upset with I'm kidding. Well, if they could get here in the next few minutes, that'd be great.
Really quick programming note before we break. We are gonna go through the items one more time for those who are here to add on. The following items are what will be taken up in the afternoon in this room at 01:30PM. We have item two, a b 16O7 by Gonzalez. Item seven, a b 1810 by Berman.
Item eight, a b 1814 by Alanis. Item 11, a b twenty eighteen by Ramos. Item 12, a b 2040 by Mosito. Item 14, a b 2073 by Johns oh, I'm sorry. That one was just dispensed with.
We have item 15, a b 2108 by Sharp Collins. Item 16, a b 2122 by Calra. Item 19, b twenty two sixty one by Dixon. Item 22, a b twenty three twenty eight by Alanis. Item 24, a b twenty three eighty four by Lowenthal.
Item 26, a b twenty four twenty eight by Celeste Rodriguez. Item 27, a b twenty four thirty four by Bonta. Item 32, a b twenty six eighty three by Ransom. And last but not least, item 34, a b twenty seven sixty by Sharp Collins. Before we break, madam secretary, would you we're gonna go through the items that we've taken up today one more time so you can add on.
And if your boss did not make it at 11:45 as I requested, please make sure they're here at 01:30. Thank you.
Speaker 11
For consent items, Alanis, Haney, Nguyen, Ramos, Ramos, I. Item one, a b fifteen eighty eight by assembly member Stephanie. This item was on call. The motion is due passed as amended to the transportation committee. Alanis, Gonzales, Haney, Harbodian, Lackey?
Speaker 11
Lackey, aye. When? The measure remains on call. Item two, a b 16 o seven has yet to be heard. Item three, a b sixteen twenty seven was pulled by the author.
Item 14, a b sixteen eighty eight by Assembly Member Koreab, the motion is due passed through the appropriations committee. This item was on consent. Item five a b seventeen thirty nine by assembly member Ward. This measure is on call. The motion is due passed as amended to the business and professions committee.
Alanis, Haney, Harbittian, Blackie.
Speaker 11
Blackie not voting. This measure remains on call. Item six a b seventeen fifty three by assembly member Stephanie. This measure is on call. The motion is due passed as amended to the judiciary committee.
Alanis, Haney, Harbetian, Lackie Aye. Lackie, aye.
Speaker 11
Item seven eighteen ten has yet to be heard. Item eight a b eighteen fourteen has yet to
Speaker 11
heard. Item nine a b eighteen fifty four by assembly member Krell. This measure is on call. The motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Alanis, Haney, Harvidian, Nguyen?
Speaker 11
Yes. Sharp Collins. Sharp Collins, I. This measure remains on call. Item 10 a b 19 o two by assembly member Pelerin.
The motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Haney, Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen? Aye.
Ramos? Ramos not voting. For item 11, a b twenty eighteen has yet to be heard. Item 12, a b twenty forty has yet to be heard. Item 13 a b twenty fifty two by Assembly member Stephanie, the motion is due passed as amended.
Haynie? Lackie?
Speaker 11
is item 13 a b twenty fifty two by assembly member Stephanie. Ramos, I. That measure passes.
Speaker 11
Item 14 a b twenty seventy three just heard testimony only and will held in committee. For item 15, a b twenty one zero eight has yet to be heard. Item 16, a b twenty one twenty two has yet to be heard. Item 17, a b twenty one sixty four by assembly member Bauer Caham. This measure is on call.
The motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Alanis, Gonzales, Haney, Harbetian. Wen? Wen? I.
This measure remains on call. Item 18, a b twenty two thirty two was pulled by the author. Item nineteen twenty a b twenty two sixty one has yet to be heard. Item 20 a b twenty two seventy three was pulled by the committee. Item 21 a b twenty three eighteen by assembly member El Huwari.
Speaker 60
This measure was on call. The motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Twenty three twenty eight has yet to be heard. Item 23, a b twenty three forty four was pulled by the author. Item 24, a b twenty three eighty four has yet to be heard.
Speaker 11
Item 25, a b twenty four nineteen by Assembly member Quirk Silva, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee, Alanis, Haney. Wen? Aye. Wen? Aye.
Ramos? Aye. Ramos, aye. Item 26 a b twenty four twenty eight has yet to be heard. Item 27 a b twenty four thirty four has yet to be heard.
Item 28 a b twenty five fifty three was pulled by the committee. Item 29, a b twenty six thirty one by assembly member Bauer Cahan. This measure is on call. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Alanis, Gonzales, Haney, Harbidean, Harbidean, I.
Nguyen, I. That
Speaker 11
Item 30, a b twenty six sixty four by assembly member Bauer Cahan. This measure is on call. The motion is due passed as amended to the judiciary committee.
Speaker 11
For item 31, a b twenty six sixty nine was pulled by the author. Item 32, a b twenty six eighty three has yet to be heard. Item 33, a b twenty seven twenty by assembly member Schiavo, the measure the motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. This measure was on consent. Item 34, a b twenty seven sixty has yet to be heard.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, colleagues. When we reconvene at 01:30PM, we will be starting with item 32. This is a b twenty six eighty three by assembly member Ransom. Final programming note, we made it through 14 bills this morning.
Not bad. We have 15 more to go this afternoon. So if we're all here on time and we work quick, I think we can get you all home by dinner. We stand in recess until one oh, miss back in this room at 01:30PM. We stand in recess.
Oh, sorry. Do have a
Speaker 1
Yes. We can go back to the if you add it on, you're welcome to go now. We'll go back through it one more time for everyone else. Programming note, the speaker is is asking everyone to be in caucus at, noon sharp. So if you've already done it, please head to caucus now.
Is there an originally No. Very
Speaker 11
For consent items, when? Aye. Wynn? Aye. Item 1AB1588 by assembly member Stephanie.
This measure was on call. The motion is due passed as amended to the transportation committee. Alanis Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales, aye.
Haney? Harbetian?
Speaker 11
For item two, a b 16 o seven has yet to be heard. For item three, a b sixteen twenty seven is pulled by the author. For item four, a b sixteen eighty eight, that measure is on consent. For item five, a b seventeen thirty nine by Assembly member Ward, this measure is on call. Alanis, Haney, Harbidean Aye.
Harbidean, aye. Wen? Aye. Wen? Aye.
That bill is out. For item six, a b seventeen fifty three by assembly member Stephanie, this measure is on call. Alanis, Haney, Harbidean? Aye. Harbidean, I.
When? When? I.
Speaker 11
For item seven, a b eighteen ten has yet to be heard. For item eight, a b eighteen fourteen has yet to be heard. For item nine, a b eighteen fifty four by Soleme Member Krell, this measure is on call. Alanis, Haney, Harbodian Aye. Harbodian Aye.
When? Aye. When? Aye. The measure passed.
Speaker 11
For item 10, a b 19 o two by Solemn Member Pelerin, Haney. Oh. For item 11, a b twenty eighteen has yet to be heard. Item 12, a b twenty forty has yet to be heard. Item 13, a b twenty fifty two by Salmie member Stephanie Haney.
Item 14, a b twenty seventy three, just heard testimony. Item 15, a b twenty one zero eight has yet to be heard. Item 16, a b twenty one twenty two has yet to be heard. Item 17 a b twenty one sixty four by Assembly member Bauer Cahan, this measure is on call. Alanis.
Gonzales?
Speaker 11
For item 18, a b twenty two thirty two was pulled by the author. Item 19, a b twenty two sixty one has yet to be heard. Item 20, a b twenty two seventy three was pulled by committee. Item 21, a b twenty three eighteen by assembly member El Hawari. This measure is on call.
Alanis, Haney, Parbidian? Aye. Parbidian, aye. That bill
Speaker 11
Item 22, a b twenty three twenty eight has yet to be heard. Item 23, a b twenty three forty four was pulled by the author. Item 24, a b twenty three eighty four has yet to be heard. Item 25, a b twenty four nineteen by Assembly Member Quirk Silva, Haney, Alanis. Item 26 a b twenty four twenty eight has yet to be heard.
Item 27 a b twenty four thirty four has yet to be heard. Item 28, a b twenty five fifty three was pulled by committee. Item 29, a b twenty six thirty one by assembly member Bauer Cahan. This measure is on call. Alanis Gonzales.
Aye. Gonzales, aye. Haney. That measure.
Speaker 11
Item 30, a b twenty six sixty four by assembly member Bauer Cahan. This measure is on call. Alanis. Gonzales? Aye.
Gonzales, I. Haney?
Speaker 11
Item 31, a b twenty six sixty nine was pulled by the author. Item 32, a b twenty six eighty three has yet to be heard. Item 23, a b twenty seven twenty is on consent, and item 20 34 has yet to be heard.
Speaker 1
Thank you to our incredible secretary for going through all of that. We stand in recess until 01:30. See you all then.
Speaker 1
everyone. Welcome back. Thank you all for being here. We're gonna dive right into it. I just wanna mention that we do have to give the room up at well, before 04:00, so probably 03:30 for veterans committee.
So let's try to be as quick as we can. We have 15 bills. With that, next up, we have assembly member Ransom presenting a b twenty six eighty three. The floor is yours.
Speaker 32
Thank you, mister chair and members. First, I wanna begin by accepting the committee's amendments, and thank you and your staff for your work on this very important bill. This bill, Assembly Bill two six eight three, is about protecting our children. When adults recruit or groom minors to commit felonies, they are exploiting our children and pulling them into cycles of crime that can shape the rest of their lives. 2022 California Department of Justice data shows youth were arrested more than 45,000 offenses, including serious and violent crimes.
Studies have shown that system impacted youth face a higher risk of exploitation and that adults are involved in recruitment, coercion, sometimes grooming, and especially in communities with less opportunity and less resources. At the same time, gang violence remains a major driver. In 2023, the California Department of Justice shows one in four homicides and aggravated assaults are gang related. Too often, our young people are both victims and tools who've been coerced, manipulated, and or recruited by older individuals who use them in the commission of crimes. In communities like Stockton in my district, violent crime remains significantly above the national average with gang activity being one of the leading causes and youth disproportionately being pulled into these situations.
These situations fall hardest on black and Latino communities where youth are overrepresented in our system and more vulnerable to targeted recruitment due to long standing structural inequities. Assembly Bill two six eight three closes a critical gap by making it clear that any adult who compels, solicits, or recruits a minor to commit a felony is committing child endangerment. And if if an adult uses a child to commit a crime through grooming, coercion, or recruitment, they will be held accountable. This bill is about breaking the cycle of violence and protecting children before they are pulled deeper into a system. We would like to keep our kids out of the criminal justice system.
So with me today, I have two witnesses. I have miss Sam Haddad, the legislative advocate advocate for the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office, and I also have deputy Anthony N. Creel, with the San Joaquin County Sheriff's Office, gang unit. So I'm gonna turn it over to my witnesses, and thank you.
Speaker 73
Thank you. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of elected Ron Fradis in the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office. We concur in the members comments. We also strongly support Assembly Bill twenty six eighty three as amended on 03/19/2026 and thank the committee for their work on this measure. As prosecutors, we have seen the devastating effect that gangs and other adults with ill intent often have when seeking to use or target minors for criminal activity.
This measure will assist the prosecution of adults that recruit or solicit minors to conduct or assist their felonious activity. This activity is common in gang scenarios as a gang recruitment tool, while it also exposes minors to criminal liability, encouraging gang membership. AB two six eight three would assist in protecting children from this danger and hold any adults that seek to involve minors in their criminal activity accountable. The provisions of this bill would offer our office and every district attorney's office across the state valuable tools to use against those who seek to target the most vulnerable in our society, children. We strongly encourage and request an I vote.
Thank you.
Speaker 72
Hello. I'm Anthony Encrilli with the San Joaquin Sheriff's Office representing, sheriff Pat Withrow. I've been with the sheriff's office for ten years. I'm currently a gang investigator, and I tell you this, assembly bill twenty six eighty three is addressing a huge problem that a lot of investigators, as as myself, deal with on a regular basis. In many investigations, it is very common that adult gang members, people who facilitate human trafficking, recruit juveniles and use them in current crimes to commit these crimes because the minors are held at a lesser standard than an adult.
They're dictated and told to carry firearms, sell narcotics, commit violent acts to community members and the public just because they're held at a lesser standard. What this bill does, a b twenty six eighty three, it shifts the accountability back to the adults who are forcing and coursing these children to do crimes and making this a child endangerment charge for the adult who was recruiting the minor. And by adding a consecutive term of two, four, six years would be huge in the fight against eliminating adults using children to assist gangs in human trafficking. I I believe it's a stronger tool to go after these in used to or a stronger tool to be able to be used against individuals who are actively driving the community activity in our communities and our state. From a law enforcement standpoint, it's a positive step forward, and I reckon and it recognizes how gangs and human trafficking organizations are operating in the real world.
Speaker 73
Overall, this bill is a right in the moving forward in the right direction and targets the root problem for adult offenders exploiting young children.
Speaker 1
Appreciate it. Next, we'll take the me too's in support of the bill. If you wanna be heard in support, please come down at this time. And, please limit your comment to your name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 19
Good afternoon. Lauren Apter, California District Attorneys Association in strong support.
Speaker 1
Final call for those in support. Okay. Do we have any opposition witnesses?
Speaker 1
We do. Alright. Come on down. We have two chairs right here, and you'll each have two minutes when you begin speaking.
Speaker 25
Chair members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a ledge advocate with ACLU CalAction. While we are appreciative of the author for and her commitment to ensure public safety and for striking the murder enhancement, we still have issues with the new enhancement being proposed in this bill. There are more than 100 unique sentencing enhancements throughout California's penal code with eight enhancements accounting for roughly 80% of the sentence years since 2015. Given the pervasiveness of sentencing enhancements throughout our penal code, there is no compelling evidence that more enhancements improve public safety in any way.
Specifically, enhancements undermine a great amount of study and evidence surrounding the efficacy behind longer criminal sentencing and its impact on crime deterrence. The fact is longer criminal sentencing does nothing to deter crime. I implore every legislator in this committee to listen to the evidence and not move forward with its hired and failed tough on crime policies that have ravaged many communities throughout our state. It is no coincidence why this nation has the highest incarceration rate in the world, making up less than 5% of the world's population but nearly a quarter of its incarceration poll population. And it's because we continue to pass policies that contradict evidence and lock people up for an egregious amount of time rather than focusing our energy on the root causes of crime.
All of this not far removed from the US Supreme Court ordering California to reduce our prison population, citing that we're violating the eighth amendment of our constitution. To avoid history repeating itself, we encourage lawmakers to imagine our approach to public safety that focus our energy and effort on addressing the root causes of crime rather than reacting to it with longer criminal sentencing. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on a b twenty six eighty three. Thank you.
Speaker 45
My name is Alex Trantham. I'm a public defender in LA County representing Local one forty eight, the LA County Public Defenders Union in opposition to this bill. First, penal code section 20 c two seventy three a subsection a already addresses placing a child in a situation where their person or health is endangered. So the author's addition of penal code section two seventy three a subsection d is unnecessary. This bill is potentially aiming to try to end gangs through longer sentences.
It is true that adult gang members are arrested with minor gang members, but often the adult gang members are 18 or 19 years old, and the minors are 17 years old. So this enhancement is overbroad and will apply to many cases without solving the problem. These 18 and 19 year olds are only considered adults because of the law. Their brains are not fully developed, and science shows that they are not able to properly understand or calculate the consequences of their actions. Time and again, studies show that longer sentences do not mean greater deterrence.
Speaker 9
Enhancements often force people to take pleas instead of going to trial in opposition to how the criminal legal system was created because of the intimidating maximum custody exposure possible after trial. Children and young people often join gangs because there is no support at home despite the knowledge that they will be behind bars for participating in gang activity. When you do not have parents or guardians to turn to, it doesn't matter what will happen next because you want to feel a sense of belonging and protection. Longer sentences for those who show these kids a sense of belonging will not solve this problem. What we need, and I've learned this from my years of working with youth as a public defender, is resources in school, like therapy and other mental health services, and properly funding GRID, the anti gang programs.
Speaker 45
Of course, we want to protect our children, but adding another enhancement to the more than a 100 sentencing enhancements in the penal code does not do this. Therefore, we oppose.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much. I understand there was a me too in support. So we'll take that first. And if you wanna be heard in opposition, you can
Speaker 23
start lining up now. Go ahead. Yeah. Apologies, mister chair. Max Baer, on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, and we're in support.
Thank you.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We still have the not yet had the opportunity to review the amendments. Appreciate that removal of the one section, and we'll review in our position. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation with apologies for not having our letter turned in yet, but this is to confirm our opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. I'll now turn it back to the dais. Other question? Yes. Doctor Sharp Collins.
Speaker 18
I just need a point of clarification, one of them, because I was the enhancement part of it amended out?
Speaker 32
We did make I'm sorry. We made amendments. There was an additional portion of the bill that had an additional, enhancements of child endangerment, for crimes committed not against children, but when children were present. That petition particular piece was amended out of the bill.
Speaker 25
Yes. Very much so because there's an enhancement for the this new child endangerment piece, the two four six triad. But the murder and it we did we do appreciate removing that part of the bill, but we're still very much opposed to all enhancement. Mhmm.
Speaker 1
Well, before your witness does, I can just, doctor Sharp Collins. While there are are fair grounds to oppose it, I would say, technically, this is sort of a nuance in the law. So the the enhancement for murder was struck struck as a part of the committee amendments. I would argue reading, five d of the statute, it's not technically an enhancement. What it is saying is that it must be it's a separate charge that must be pled and proven at court.
Now if it is in fact pled and proven, then there must be consecutive sentencing. So their point that it functions very similar to an enhancement is absolutely correct, but it is a separate charge that must be pled and proved. Yeah. And and
Speaker 72
hear It can be stand alone. It could just be that one charge. An enhancement can't be a stand alone charge.
Speaker 72
So an enhancement has to have a standalone charge with it before the enhancement can be charged. Mhmm. So that is the difference between what they're saying is an enhancement.
Speaker 32
just gonna provide just kind of clarification why it would be a standalone charge as opposed to a stacking or enhancement because sometimes it's the the young person is a person who's committed the crime at the compelling of the adult. So you can't technically charge the adult with the crime, but they that is why it can be a stand up. That's why it's designed to charge them for the child endangerment for putting our young people in a situation where now they have a criminal record
Speaker 18
Okay. Then what do you do when it's the young people who are recruiting the young people? Because that's a lot of what's happening too. The young people are recruiting young people.
Speaker 32
So is part of it. And so we're addressing the adults right now. And, really, what we're trying to do is close the loop. I know earlier this year, there were some pro proposals that were really concerning as someone who's worked in restorative justice. I've spent many years of of my life working on the side of the table with the folks who are opposing this bill, making sure that we were providing trauma informed care.
I've worked with the system impact youth, including those who are gang affiliated. But we want to if we wanna be able to provide more supports, I believe there was a proposal that said we wanna make sure that young people don't carry strikes with them. Mhmm. We wanna make sure that we're not allowing the adults to use those young people. So young people using what young people is very different than an adult who knows that they would get more time Mhmm.
Than a young person who is, you know, recruiting someone of their own age. They're both gonna be more subjected to the the lower penalties that young people typically would face. It's quite different when an adult is avoiding responsibility and accountability by bringing in a young person in and exposing them to things that quite honestly are dangerous.
Speaker 18
Okay. I I just needed that point of clarification because I know I know the areas that I represent. I know where I grew up and all of that. I know back in the day, yeah, it was a lot of OGs influence, whichever. But, actually, now it's a lot of the young people
Speaker 18
That are influencing each other to do it and or social media. Other ways, that are influencing the different types of action. I do, agree I had twelve seventy nine last year with the three strike reform youth three strike reform that we will continue to talk about and bring forth. But I just wanted you to consider coming back in and looking at the youth portion of it. I I get we got the adults, but a lot of it now is happening.
Youth trying to prove themselves Yep. Through through certain aspects. But I am not a fan of enhancements at all.
Speaker 18
I really am not a fan of it. 1100%. I haven't worked with a former assembly member who's now secretary of state. We did a lot of work. I'm trying to right right those wrongs Mhmm.
When it comes down to those enhancements. So as long as this is not Technically. Adding on, I can possibly get there today. Thank you. But I I would like to just give me a moment to process to really see where we are missing to opposition and to what you're you're saying for points of clarification.
I just wanted to get clarification. Colleagues.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, doctor Sharp Collins. Are there other questions or comments? Mister Lackey?
Speaker 12
Yeah. I I believe the opposition's claim that there's no evidence to support tougher sentences to reduce recidivism really has no application here because the very use of proxy offenders is to avoid penalties. So I I think we're talking about an apple and an orange in the comparison as we just discussed with my colleague's previous concern. I would love to be a considered to be a coauthor, and this has my full support because it's very logical.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much, mister Lackey. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Assembly member, the one question that I would have, not to speak for doctor Sharp Collins in any way, shape, or form, but just as a follow-up to to her inquiry. If the bill were to advance out of committee today, I understand you're trying to, you know, clearly say under the law, it's a crime to solicit a minor to do something that would be punishable conduct if it was an adult committing the offense.
Would you be willing to consider engaging in continued conversations with the opposition as it relates to the consecutive nature of the sentencing, the stacking? Is that something that you'd commit to at least continuing those conversations?
Speaker 32
Yeah. We're happy to continue those conversations. We've had several conversations and lots of opportunity over the last several months as we've worked and worked through this bill, but we're we're definitely happy to hear them out in regards to this. But and I would like to just kind of reiterate that the point is that this this is not looking to be a a pure enhancement, but this is really to hold someone accountable for this very specific charge. This is not about us stacking on if, say, the charge was burglary or, you know, armed robbery.
This is not about that particular charge. This is about endangering a young person and exposing them to things that they should not be exposed to similar to we would charge someone with, you know, child endangerment if they let their child get into their handgun. We would charge them with child endangerment for taking them out when they were drunk driving. This is about that specific charge of child endangerment, but happy to continue the conversations.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Does that beg any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay. Assembly member Ransom, would you like to close?
Speaker 32
Yes. First of all, I wanna, again, thank you and your committee for the I wanna thank the witnesses for spending the entire day here with our committee and really being committed to adding the real life experience that they have on the ground to this committee so that you can actually, you know, hear from the people. I wanna say that this bill is not built in hypotheticals. This is really happening in our communities. Sometimes it's cultural and having worked with young people, I totally respect the ACLU as well as the public defender's office because I've had to work I've worked with them very favorably in the past.
Speaker 65
But when you work with young people and you sometimes they come out of incarceration or even those who are living in those neighborhoods, it's one thing to have, you know, that OG in gang member that will take you under the wing and keep you safe. It's different when they compel you or accompany you to commit a crime. And we don't want our young people to have that sort of experience, that exposure because once you get into the criminal justice system, it's really hard to get out. So a b twenty six eighty three protects youth by recognizing that using, recruiting, coercing, compelling minors to commit crimes is child endangerment, especially in communities where gang environment involvement disproportionately affects black, Latino, foster, and homeless youth. This closes the gap in the current law by holding adults accountable for exploiting our minors and shifting focus from punishing youth to prosecuting those who are recruiting them.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much, assembly member. Colleagues, I do recommend an I for today. Assembly member, I appreciate you working with us to strengthen the bill. And I would simply say, I too have seen that in the courtroom and in my line of work as well. People are highly sophisticated and understand the law more than we often give them credit for, and they are aware that the consequences for a minor committing offense is distinguishable from that of an adult.
So I very much see the problem that you're trying to solve. I would say that I'm comfortable for today because, yes, that person an adult, if you will, could be charged with conspiracy. They could be an accessory after the fact. They could be charged under accomplice liability. We're talking about the heightened and specific intent to solicit a minor, quite frankly, because they know that they're going to have a less severe consequence.
So I I I see what you're trying to solve. Sounds like there's more conversation to be had. Strongly encourage you to do that so that should it make it to the floor, you'll have the support of everyone you'll need to get there. But you're an eye for today. I think we have a no.
We don't. Do we have a motion? Oh. I'm gonna give this one to mister Lackey, second to mister Ramos, because we share here in this committee. Everyone gets to share in the pain.
Alright. Roll call, please.
Speaker 11
For item 32 a b twenty six eighty three by Assemblyman Moranso, the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Blackie? Aye. Wen? Aye. Wen?
Aye. Ramos? Ramos, aye. Sharp Collins? Aye.
Sharp Collins, aye. That's
Speaker 1
Okay. That bill is out. We'll allow absent members to add on. Thank you, everybody.
Speaker 1
And next next to the assembly member who enjoys this job the most is our judiciary chair, mister oh, I'm sorry. Oh, yeah.
Speaker 1
Okay. Okay. Sorry, everyone. Trying to manage many competing schedules. Thank you all for your patience and flexibility.
Mister Kalra, I believe you're here to present a b twenty one twenty two. Correct? Yes. Floor is yours. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Thank you, mister chair and members. I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments and and really thanking the chair and committee staff for working with me in my office on this bill. A lot of back and forth, and I really appreciate where we landed. AB twenty one twenty two prohibits the issuance of of a bench warrant if the underlying offense is a vehicle code infraction, and in the case of non vehicle code infractions, only allows for a non custodial warrant to be issued. California courts process over 3,000,000 infractions each year.
These minor offenses include traffic violations that are punishable by a fine and do not require a court appearance if the ticket is paid. If a person fails to appear in court or pay a citation, a bench warrant for arrest can be issued, effectively converting an otherwise non jailable offense into incarceration. However, these bench warrants often ignore reasonable issues that prevent someone from appearing appearing in court, such as a lack of transportation and childcare or risk of losing employment. Arrest can have long lasting adverse consequences impacting a person's ability to secure housing and employment. But as of late, these bench warrants have been used as a pretext for immigration enforcement, meaning people are being arrested and put at a heightened risk of immigration detention for what should be a non jailable offense simply because they cannot afford a fine.
Speaker 18
Research has shown that alternatives such as improved notices and reminders are more effective than warrants at generating timely court appearances and payments. AB twenty one twenty two follows the lead of 12 counties that reportedly already stopped issuing bench warrants and infraction cases by removing the use of these warrants when the underlying charge is a vehicle code infraction. Additionally, while a bench warrant can be issued for non vehicle code infractions, this bill states that the person may not be booked at the arresting agency unless you were released at the scene, effectively notifying someone that they have an infraction they must resolve without the overly punitive need to incarcerate them. I wanna thank the our district attorney's association for working with us over the last couple weeks to try to come to some resolution. And here to testify in support is Marco Duncan, Ronald Elder Freeman Policy Fellow at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, a member of All of Us or None.
Speaker 13
Also available to provide technical assistance is Asher Wade Jones, clinical supervisor with the Policy Advocacy Clinic at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member. And before we hear from your witnesses, apologize. I meant to make the statement before you started. This is just for the public to be aware of what's happening today because there have been a lot of changes evolving. So, for everyone's awareness, there is a new draft of the amendments that are being discussed today on the table outside of the hearing room.
A very quick explanation of the new amendments. There are two versions of penal code section eight five three point six in existing law. One that sunsetted or sorry, that sunsets on 01/31/2031, and the other that becomes operative upon the sunset. The proposed amendments to penal code section eight five three point six were meant to be in both versions of existing law, but the previously released draft contained the amendments only in the section that's set to sunset on 01/31/2031. The proposed amendments that the committee members have here at the dais and the ones that are available to the public outside on the table have the proposed amendments to both versions of penal code section eight five three point six.
I'll just note that the added language can be found in section five of the updated draft amendments. Thank you for allowing me to do that. And now to each of your witnesses, two minutes apiece.
Speaker 35
Good afternoon, chairman Schultz and committee members. My name is Marco Duncan. I'm a policy fellow at Legal Services for Prison with Children and a member of All of Us or None. I'm here in strong support of a b twenty one twenty two because I still live with psychological scars caused by repeated arrests for bench warrants stemming from minor infractions. Between the ages of 17 and 30, I was trapped in a cycle of protectual policing and criminalization for being poor.
During that time, I was routinely profiled and stopped for driving. Those stops often resulted in me being issued citations for minor infractions. At that time, I didn't have a stable stable housing, so I didn't always receive, notice telling me when to appear in court. Without stable housing, a job, or family support, those tickets were not a mere inconvenience for me. They they were an impossibility.
I couldn't pay for them. In good faith, I initially tried to engage the system. I went to court whenever I had the resources to do so. The problem was I couldn't pay, fines, and I had trouble keeping up with the growing number of court dates. If I missed the court date, a bench warrant would be issued for failing to appear.
Speaker 54
I would then face additional fines and jail time. Those trips to jail often resulted in the loss of cars, closed relationships, and my ability to keep and find jobs. All of this took a devastating toll on my mental well-being and caused the loss of any stability I've managed to create. So fines and bench warrants nor jail time did anything to help me fix a broken windshield or replace tires. They only pushed me further into the hole and fostered a deep distrust of the system.
Speaker 35
Using the legal system to punish people for what they don't have does not align with American values. And for that reason, I respectfully request your support for a b twenty one twenty two. And and I would just add most of my infractions were valid. I I I I earned them. Some of them weren't.
And and there's nothing more demoralizing than to be held to account for something that never happened, and I experienced that.
Speaker 48
Hi, chair members. Asher Wade Jones, clinical supervisor at the Policy Advocacy Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law. Just here to answer questions, and I'll give the rest of my time back.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much. Next, we'll take the me too's in support of the bill. Please come down and state your name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 42
Good afternoon. Glenn Bachus for Drug Policy Alliance and Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in
Speaker 10
Sheila Wilson on behalf of La Defense and the Justice of Jobs Coalition in support.
Speaker 45
Alex Trantham, Local one forty eight, LA County Public Defenders Union. Sorry. We don't have a letter, but in support.
Speaker 31
Jay Vasquez, behalf of Communities United for Restorative Justice, strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.
Speaker 71
Ed Little on behalf of Californians for safety and justice, proud cosponsor, strong support.
Speaker 35
Marshall Arne Wyne on behalf of the ACU California action in support. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Brandon Green, Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud cosponsor and strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in strong support.
Speaker 11
Bernice Singh with legal services for prisoners with children in strong support.
Speaker 62
Sonia Thomas and Casaleno on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, all of us here in Oakland, and Kindred Care Collective in support.
Speaker 39
Henry Ortiz on behalf of all of us in the Sacramento chapter and community healers in strong support.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of 2122? Okay. Do we have any opposition witnesses here?
Okay. We do. Or, something else.
Speaker 19
Lauren, after California District Attorneys Association, and once the amendments are in print, we're planning on withdrawing our opposition, and we wanna thank the author and supporters for working with us.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Before we go on, anyone hoping to testify at length in opposition to the bill? Okay. Then at this time, we'll take any other positions to register.
Speaker 54
Good afternoon, chair members. Usha Muchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. In opposition, we recognize there are amendments, and we will review those and get back
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. We'll now turn it to Deus and at the chair's discretion with your permission. I'd like to start, by just thanking you, assembly member Calra. I rarely do this, but I really believe in the importance of this bill.
So at this time, I will move the bill and would hope for a second, have a second from doctor Sharp Collins, would love to be added as a coauthor. With that said, colleagues, mister Lackey.
Speaker 12
You have a question to the author. When you don't have someone that shows up, how do you dispo the case?
Speaker 13
There's a variety of options that are available to the courts, and I'll hand it over to my witness who might have more contemporary knowledge on that than when I was a public defender twenty years ago.
Speaker 48
Absolutely. So there's a number of ways that, a number of tools that courts have at their disposal to, dispose of these cases. So, the vehicle code, which is the vast majority of these infractions, about 93% of infractions filed in 2025 were
Speaker 70
Sure. Yes. And so for the vehicle code for vehicle code infractions, they those can be adjudicated in absentia as soon as someone fails to appear. So that's the vast majority of infractions have a tool that courts can use to adjudicate them in absentia. For non vehicle code infractions, courts have a number of options to dispose of cases.
Speaker 48
As you've heard, a bench warrant can still issue, but it'll be a non custodial, a kind of reminder notice in those 3% of cases. Courts are also able, to start collecting on those cases pursuant to the penal code as soon as someone fails to appear. So there's a method, to collect as well.
Speaker 12
Still unclear to me how how you've, arrive at a disposition because they're not determined to be guilty or not guilty if they're not there.
Speaker 48
That that is, true. I would say if you look at the statistics kind of with this with the current status as things are, most non vehicle code infractions are adjudicated. Over 50% of non vehicle code infractions
Speaker 12
But there will be a significant what I would consider to be a considered amount of at least a relevant amount of people that will have no disposition. And I find that to be not acceptable.
Speaker 48
Certainly. I think that so so for non vehicle code infractions, there is no, there's no way to adjudicate those
Speaker 18
I would like to commend the author on bringing forth this piece of legislation. I would like to be listed as a coauthor on this bill. Thank you so much, sir, for being here to share your story.
Speaker 18
I see you. Okay? I see you. And I need folks to understand the impact that things such as this have on so many people who live in a marginalized communities. Our black and brown community is constantly, I mean, heavily policed, you know, criticized.
I just talked about my own bill dealing with, making sure that we deal with the whole protected class. Right? So you talk about a stigma, things that continue to follow people along their journey based on things for what they've done. The fact that you have been incarcerated, it does impede on your ability to get a job. It does impede on your ability to find a house.
It it impedes on so many people's ability to do so many different types of things, and I've been struggling with that. You know? You should have a right seek meaningful employment. You should have a right to seek, the apprenticeship programs. And you should not be punished in in ways of such as this because you aren't able to get to certain places.
You shouldn't. There's there's a reason behind it. But I I wanted to say to the author, you have been one of the moral compasses in the area of racial and social justice. You have been. Because every time I sit here and you bring forth the bill, that bill is based on the people.
It's from the people. You are truly elevating the voices of not only your community, but the entire state of California who have been marginalized, judged, ridiculed, locked up for various things. I commend you on your hard fought legislation that you've been pushing all these years. So, I love working with you and, continue to elevate everyone's story. I am supporting this bill today and any other day.
And like I said, coming on as a coauthor, but I want everyone in this room to know that I hear you and I see you, and I'm hopeful that my colleagues will begin to hear you and see you the same way that we do. So thank you.
Speaker 1
Well said, doctor Sharp Collins. I'll just say ditto for the sake of time. Any other questions or comments? Nope. Assembly member, would you like to close?
Speaker 13
Well, thank you very much, mister chair and the assembly member, Sharpe Collins, for those very, very kind words and for joining in as coauthors. I do this work to reduce suffering, and I've been trying to do my best at it. And working as eleven years as a public defender, I had a front row seat to the injustices in our system. I I and I try to find a manner in which people can still be held to account, but we don't put an anchor around them and and and tear them down. These are infractions.
For fines, you shouldn't be hauled into jail, locked up on a Saturday, not going to court till a Monday or Tuesday, lose your job, lose your apartment because you owe a fine. For vehicle code infractions, there's already trial and absentia. You don't show up. You'll you you could be convicted. Right now, the current state of the law is that if if someone doesn't show up with those 7% of cases that are non vehicle code infractions, nothing happens.
Now there will be a noncustodial warrant issued. So it's actually so there there will be something that will happen subsequent to someone not showing up. So we're actually increasing the accountability for folks that don't show up, but not in a way that throws them in jail. But it's in a way that says, hey. You know what?
You gotta take care of this. Show up to court. And that's the kind of accountability that actually doesn't have a punishment greater far greater than any infraction that's occurred. So in any case, I I I do appreciate witness for being vulnerable and speaking to his truth and to everyone that came here today to speak in support. And I do wanna thank the the DA's association for for removing opposition with these amendments going into print and and they're them meaningfully coming to the table to find a path forward that I think brings justice, but also allows them to hold folks to account in the criminal courts as well.
So with that, I respect Fias for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Assembly Member Kalra. Proud to recommend an I today. And I just wanted to say, in an odd way, I know it was a long road to get here, but it reminded me of some of my my first cases where, you know, we start off far apart in the rounds of negotiation that can make you wanna pull your hair out. I'm sure my name was said in said in vain in the best possible way. I know.
But I can tell you truthfully, I look at this legislation and the product of those negotiations, and this is something I can proudly say will do a lot of good for a lot of people. When this hits the floor, I look forward to throwing my mic up and speaking in favor of it and having your back. And I echo everything that doctor Sharp Collins said about what you mean to the movement, to this building, and to all
Speaker 1
And and lastly, I just wanna say, sir, thank you very much for being here in our capital. It's never lost on me that you're taking time out of your day to be here to talk about your experience and your story, and I'm sure there's a lot of emotions and pain that's tied up in all of that. But I really thank you. And as doctor Sharp Collins said, I just want you to know we see you and we hear you and we appreciate you being here. You're welcome.
Thank you. Alright. With that, we have a motion and a second. Let's go ahead and call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item 16, a b twenty one twenty two by Assembly Member Kalra, the motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Schultz? Aye. Alaniz? Gonzalez? Aye.
Gonzales? Aye. Haney? Harbidean? Lackie?
Lackey, no. Nguyen, I. Nguyen, I. Ramos, Ramos, I. Sharp Collins, I.
Collins, I.
Speaker 1
You. Can't get them all, but you got enough. You're out. Thank you. Very quick programming note, everybody.
Thank you for the jazz hands. Love seeing that. I need to step away because I actually have some of my own bills, believe it or not. So I'm gonna leave you all in the very capable hands of our subcommittee six chair for budget, mister Ramos, who will be presiding. First, we have a bill from doctor Sharp Collins.
Next in the hopper will be mister Berman followed by, miss Dixon. And we're taking Sharp Collins out of order because we have a witness who needs to get on the road ASAP. Mister Berman, go Dodgers because I had the chance. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Do you want me to do both of them or just do the one? Just the one. Correct. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Alrighty. So good afternoon, chair and members. Assembly bill twenty seven sixty strengthens oversight of local public safety systems by expanding the authority of the office of inspector general to include probation departments and animal control agencies. By broadening the OIG's jurisdiction, the bill promotes transparency, accountability, and consist and and consist standards across agencies that play a critical role in community safety and well-being. Traditionally, the OIGs have focused on law enforcement entities such as police and sheriff's department, reflecting long standing concerns around use of force, misconduct, and public trust.
My community, in response to the effectiveness of the oversights for sheriffs, is now asking for additional oversight of other law enforcement entities. Public safety extends beyond traditional, policing. Probation departments supervise individuals in the community, including youth and adults, and play a central role in the rehabilitation and recidivism. At the same time, animal control agencies are increasingly on the front lines of public health and safety. They respond to issues such as dangerous animals, neglect, and disease risk.
Despite their significant authority and daily interactions with, with the public, these agencies often operate with limited independent oversight, creating gaps in accountability and consistency. So Assembly Bill twenty seven sixty expands the jurisdiction of the office of inspector general to include probation and animal control departments, recognizing their critical role in public safety and ensuring they are held to the same standards of transparency, accountability, and oversight as policing laws enforcement agencies. With me to present is Samantha with the office of the of the county board of supervisors Monica Montgomery Stepp out of San Diego County.
Speaker 59
Good afternoon. My name is Samantha Itazawa, and I am the public safety Policy Advisor for San Diego County Supervisor Monica Montgomery Stepp. I am here on the supervisor's behalf and I will be reading her statement. I am in support of Assembly Bill number 2,760 to include County Animal Control departments and the office of chief probation under the jurisdiction of an office of the inspector general. Although the probation and animal control departments are under the direct purview of the board of supervisors, allowing the office of inspector general to have oversight over these department departments would be another tool to ensure that public safety is achieved in a transparent, fair, and equitable manner.
Speaker 76
My office often receives complaints from both parents of youth in detention and from animal rights activists regarding perceived wrongdoings within our local animal control, and we do not have the capacity to investigate every complaint on our own. Thus, the office of inspector general would greatly relieve this burden, particularly at a time when San Diego County's probation department is under state investigation and complaints regarding probation and animal control departments are numerous. Additionally, while our local Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board or CLERB has the authority to investigate the probation department, CLERB is often required to summarily dismiss those cases because they are unable to access juvenile records. Moreover, Clerk may only investigate if a complaint is filed while the inspector general has the ability to conduct its own audits and inspections or conduct an investigation on its own initiative. Thus, I support the I support assembly bill number twenty seven sixty to include county animal control departments and the office of chief probation under the jurisdiction of an office of inspector general.
Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much for your testimony. Those in support? Those in support?
Speaker 22
chair and members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the probation officers of California's in respectful opposition today. As was mentioned by the previous witness, probation departments serve directly the Board of Supervisors under their direct purview in the counties in which they operate. Probation, importantly, is also governed by a body of state laws ensuring both consistency and operability and also directly serves the judiciary as an arm of the court. These things require extra care when considering new laws around implementing individual county stand alone oversight entities.
It's critical that we ensure that practices are not in conflict or duplicative of other authority held by other entities. Under existing law and practice, probation departments, again, serve both the Board of Supervisors and the judiciary. There is significant authority and inspection obligations around, Probation and Juvenile Justice, for example, the Board of State Community Corrections, the Grand Jury, Departments of Public Health, Fire Marshal, Ombudsperson, and Environmental Health, among others. These existing structures and processes already provide what we understand is being sought. Transparency, communication, coordination, we welcome all of those things.
Speaker 49
But we also need to make sure, that in our concern that this bill will not end up addressing something that's missing in existing law, but in fact would lead to additional layering, duplication, and confusion which could have the impact of delaying the very things that are being sought. You know, oftentimes, there are different entities involved that you we would wanna make sure that if one thing is happening in front of the other, does that impede the very work of those other entities? All of this has to work together for the best, you know, coordination, again, from the probation department's perspective, from the county, the youth, all of the entities involved. So for those reasons, we we are concerned that this specific bill doesn't actually, again, provide for the transparency communication coordination as there are existing processes, very extensive existing that cover that. So for those reasons, we are opposed today.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much for that. Any other testimony in opposition? Any positions on in opposition? Seeing none, back to the diocese. Any questions, comments from around the diocese?
Hearing none, would you like to close?
Speaker 18
Sure. Thank you. Last year, I successfully I was, successful in getting Assembly Bill eight forty seven signed into law. That bill also went through this committee and the votes reflected that you all believe in the power of civilian oversight and being clear and, compliant. Only through transparency can we rebuild public trust in law enforcement.
So if assembly bill a 47 was good enough to get through and get signed by the governor, then why not apply that same accountability to, to other law enforcement agencies? Assembly bill twenty seven sixty does that, and it does that by improving the law enforcement activity and community relations. So, just also noting that this bill did come from my own county board of supervisors asking for additional support based on the different types of complaints that were coming in, and they're and they are saying the exact same thing. If there's power in civilian oversight, then let's do that. So thank you so much for your time, and I respectfully ask for your night vote.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much for your presentation, on your bill. At this time, we're gonna go into recess.
Speaker 15
We're back out of recess. I make a motion, to move the bill. Is there a second? Sure. Second by mister Lackey.
Speaker 11
For item 34 a b twenty seven sixty by assembly member Sharp Collins, the motion is due passed. Schultz, Alanis, Gonzales, Haney, Harbetian, Blackie.
Speaker 2
Thank you, mister chair. My goodness. We had a is it I'm glad I waited five minutes for an improvement in the chair. In California, nearly all firearm sales must go through a federally licensed firearms dealer who is also on the California Department of Justice's centralized list of authorized dealers to sell in the state. While the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is the primary federal agency tasked with inspecting firearm dealers, the agency has exercised little oversight over the firearm industry due to a loss in funding and the rollback of important safety regulations.
Speaker 68
This has opened the door for bad actors to purchase firearms illegally that could then be used to commit crimes, endangering the lives of Californians. AB eighteen ten would address this gap in oversight of California's firearm industry by providing the California DOJ with the necessary authority to hold firearm dealers accountable and further prevent the possession and use of illegal firearms. Specifically, this bill would clarify the DOA DOJ's authority to remove dealers from the state's centralized list for failure to meet the requirements to operate in the state or failure to remedy to remedy violations within ninety days of discovery during an inspection. Under a b eighteen ten, individuals who have been removed from the list and are no longer authorized dealers will be fined and become ineligible to work for or engage in any business related to a firearm dealer for two years. To crack down on crime guns, firearms that were illegally possessed and used in a crime, a b eighteen ten would also require the DOJ to conduct a yearly inspection of the 10 firearm dealer locations with the highest percentage of crime gun sales as long as those dealers were responsible for selling at a minimum 20 crime guns.
Speaker 2
In addition, this bill would provide the DOJ with reasonable flexibility to adjust the annual fees associated with maintaining the centralized list and inspecting firearm dealer locations. California has some of the strongest firearm laws in the country, and we need to continue to ensure that firearms are not being used illegally. AB eighteen ten is a smart, targeted approach to ensure that California firearm dealers are responsible actors. If firearm dealers break the law, they can take the proper steps to remedy violations or risk losing their authorization to sell. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
And here with me is Ethan Murray, state policy attorney with Giffords.
Speaker 8
I'm Chair Ramos and members of the committee. My name is Ethan Murray. I am a state policy attorney for Giffords, the gun violence prevention organization founded by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords. Effective oversight of the gun industry is a cornerstone of preventing gun violence, including regulating gun dealers and holding the industry accountable for irresponsible practices. As assembly member Berman discussed, this has historically been the purview of the ATF.
Under the current administration, however, the ATF has been starved for resources. The ATF's punishment for law breaking dealers has been rescinded. 80% of the ATF's nearly 2,500 agents have been diverted at times into immigration enforcement. Consequently, gun prosecutions informed by the ATF fell by 10% in 40 of the nation's 94 federal court districts in 2025. Fortunately, Californians have a Department of Justice dedicated to ensuring oversight.
AB eighteen ten ensures the California Department of Justice can step up even further. It will allow them to revoke approval to operate in the state if dealers fail to correct the violations that inspections reveal within ninety days. AB eighteen ten would also enable the DOJ to leverage the information it gains through current inspections by directing its limited resources to follow the data. It would require additional inspections of the top 10 dealers associated with higher rates of crime guns. Importantly, the vast majority of California dealers follow the law and correct violations when they occur.
From 2020 to 2024, the Department of Justice field representatives expecting these dealers recorded 41,602 violations. By July 2025, eighty five percent of those violations were resolved. The policy goal is to push the small percentage of dealers who do not take corrective action toward compliance and ensure we pay close attention to where the data indicates there might be a problem. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 47
Good afternoon, chair members. Rebecca Marcus representing Brady, California and Brady Campaign as well as my colleagues at every town in support. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. Testimony in opposition? Seeing none, those in opposition? Seeing none, back to the dais. So member Lackey?
Speaker 12
Yeah. I'm I'm having a problem with this a little bit, because it seems to be void of what I would say logic because punishing the business for the actions of the consumer doesn't seem to be logical or even fair. I mean, where does this stop? Are we gonna start going after auto dealers because their consumers are inordinately involved in car crashes. I mean, this is the kind of logic that it frustrates me.
And and I know that there's a strong feeling against firearms, and I'm not here to argue that. But I I do believe that the connection between punishing a seller of a illegal item is not fair. As a matter of fact, it even says illegally possessed firearms. That means they didn't buy from the dealer. So I'm just really confused by this.
It it seems very illogical to me, so that's why I can't support it.
Speaker 2
Thank thank you, mister Lackin. To confirm, you're you're speaking to the issue of investigating the top 10 dealers for crime guns?
Speaker 2
Okay. I guess I would I would offer up that so what what that would do is is there would be an investigation. And maybe so I suppose from your perspective, which is valid, an investigation is punishing the dealer. But there wouldn't be any real punishment. You know, it it would require the inspection of the 10 firearm dealer locations with the highest percentage of crime gun sales, but it would only penalize dealers if they are found to have actually violated California law.
So it's not saying there's an automatic punishment. It's saying, hey. You know, this kind of raises a a red flag that over 20 guns crime guns have been sold by your your store. Let's take a look and see what's going on. And maybe it is just bad luck or random happenstance, and and and then there won't be any punishment.
Or maybe there's something else happening. And if there is something else that's found, then you'll have ninety days correct me when I'm wrong, but you'll have ninety days to to fix that. And then if you don't fix that after ninety days, then there'll be punishment. So I doubt that that will alleviate your concerns, but just wanted to kind of offer up that it's not a direct you're one of the top 10 crime gun dealers in the state. You automatically get punished.
It it starts a process that could lead to punishment. But even within that process, there's the opportunity to to correct it before this punishment.
Speaker 12
Yeah. I'm not here to argue the my point because I think we we come from a different place. But but I do believe that this is setting a precedent that's that's not healthy. So for that reason, I I'm not able to support your bill.
Speaker 15
Thank you for your your questions, comments. Any other comments from the dais? Questions? Seeing none, would you like to close?
Speaker 2
Yeah. Appreciate the the conversation. Appreciate the concerns that were raised. This is really just trying to step give the the state department of justice the the power and ability to step in where there's been a significant backtracking of federal oversight of gun dealers and and make sure that if a problem is found, if if a legal violation is found, then a, let's make sure that that that gun dealer has the time to correct that. You know, we we the whole goal is for people to correct the problem.
And then if they don't, then there's a punishment. And, you know, if if problems have been found and they've chosen not to correct them, then I would argue that we don't want those people selling guns to Californians. And and so that's the whole purpose behind the bill. Continue to work with colleagues who have concerns to do what we can to address any, you know, unintended consequences and make sure that the scope of the bill is as narrow as possible. Respect the s v r I vote.
Speaker 15
Thank you, so much. This bill, a b eighteen ten does, enjoy a reco from the chair, chair Salz. Is there a motion or a second on this bill? There's been a motion and a second. Please call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item seven a b eighteen ten by asylum member Berman, the motion is due passed with the appropriations committee. Schultz, Alanis, Alanis, no, Gonzalez, Gonzales, aye. Haney, Barbadian, Lackie? Lackie, no. Wen?
Ramos?
Speaker 15
we have, assembly member Dixon with twenty two sixty one. Let's go then. Thank you, senate member. Please proceed.
Speaker 68
Thank you, mister chair. Can you hear me okay? Good. Well, I have good morning. It's now afternoon.
Good afternoon, chair and colleagues. I am pleased to accept the committee's amendments. Thank you. I would like also like to thank the chair and the committee staff for their help in working with my team and myself for, to refine and narrow this bill. I believe the collaboration between our offices shows that this is a bipartisan issue and importantly, a bipartisan solution that provides the necessary protections for victims and their family and household.
Speaker 63
AB twenty two sixty one is a straightforward bill that clarifies and restores judicial authority to issue criminal protective orders, CPOs, to a victim's family and household members. Existing law, penal code section one three six point two, authorizes courts to issue criminal protective orders restraining a defendant from contact with victims of specified offenses, including domestic violence, sexual offenses, human trafficking, and gang related crimes. In 2018, as part of broader reforms, this code section was amended to limit protective orders to the victim of the crime, quote unquote, which appellate courts have interpreted to mean only the specific victim of the count for which the defendant was convicted. The unintended consequences of this 2018 change is that it can leave vulnerable individuals without protection, particularly in cases involving plea negotiations or multiple charges where not all victims are included in the final conviction. AB twenty two sixty one corrects this and ensures courts can issue protective orders consistent with victim safety and the realities of domestic violence, sexual abuse, and human trafficking.
Speaker 68
By clearly defining who may be protected and requiring competent evidence, the bill ensures due process while allowing courts to respond appropriately to demonstrated risk. AB twenty two sixty one closes a statutory gap, strengthens victim safety, and aligns this statute with the legislature's long standing intent to expand, not restrict the availability of criminal protective orders in serious cases. AB twenty two sixty one is sponsored by the California District Attorneys Association and the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney. With me today, I have Tracy try t four Truller from the California District Attorneys Association, and I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, assembly member Dixon. My name is Tracy Tiefertiler. I'm a supervisor at the Santa Clara County district attorney's office, and I'm here in support on behalf of my office and the California district attorney's association.
Speaker 77
I'd like to make three points in support of the bill. The first is that the bill is directly responsive to what courts have said are the limits of the twenty eighteen amendments. This is very tailored to what courts have identified as the failures of the current, version of penal code one thirty six point two. Second, the bill is narrowly tailored. It only applies when a defendant has been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt whether by plea or a trial.
It only applies to the family and household members of the named victims, and it vests discretion in the judge to determine whether or not a protective order is necessary. Finally and most importantly, the bill protects those who are most likely to suffer the collateral consequences of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, the family members and loved ones of victims. No mother should have to look over her shoulder when she tries to help her daughter escape from a domestic violence relationship. No husband should have to watch his back out of fear that he will be attacked or threatened by his wife's former partner. In my experience as a prosecutor, these are the kinds of people who suffer the most when they cannot be protected, and this bill would fortify the courage that they already have.
I respectfully request an I vote. Thank you.
Speaker 61
is David Bollog with the SFB Alliance, and we are in support. Thank you.
Speaker 54
Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Any others in support? Testimony in opposition? Any testimony in opposition?
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell, Houston, California Public Defenders Association. Point of clarification, were the amendments accepted?
Speaker 68
Yes. I think I said that. Yes. I have accept I am pleased to accept the committee amendments. Yes.
Speaker 25
Javier Rodriguez with ACLU California action. Still reviewing the amendments. We appreciate the member for taking those. Final register opposition bill in print as well as for San Francisco Public Defenders Association. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. Any others in opposition? Seeing none, coming back to the dais. Any questions, comments?
Speaker 15
There's been a motion and a second on the bill. Would you like to close?
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. This bill does enjoy a aye echo from the chair, chair Schultz. Please call the roll.
Speaker 11
Item 19 a b twenty two sixty one by assembly member Dixon. The motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz, Alanis?
Speaker 11
Alanis? Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Haney? Barbadian? Blackie, aye. Blackie, aye.
Gwen, Ramos,
Speaker 41
Alright. Thank you, mister chair. Members, a b eighteen fourteen is a simple common sense bill to standardize DUI training for peace officers primarily assigned to traffic enforcement. Currently, police departments across California have different standards and requirements for DUI detection training. As a result, training varies widely, and some officers may not receive the same level of preparation.
Impaired driving remains a major public safety issue, especially with the rise in drug impaired driving. Under this bill, officers would be required to complete sixteen hours of DUI training within one year of their assignment. This bill would not create a new course, just use the courses already provided by the California Highway Patrol. This bill ensures that every officer has the tools to recognize impairment and keep our roads safe. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
My name is Raul Verdugo, director of advocacy with Alcohol Justice. We're here in support of a b one eight one four, a, smart evidence based approach that we feel will strengthen deterrence and save lives. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you. Any others in support? Any testimony in opposition? Those in opposition? Seeing none back to the dais.
Speaker 12
Summary Rolakki? Yeah. Obviously, I have a strong feeling about this issue and committing twenty eight years to my my profession in addressing not only collision investigation, which most cities do not fall within the responsibility of the California Highway Patrol. And so therefore, police departments have their own traffic officers. And their training is a little different than what my what my agency actually offers, but there's a great need for this.
I'll just say that, and I'm very thankful that you're bringing this forward, especially when it comes to impaired driving. It it actually takes a a very unique skill set to be able to identify truly impaired individuals. Obviously, individuals are not so hard to identify, but those who are significantly impaired, but and especially when it comes to non alcohol, It it becomes a very difficult thing to to identify, but very important to identify. And so I look forward to this bill passing so that we can do what we need to do to hold people accountable. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. This bill does chair, carry an aye reco from the chair, chair Schultz. Please call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item a a b eighteen fourteen by assembly member Alanis, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Alanis?
Speaker 11
Alanis? Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Haney? Harbodian? Blackie? Aye.
Blackie? Aye. Wen? Ramos?
Speaker 15
Measure is on call. Would you like to present AB twenty three twenty eight?
Speaker 41
Yes, mister chair. Thank you. AB twenty three twenty eight is a critical step towards improving safety on our roads. California sees more than 200,000 hit and run crashes each year, many resulting in serious injury or loss of life. Yet current penalties, just two to four years, do not adequately reflect the severity of the fleeing of fleeing the scene.
Speaker 3
This bill strengthens accountability by increasing penalties for serious hit and run offenses to three to five years in prison, along with fines up to $10,000. Even an additional year is a meaningful step towards a greater accountability. It also sends a clear message. Drivers must stay, render aid, and take responsibility for their actions. As legislators, we have a duty to protect public safety, and stronger accountability has been shown to deter reckless behavior, and I respectfully ask for aye vote.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. Any, lead testimony in support? Thank you. Those in support?
Speaker 26
Good afternoon. Elizabeth Kim, policy director at Initiate Justice. I respectfully oppose a b two three two eight. I do wanna acknowledge the intent. We all agree that people should stop and report accidents and render aid.
I personally know what it feels like to be hit and have someone drive away without rendering aid, so I appreciate the intent behind this bill. But even with that lived experience, I would like to explain three reasons why this bill is not the solution. A v two three two eight does not change behavior. It simply increases punishment. Leaving the scene causing injury or death is already a serious felony with up to four years in prison.
And where there is actual culpability, gross negligence, or intoxication, there are already significantly higher penalties. This bill does not require intent. It does not require fault. It is a pure sentence enhancement bill. And that and that matters.
Speaker 7
Research, criminologists, law enforcement backed studies such as the National Institute of Justice, the US DOJ, and California law recognize that increasing punishment severity does not deter behavior. What matters is certainty of getting caught, not sentence length. It also second, it also raises proportionality concerns. In cases like Lynch and People v Dillon, the California Supreme Court made clear that punishment must align with individual culpability, not just the outcome. This bill does the opposite, escalating punishment based on a death even where someone may not have caused it.
Speaker 26
Longer sentences can even increase recidivism. And third, this bill is reactive, not preventative. This is yet another bill that is reactive. And for decades now, studies have shown, and we should know by now, prevention is cheaper than incarceration. It increases incarceration, it costs California dollars, and it does not stop the next accident.
And there's an old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We if we are serious about safety, we should be investing in prevention, not expanding punishment that we already know does not work. And for these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote.
Speaker 74
Good afternoon. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.
Speaker 39
Henry Ortiz on behalf of Initiate Justice and Community Healers and Strong Opposition.
Speaker 10
Sheila Wilson on behalf of La Defensea and the Justice Jobs Coalition in opposition.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. Any others in opposition? Seeing none, back to the dais. Any questions, comment? Assemblyman Verlaki.
Speaker 12
Yeah. I take exception to a couple of things the opposition brought forward. First of all, there was the allegation that the person may not have caused the collision. Well, in order to be convicted of this measure, you have to be the proximate cause of the collision. So that's not accurate.
Secondly, on the prevention, we would all like to be able to prevent all crimes. This is no exception. But you gotta remember, in this instance, someone chooses they choose to leave the scene and they they have the disregard for others involved in this collision. That's an overt act that deserves very, very careful response to. And in this instance, they have to have been deceased.
And it doesn't mean that they were immediately deceased. It means that this crash caused that. So it's possible that in some of these instances if there had been care given and care summoned to the scene, death could have been prevented. So this is a very clear cut thing proposal in my mind. And especially if you have a loved one that's been involved in this or or even a friend, it's a final circumstance that possibly could have been prevented, but at least it's uncaring and should be dealt with harshly.
So I'm happy to support this.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. Any other questions, comments from the diets? Senior, would you like to close?
Speaker 41
Yes, mister chair. You know, I'm thankful the opposition is okay and they're involved in a hit and run. Imagine if they would have been in middle of nowhere and that person could have rendered or didn't render aid and somebody could have been hurt or maybe died from. Make great points from the opposition, but, I actually agree with my colleague up there in the dice. It's something that we have to do that we should help out with public safety, and I think this helps with doing that.
So I ask for aye vote.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. AB twenty three twenty eight does enjoy a chair, the chair Schultz, I reco on this bill. Please call the roll. Is there a motion and a second?
Speaker 11
For item 22, a b twenty three twenty eight by assembly member Alanis, the motion is due passed with appropriations committee. Schultz? Alanis?
Speaker 11
Alanis? Aye. Gonzales? Aye. Gonzales?
Aye. Haney? Barbadian? Blackie? Aye.
Blackie? Aye. Nguyen? Ramos?
Speaker 15
mister chair. Our next, presenter is assembly member Massito with AB twenty forty. Please proceed.
Speaker 51
Thank you, mister chair and members. I'm here to present a b twenty forty that we have named Lorenzo's law. A b twenty forty makes a procedural change to California's juvenile transfer law. Under current law, in cases that are already eligible for transfer to adult court, a judge may order transfer only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system. AB twenty forty changes that evidentiary standard to preponderance of the evidence.
It does not expand who is eligible for transfer, and it does not eliminate judicial discretion for the individualized hearing process. This bill is about restoring balance. California law still recognizes that some crimes are so serious that transfer to adult court must remain a real option. But in practice, that option is disappearing. According to the California Department of Justice, in 2024, there were 32,874 juvenile arrests statewide.
Remember that number. Including 6,739 violent felony arrests. Remember that number. Yet only 24 fitness hearings. 24 were reported, and probation departments recorded only five remands to the adult system.
That is not a balanced system. That is a system where the pathway exists on paper, but is almost never available in practice. AB twenty forty does not mandate transfer. It allows judges to exercise their discretion under a more workable standard in the most serious, already transfer eligible cases. Judges will still consider the full statutory criteria, including criminal sophistication, prior delinquent history, prior rehabilitation efforts, whether the youth can be real rehabilitated before juvenile jurisdiction expires, and the circumstances and gravity of the offense.
Speaker 32
This bill keeps those practices in place. It is also worth noting that when voters passed proposition 57, transfer decisions were put into place in to the hands of judges, and the applicable burden was preponderance of the evidence. This bill continues to prioritize rehabilitation, which is the ultimate goal of our justice system. This bill is named for Lorenzo Sanchez, a young man from my district whose family member members have turned unimaginable grief into a call for reform. I will allow his mother to tell that story herself, but her family's experience has made painfully clear that the current system fails victims and leaves families feeling that justice was never truly available.
Speaker 51
With me today is Julia Sanchez, Lorenzo's mother who will speak to how the current system failed her family. I also have
Speaker 51
Daniel Sanchez from the probation officers of California who will explain why existing law falls short in practice and why this bill will help ensure that transfer hearings remain a meaningful option in the most serious cases. Julia?
Speaker 78
My name is Julia Sanchez. I am Lorenzo Sanchez's mother. Lorenzo Sanchez was my oldest son. Lorenzo with the grew up without a father figure in his life, but that didn't stop him from doing good. Lorenzo was also my daily inspiration and a father figure to his siblings as a role model and to mean to the community.
Lorenzo was very athletic and smart young man who made good choices to stay out of trouble. Lorenzo was the type of kid that would walk around from from trouble, which on Saturday, which was supposed to be a family day turned into a nightmare. Lorenzo had goals. He had a future plan. He talked about making it to Fresno's day and guiding his siblings to follow his steps.
Speaker 72
Now those dreams are gone. His simply his siblings looked up looked up to Lorenzo daily, and he was guiding up and his brothers to follow his steps. Lorenzo was taken by a juvenile who will walk free in couple years with the future no responsibility taken responsibility taken for an innocent life. Seeing my son's lifeless body in the ground, his side staring up in the sky hoping someone would save his life is a is a hunting memory, some something I will forever remember, something a mother should never see. My family will live with this pain daily.
Speaker 78
What happened to Lorenzo was not a mistake, and I'm asking in honor of Lorenzo and other victims who are asking for a meaningful step for families affected by juveniles who committed these horrific crimes to be charged as crimes as committed. Lorenzo and other victims didn't have a chance didn't have a second chance.
Speaker 22
Chair and members, Daniel Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California, as the sponsors of of AB twenty forty, and I wanna thank the assembly member for carrying this and and certainly for sharing, this the story and the impacts to to their families' lives. This bill is about restoring balance, recognizing the impacts of these crimes on victims as and their families as you just heard, and honoring the will of the voters. We wanna be clear about our work on this issue that we strongly support a thoughtful and narrow approach to the process to transfer youth to adult courts. We remain deeply committed to the mission of public safety and rehabilitation of youth. But for a small number of cases, rehabilitation in the juvenile system is not viable, and the current standard does not fully account for that.
When voters passed proposition 57, they supported a process to give the court's discretion using a preponderance of the evidence standard when deciding whether to transfer juveniles who committed the most serious and violent offenses to adult court. I think it's also important to note that at that time that the voters passed proposition 57, the system also looked very different, including at that time, the state division of juvenile justice still existed as as an option. But that standard was later changed to clearing convincing, creating a much higher threshold. The result has been far fewer transfers even in the most serious and egregious cases and shorter periods of accountability for violent offenses. While we agree that the pathway to adult court should be narrow, it should not be made impractical to use.
Nearly 70% of youth in secure youth treatment facilities are committed for the most serious and violent offenses and nearly half for murder or attempted murder. These are not typical juvenile cases. AB twenty forty restores the voter approved standard. It's narrowly tear tailored and preserves judicial discretion, but also ensures that the most serious offenses judges have in those cases the practical and appropriate standard to make these critical decisions. In closing, a b twenty forty strikes a needed balance.
It protects public safety, honors the will of the voters, and importantly recognizes the community safety consequences of violent crimes and the impacts to victims' families as you've heard today. Thank you.
Speaker 44
Mister chairman members Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.
Speaker 19
Lauren Aftter, California District Attorneys Association, strong support.
Speaker 36
Aaron Cervantes on behalf of Citizens Against Homicide, strong support.
Speaker 31
Thank you. First off, my condolences to you and your family. Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Jay Vasquez. I serve as policy director for Communities United for Restorative Justice.
At 16 years old, I was transferred, to adult court and sent to a maximum security prison. There were no programs designed for youth, no counseling for the trauma I carried. What I found instead was violence, isolation, and more trauma. One guard told me, he said, hey, youngster. Do yourself a favor and hang yourself.
You're never getting out of here. That was the environment, a system that did not believe in change or growth. Adult prison did not heal the wounds and trauma that led me there. It did not nurture responsibility or accountability. Rather, it deepened the damage and treated me as if I was beyond redemption.
And yet, I survived and came home. I proved what science and lived experience tell us all, that young people have a tremendous capacity to change and grow. I earned my BA in sociology with top honors and was selected as a Willie Brown junior fellow. Today, I serve my community and work to build the opportunities I never had. But let me be clear.
Speaker 40
I accomplished these things in spite of adult prison, not because of it. The research is also clear that sending youth to the adult system makes communities less safe. The Centers for Disease Control Prevention and the US Department of Justice have both found that transferring youth to the adult system increases violent recidivism. Even the California Supreme Court has recognized that transfer is the most severe punishment in the juvenile justice system can inflict. With something that serious, we should actually be strengthening the standard, not weakening it.
Speaker 31
I was transferred under preponderance standard, the lowest bar in the law. California later recognized this bar was far too low and just a few years ago raised the bar through a b twenty three sixty one.
Speaker 31
I will. One more sentence. The court should have sufficient evidence and be sure, truly sure, that a young person cannot be rehabilitated before sending them into the traumatic world I endured. AB twenty forty does the opposite. It lowers that standard, ignores the evidence, and puts more young people and our communities at risk.
Thank you.
Speaker 45
Again, my name is Alex Trantham. I'm a public defender from LA County with Local one forty eight LA County Public Defenders Union in opposition to AB twenty forty. I've spent the last three years as a public defender representing youth. In that time, I sat next to two youth in transfer hearings, watching them learn in real time that they may spend the rest of their lives in adult prison for something they did before their brains were fully formed. That moment never gets easier.
I want to be clear about what the current standard actually means in practice. Clear and convincing evidence means a firm belief, not a guess, not a coin flip, before sending a child to a system designed for adults. Judges can still get there. I lost one of those hearings. That former 17 year old is now in prison for twenty five years to life.
The problem is not that clear and convincing evidence is too hard to meet. The problem is that a b twenty forty wants to make it even easier. For context, clear and convincing is still lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard used in every adult criminal trial. If we require the standard, that standard, before convicting an adult of a misdemeanor, we should require at least as much before deciding a child has no future in the juvenile system. Honestly, the standard should be higher.
Science is unambiguous. Adolescent brains are not fully developed until the mid twenties. The capacity for change is highest in young people and most underestimated in courtrooms. I've also seen people who were transferred as youth later granted parole or a new hearing or a living proof that children grow, reflect, and transform. The question at a transfer hearing is not who this child is today.
It is who they can become. And we cannot ignore who bears the cost when we get that question wrong. Black youth now make up 36% of all transfers, up from 17% just two years ago. And I believe the author's numbers of transfer hearings is lower. That's just actually what has been heard, not the total filed.
And the discretion this bill expands has never been exercised equally. It will not start now. 20 AB twenty forty asked courts to make that determination with less evidence. This is not justice. That is not public safety.
I urge your no vote.
Speaker 10
Sheila Wilson on behalf of La Defensea and the Justice of Jobs Coalition in opposition.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, strong opposition.
Speaker 74
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.
Speaker 7
Danny Munoz on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners of Children. Opposition.
Speaker 30
Daphne Guzani on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law in strong opposition.
Speaker 39
Henry Ortiz on behalf of, Initiate Justice, all of us in Unsacramento and community heaters in strong opposition.
Speaker 71
And little on behalf of Californians for safety and justice in opposition.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very much. Sorry to keep you waiting. I understand we just took the Me Toos in opposition. So at this point, we'll turn it over to the dais, mister Lackey.
Speaker 12
Yeah. First, let me express my sincere condolences to you, ma'am, for the loss the preventable loss of yours Thank you. Son there. I'm I'm very, very sorry. And to the opposition, congratulations to your rehabilitation.
And I'm sorry that you endured misconduct in prison because that's what it was. It was misconduct for someone to make those utterances to you. But I also have to say that I'm very once again, this is the second time today where we seem to have a lot of sympathy for offenders. And the whole thing about this brain development drives me crazy because we are we actually saying that you have to be 26 years old to know it's not okay to kill somebody? That is absurd.
Absolutely absurd and insulting, especially to victims. I mean, we're we're talking about justice here and public safety. This could not be more reasonable to actually hold people accountable for their actions. When you take the life of someone else, why do they become ghosts? In California, do.
So thank you for trying to fix that. You have my support.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member Lackey. Would anyone else like to be heard? Mister vice chair?
Speaker 41
Thank you, mister chair. I wanna thank the author for bringing this bill forward, and I would also ask to be a coauthor if I could, please. And for you, ma'am, I would like to echo what my colleague had said. I I know you've been working really hard to get this through and stuff like that and and continue to do it, and we're we're proud of you for doing that. So I sympathize with you and condolences as well.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister vice chair. Any other questions or comments? Alright. Assembly member, would you like to close?
Speaker 51
Yes, mister chair. First to mister Lackey, Lorenzo will never be a ghost. We will continue to make sure that his name is honored and true change comes for Julia's dedication to this. And to the opposition, when you ask who these perpetrators were are today or would be today, who would Lorenzo be today? Who would Lorenzo be in ten years?
We keep talking about offenders, but not enough about victims. AB twenty forty does not expand who is eligible for transfer or remove judicial discretion. A judge still has to hold an individualized hearing and weigh all of the statutory factors before any transfer can occur. This bill continues to prioritize rehabilitation, which is the ultimate goal of our justice system. Recently, I read your op ed, and it highlighted your story who went from being a 16 year old offender to a college educated reformed man, a remarkable transformation that deserves sincere recognition.
Your story is a powerful testament to human resilience, and you mentioned that you would be here today to oppose this measure. But your success and your presence here today reinforces the core intent of AB twenty forty. The fact that you've successfully transformed within the adult system proves that adult oversight and meaningful accountability are not barriers to reform. They are often catalysts for it. The current system, which AB twenty forty seeks to strengthen, provided the structure and the decades long window necessary for this profound change to occur.
If we want more, quote, shining examples of true restoration, we must ensure the system maintains the high standards of evidence and accountability that made your transformation possible. Your success isn't an argument against the system. It is evidence that it works. Whatever dataset you look at, the larger point is the same. The system is not functioning the way it was intended to.
The Department of Justice 2024 data showed just 24 hearings statewide for violent felonies only, not misdemeanors. And the OICR's more recent data showed a 130 transfer hearings in the fiscal year twenty twenty three to twenty twenty four. These proceedings remain exceptionally rare when compared to the overall scale of serious juvenile crime in California, including thousands of violent felony arrests. The transfer framework has become so restrictive that in practice, a tool the law still recognizes for the most serious cases is increasingly theoretical instead of real.
Speaker 51
day, this bill is about victims and their families like Lorenzo and Julia. They deserve a system that does not make transfer theoretical. They deserve a process that values rehabilitation, but also leaves room for accountability, public safety, and justice when the facts warrant it. For those reasons, I respectfully ask for your I vote in Lorenzo's honor. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, assembly member. I I I I'm not going to bury the lead. My recommendation will be a no, and I'm about to explain why that is. But I do wanna say I appreciate you being here, ma'am. I appreciate all of you for your testimony.
I apologize that I couldn't be here to listen to it. The very least that I owe all of you is I give you my word after we adjourn today. I will go back and at least watch the tape and listen to what all of you had to say. And, ma'am, I'm so sorry for your loss. I really am.
With that said, assembly member, as you and many in the room are aware, the standard for transfers of juveniles from juvenile court to adult court was amended in 2022 to the standard that we have today, that being clear and convincing evidence. That is in order to transfer a juvenile to adult criminal court, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of juvenile court. Your bill, as you've stated today, would return the burden to buy a preponderance of the evidence, the standard that existed before the 2022 amendment. Our committee has in its possession yet another bill that would also change the standard for juvenile transfers. In that case, raising the standard to beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is we have two separate, and I would argue competing proposals seeking to change the current standard in either direction, one that would arguably raise it, one that would lower it. Courts are still working through the 2022 change as applied retroactively to non final cases, and changing the process yet again, in my view, would create inconsistencies and risk confusion. I cannot support bouncing back and forth from one standard to another. Further and separately, I would note that data from OICR seems to indicate that transfer rates for juveniles have not decreased significantly. I am thus unconvinced as I sit here today that the current standard is prohibitively burdensome on DAs.
For these reasons, I cannot support the bill bill today. I am recommending a no. I presume that we have a motion. Well, I'm gonna assume that the vice chair and mister Lackey would motion and second. Good prediction.
Thank you. I figured. So we do have a motion. We will take the role. We're probably not gonna know the outcome, so it will be on call.
We'll wait for absent members, and we'll let you know the outcome at the end of the day. Let's conduct the role.
Speaker 11
For item 12, a b twenty forty by assembly member Massito, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz? No. Schultz? No.
Alanis?
Speaker 11
Alanis? Aye. Gonzales? Haney? Barbadian?
Blackie? Aye. Blackie? Aye. Wen?
Ramos? Aye. Ramos, I, Sharp Collins. The measure's on call.
Speaker 1
Okay. As I said, that measure remains on call. So we're gonna break at 04:00, but at some point this evening, we'll know the final outcome. We'll let the assembly member's office now.
Speaker 1
Provided that there's no objection, and I assume there won't be, I will grant it.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. Alright, everyone. We have maybe one more bill if we can be quick before the break, and I see that our speaker pro tem is back and has been patiently waiting. So assembly member Lowenthal, if we can take up $23.84 in the next fifteen minutes, if that's possible. And then everyone else, we will break for veterans committee that will be in this room for approximately an hour.
As soon as they're done, we come right back in and finish up for the day. Mister Lowenthal, the floor is yours.
Speaker 21
Appreciate you, mister chair. Thank you so much. Boy, my notes say good morning, but was a good morning. Somewhere. Somewhere, it is a good morning.
One, two, it is my pleasure to present a B twenty three eighty four. I've been working on this for some time and will continue to work on this. Before I begin, I want to express my sincere appreciation to this committee, the staff for their work and care that they have brought to this measure. AB twenty three eighty four provides pathway for individuals to seek, a court order sealing their criminal record provided that they satisfy clearly defined eligibility requirements. Under current law, convictions, other than those that have been vacated, are not eligible for sealing, only expungement.
When an expungement is granted, the guilty plea is withdrawn, the case is dismissed, and the individual moves forward without a conviction on record. In California, before the rise of the digital era, an expungement carried nearly the same practical weight as sealing a record, but that is no longer the case. Expungement alone is no longer enough. Third party data brokers, commercial background screening services, and online archives continue to spread criminal history records without limit or end. With a basic online search, charges from decades ago can appear in moments regardless of whether a record has been expunged.
Ceiling fills the void of expungement that ceiling fills the void that expungement leaves behind, bridging the distance between what the law offers and what people actually experience. Giving individuals the opportunity to seal their records allows them to reenter society with their civil rights, with their public benefits, with employment opportunities restored. Without it, they remain locked out of stable housing, constrained in where they can go and what they can, can't do, cut off from civic and economic life that others move through freely. Specifically, this bill opens the door for individuals convicted of eligible offenses to bring a petition before the courts seeking sealing and destruction of their record so long as at least four years have elapsed since the date of arrest or since the completion of any sentence probation, mandatory supervision, post release community supervision, or parole that's tied to the record, whichever is later, and the person has remained free of new convictions throughout that period. No person should carry a lifetime of obstacles to jobs, to housing, and full participation in their community simply because of past circumstances.
It is essential to understand that this bill does not create any automatic process, no petition is triggered, and no record is sealed without court action. What it does is extend to the individual the right to bring their case to court. From there, the court retains full authority to grant relief only where
Speaker 21
mister Lackey. From there, the court retains full authority to grant relief only where it determines that doing so serves in the interests of justice. The burden of proof rests entirely with the petitioner to demonstrate why that relief is actually warranted. A criminal conviction strips away civil rights. It cuts off access to public benefits.
It forecloses employment opportunities. It limits housing options and removes the ability to live and work without constant restriction. These ongoing penalties and restrictions do not stop at the individual. Their effects ripple outward towards the broader community because when people are cut off from employment, when they're cut off from education, when they're cut off from family stability and civic life, the well-being of an entire community suffers. The most effective tool that we have to combat that cycle of exclusion is to seal those records.
Very grateful to be joined by Ed Little, who are on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, who will testify in support of this bill.
Speaker 71
Good afternoon, chair and committee members. My name is Ed Little, and I am a government affairs manager with Californians for Safety and Justice and proud cosponsor of a b twenty three eighty four. A criminal record, no matter how minor or how much time has passed, can trigger a web of legal restrictions, reduce prospects, and economic instability. While California's expungement laws critically remove records from public access, they can and still be viewed and act as barriers to certain licensing and career opportunities. This bill creates a new pathway for people with eligible past arrest and low level convictions to petition the court to seal their records, offering a true and complete clean slate.
Speaker 55
This stronger, more comprehensive sealing remedy will only be available for non conviction arrest and low level convictions after a four year crime free waiting period. Relief will also not be granted, and each petition will be judged on a case by case basis. States around the country like Vermont, Connecticut, and New York have taken similar approach to record relief. A chance at a true clean slate for a limited category of records at the discretion of a judge, we believe, strikes the appropriate balance. By creating a pathway for record ceiling, this bill provides the opportunity for people with past low level records to truly and fully move beyond the lifelong disenfranchisement that comes with a criminal record.
Speaker 71
For these reasons, we ask for your I vote on a b twenty three eighty four. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you both very much. Next, we'll take the me twos. If you'd like to register a position of support, come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 74
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and support.
Speaker 39
Henry Ortiz on behalf of, all of us and, all of us and none, Initiate Justice and, community healers in support.
Speaker 29
Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the Public Defender's Office of San Francisco in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Last call if anyone else like to register support position. Okay. Do we have anyone testifying in opposition? Okay.
Anyone hoping to register any other position on the bill? Alright. We'll turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions?
Speaker 1
Great. We have a motion by Ramos and a second by the chair. Anyone else? Okay. Mister Lowenthal, would you like to close?
Speaker 21
Well, you know, just to say, my brother serves on the bench, criminal courts. I I learned so much from him, and I often have conversations with him. And, you know, I asked Danny, you know, where are the inefficiencies? Where where do you feel handcuffed? And he told me the story of a woman who actually came up to testify in this bill last year, and she was a graduate student at UC Irvine getting her PhD in her early thirties.
And she was unable to get an apartment. She'd had her record expunged. She was getting her doctorate degree and was unable to get housing because her record for a mistake that she had made when she was 17 years old was easily found online despite having her record expunged. And if we all think about how our system of justice is supposed to make us safer, it's not gonna make any of us safer if people who are successfully moved through the system, who are not reoffending, who only committed at at worst low level crimes to be eligible for this are not able to get the support that they need, then it pushes them back into potentially back into a world of crime, which does not make us safer. So I ask for all of your consideration that we acknowledge that the digital age has created a different, different headwinds for us all and certainly in the courts, and I respectfully ask for your eye
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much, assembly member. Incredibly well said, and I think this is such a smart and thoughtful fair bill. I would love to be added as a coauthor if it passes out of committee today. Strongly recommend an eye on this one. We have a motion in a second, so let's call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item 24 a b twenty three eighty four by Assemblyman Merrloenthal, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz.
Speaker 11
Lackey not voting. Gwen. Ramos. Ramos I. Sharp Collins?
That measure is on call.
Speaker 1
That measure is on call as we await absent members. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Bear with me one moment. Alright. Assembly member Bonta, we have been told to leave the room, but I understand the chair of military and veterans affairs is is still, entangled in another matter. So we'll start with your bill.
I just wanna caution you that if, she becomes available at four, we may have to interrupt your hearing and finish after our break.
Speaker 9
I appreciate that, chair. And Okay. She is over in health committee that I am currently chairing right now. So I appreciate the opportunity to present a b twenty four thirty four, the Visitor Protections and Safety Act, which is a women's caucus priority bill. This bill will protect visitors from arbitrary and discriminatory visits denials in California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation prison visiting rooms.
The bill would establish clear enforceable standards for when a visit can be denied, require written documentation when a visitor is turned away, and establish guardrails for searches. AB twenty four thirty four strengthens existing CDCR search regulate regulations for prison visitation. Such regulations include searches that are noncontact, same gender, private, and witnessed by a second same gender staff member. A b twenty four thirty four is necessary because most of California's visitation rules are not set in statute and vary widely by facility. As a result, visitors routinely experience abuse by staff.
For example, in 2024, CDCR entered a $5,600,000 settlement with Christina Cardenas, a woman who tried to visit her husband but was illegally forced to strip, take a drug test, a pregnancy test, and subjected to forceful penetrate penetration of her vagina and anus by a male physician. Her clear protest that she did not consent went ignored. No contraband was found during this illegal invasive search. Still, Christina was not permitted to visit her husband that day. AB twenty four thirty four helps and end these assaults against women.
Women, particularly black women, are primary visitors of incarcerated people. Fifty five percent of women, in fact, see their loved ones once monthly, a few times a year, and every quarter never to see their incarcerated loved ones either otherwise. Yet according to fifty years of empirical study gathered by prison policy initiative, maintaining family connection during incarceration is one of the most important policies to support successful reentry. AB twenty four thirty four supports children, the hidden victims of incarceration. It ensures that, what research suggests will be able to happen, which is that when families, including children who visit during a loved one's incarceration shows improved mental health measures and a high of higher probability of remaining together after release.
Here to testify in support are two experts on visiting, Maisha Gregory, who is an SC Justice Group sister and the wife of her incarcerated husband, and Danica Rudam Morell, who is the founder of Whole Consulting, a leading criminal justice firm.
Speaker 75
Good afternoon. I was gonna say good morning. Good afternoon. My name is Maisha, and I am an act, community advocate for the SC Justice Group. SC Justice Group is a loving, powerful community of women with incarcerated loved ones.
I am here today in strong support of a b two four three four. My loved one has been incarcerated for over eight years, and during this time, I have experienced a lot. But I would like to share one moment that weighs heavy on my heart. I drove over 500 miles in the middle of the night with no sleep to stand in line to be there in the morning, 7AM, to stand in line with hope to get in. After all of that, I was stopped at the metal detector because of the wire in my bra.
Speaker 42
I was told to remove it, or find something else to wear. Then the correctional officer told me to remove the metal piece, but not to remove my bra because he didn't want those things to hang on the floor. And then he laughed. I asked for the scissors there on his desk so I could fix the problem. He told me he didn't have any despite I was looking right at him.
Speaker 75
though I was looking right at them, I was left with no other option, no other way to fix the problem. So as a result, me and my son were denied our visit. In that moment, I felt humiliated. This is not about safety. This is about a system that allows inconsistent rules and arbitrary decisions that separate families.
AB two four three four changes that. It requires clear standards and requires accountability. We are not talking about a need for special treatment. We are just wanting to be treated fairly, with dignity, and consistency. Because we don't just show up, we sacrifice to show up.
Speaker 1
And I apologize. That's actually your time. But, thank you so much for your testimony and sharing that completely unacceptable and painful experience with us.
Speaker 2
Danica Rodarmo on behalf of SC Justice Group, proud cosponsor of the bill. I have personally visited multiple incarcerated people across several institutions in California over many years and witnessed the real need for this bill. I urge your your I vote and here to answer any questions.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you very much for the presentation, assembly member, and again, to both of your witnesses for testifying. Next, we'll take the me too's in support of the bill. Please come forward. Name, organization, and position, please.
Speaker 37
Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of Vera California and, legal services for prisoners with children and all of us are none in support.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and myself having gone to see clients in the prison and gone through humiliating experiences.
Speaker 17
Monica Samuel in strong support for SC Justice Group, and I too have experienced tremendous amount of disgrace within the CDCR visiting.
Speaker 20
Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in strong support.
Speaker 39
Henry Ortiz on behalf of Initiate Justice, all of us in the Sacramento chapter, community healers in strong support.
Speaker 71
Ed Little on behalf of Californians for safety and justice and strong support.
Speaker 74
Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and support.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition? Okay. I don't see anyone. Is there anyone hoping to register any other position on the bill?
Okay. We'll turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, mister Lackey?
Speaker 12
Yeah. First of all, I feel the need to, apologize for the misconduct of any law enforcement in the prisons because I know it probably does happen for sure, and I'm very sorry about that. And if all the people that were visiting prisoners were of the same caliber as you, I wouldn't have any problem with this bill. But, unfortunately, I know the realities of circumstances, and I know that family members and friends often wanna help those who are in prison. And they see any way to for them to gain some kind of favor or benefit as an opportunity to help them.
And and sometimes that includes weapons that are not detected by a metal detector. And they're they're easy to get through the the search system unless there's a a thorough search that's done. It's an it's a very difficult situation when when you're incarcerated for sure. But I worry that relaxing the standard will make it more dangerous for other inmates. I also consider contraband within the institution dangerous, and I think that that is much more likely if we relax the standard.
So I just want you to understand the place that I'm coming from. I understand where you're coming from as well. And I admire your courage for being here, but I can't support this measure.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you, mister Lackey. Other questions or comments? The only question that I have, perhaps to assembly member Bonta, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, I I don't I wouldn't I don't read the bill as relaxing the standard. It's codifying a right to contact visit, insisting that there should be informed consent, voluntariness.
I suppose if somebody weren't to consent to a search, they could have a non contact visit, but it this is not I don't believe it's jeopardizing the security of any of institutions. What's your response to that?
Speaker 47
I think you're absolutely right. And in fact, much of this legislation essentially codifies the existing regulation that has been hard fought by CDCR to implement to ensure that we can make sure that people who are incarcerated have the benefit the benefit of what we know leads to more family connection, reduced recidivism over time, and ensures that we have the ability to actually engage in rehabilitation. The most powerful rehabilitation is when people have the ability to visit their families. And I would like to note for Assembly Member Lackey, who I've said on many a meeting hearing with talking about CDCR practices, that this legislation has been developed with CDCR's input and and and reflects their input.
Speaker 1
Thank you for the answer, assembly member. Does that beg any other questions, comments? We have a motion. Is there a second?
Speaker 14
I just wanted to second and thank the author, and I'd love to be added as a coauthor. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Okay. Very good. We have a motion and a second. Seeing no other conversation from the dais, would you like to close?
Speaker 1
You certainly have a strong recommendation of I from the chair. I will just note two things. Number one, I think it's really sad that we have to have legislation like this. But as assembly member Bonta knows, because we've sat together on some of those hearings, there is a culture that is pervasive in CVCR. And I think this is a small but meaningful step that needs to be taken to help counteract that culture.
So I thank you for championing the bill. Would love to join as a coauthor if that's acceptable to you as And, yeah. I the last thing I'll say is this. I I support the bill for many reasons, but we often talk about the goals of the justice system. You said it so well, assembly member Bonta.
Rehabilitation is a critical is critical goal. And the vast majority of people in CDCR will exit, and they will reintegrate in our communities. And depriving them of any human contact is not a good way to achieve the goal of rehabilitation. This is a great bill. Recommend an eye.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Item 27 a b twenty four thirty four by asylum member Bonta. The motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz.
Speaker 11
Schultz, aye. Alaniz. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye.
Haney? Harbidean? Harbidean? Harbidean? Aye.
Lackie? No. Wen? Ramos? Aye.
Ramos? Sharp Collins?
Speaker 1
That measure's on call. Okay. That measure remains on call as we await absent members.
Speaker 1
Thank you all very much. Alright, everyone. I'm getting the note that we need to exit the room. So just as a reminder, we have four bills up when we come back. We will have, AB16O7 by Gonzales, AB2018 by Ramos, AB2108 by Sharp Collins, and AB2124 by Celeste Rodriguez presented by mister Ramos.
We will be back in Room 126 upon conclusion of military and veterans affairs. We stand in recess. Alright. Welcome back, everyone. We have four bills on our agenda.
We are going to start with Assembly Bill twenty four twenty eight by Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez presented by Assembly Member Ramos. Assembly Member Ramos, the floor is yours.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much, mister chair. And I would like to start off by accepting, committee amendments. AB twenty four twenty eight eliminates, remaining property freeze in the criminal legal system. It removes fees for bounced checks, installment payment plans, and community service participation, and helps remove cost barriers tied to required programs like traffic school. These fees punish people for being poor, not for being a danger to public safety.
They are often triggered because someone cannot afford to pay up front. California has already made major progress repealing more than half of its criminal fees and relieving over 6,900,000,000.0 in debt since 2020, but billions in delinquent court ordered debt remain. These remains these remaining fees fall hardest on low income communities and communities of color, creating barriers to compliance, reentry, and economic stability. AB twenty four twenty eight builds on prior reforms and responds to the California Supreme Court's decision in People versus Code, which called for broader legislative action on court ordered administrative fees. This bill is about fairness and common sense.
California should not fund court operations by charging extra fees to people who are already struggling to pay. I am pleased to have with me Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of the Debt Free Justice California Coalition.
Speaker 37
Thank you. Good evening, chair and committee. My name is Liz Blum Gutierrez. I'm speaking on behalf of Debt Free Justice California Coalition proudly in support of a b two four two eight, an act to end poverty fees. The criminal administrative fees this bill targets disproportionately punish people for being poor.
Speaker 62
Getting rid of these fees will mean creating a more just, equitable, and affordable California. Fees for making payments, bounced checks, and even part for participating in community service take money from low income people who then must choose between paying a court fee or paying for necessities like food and housing. In addition to eliminating punitive fees, this bill also eliminates redundant fees, many of which are not currently charged or collected. Importantly, a recent California Supreme Court case, People versus Kopp, makes all fees subject to an indigency determination. Because the majority of people who are charged these fees are indigent, we anticipate the courts charging fewer fees leading to even further reduction in collections.
Speaker 37
In short, criminal administrative fees increase in equity and perpetuate poverty in our society while doing very little to promote public safety or sustainably fund the government. By eliminating these unjust fees, a b two four two eight makes our legal system more just and our communities more economically secure. Thank you.
Speaker 71
Ed Little on behalf of California's First Safety and Justice, proud cosponsor in support.
Speaker 44
Micah Doktorov on behalf of Smart Justice California, the Ella Baker Center, and the Los Angeles Los Angeles Public Defenders Union Local one forty eight in support. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defenders Office in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all. I noticed some consolidation there. There we go. I love the I love the teamwork.
Do we have anyone here in opposition? Okay. Anyone else hoping to register in a a position on the bill? Okay. Back to the dais.
Questions, comments, motions? Mister Lackey?
Speaker 12
Yeah. It's my understanding that there's already case law that indicates that if you don't have the ability to pay, you don't have to pay. So it seems like what this bill would do would be to relax the standard for those who do have the ability to pay. That's the way I see this, and I might be tempted to support this bill if it takes an amendment to waive parking fees.
Speaker 1
Speaking from personal experience there, mister Lackey. Well, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Can I get a motion then?
Speaker 1
Thank you. And a second by doctor Sharp Collins. Yeah. This is a great actually, I'll say, we'll do this the proper way. Would you like to close, mister Ramos?
Speaker 15
Yeah. Thank you so much. And on on behalf of member Celeste Rodriguez, respectfully ask for your I vote on this important bill.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you. I think this is a really important bill. I think this will do a lot of good. I will recommend that I would love to be added as a coauthor if you can relay that to our office. And thank you to all the coalition partners that brought it forward.
I think this is this is good policy. So, recommending an I, let's take the role.
Speaker 11
Item 26 a b twenty four twenty eight by assembly member Celeste Rodriguez. The motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure remains on call. Mister Lackey reserves the right to change if the parking tickets are included. Thank you very much. Mister Ramos, that leaves you with AB twenty eighteen.
Speaker 15
Thank you so much, mister chair, and I believe there is testimony in support. I'm making their way up to the table here. AB twenty eighteen provides an essential clarification and updates to the missing person's DNA database program to help reach its full potential. Since its enactment over twenty years ago, there have been significant advancement in scientific methods and resources. These updates are important in assisting the Department of Justice in identifying remains in unidentified people.
Speaker 48
This bill would strengthen the department's ability to resolve missing persons cases, deliver answers to families, and remain a leader in this field. This modernization is especially important and urgent given the disproportionate numbers of missing persons impacted by the missing and murdered indigenous persons epidemic plaguing our state. Speaking within the context of the missing and murdered indigenous person crisis, knowing that tribal communities can utilize the missing person's DNA database as a tool to potentially bring closure is one of many steps the state is taking on this issue. We must utilize as many resources as possible, and this bill's goal is to assist the department as they work to modernize this program to contribute to efforts of identifying missing persons. With respect to privacy, the Department of Justice maintains complete control of the DNA samples.
Speaker 15
And if an association is made, the DNA profile is removed at all levels and the sample is destroyed. Additionally, the DNA samples collected are voluntary and are not searched against criminal databases, only against the samples from unidentified persons and human remains. With me to testify in support of the bill today on behalf of attorney general Rob Bonta is Vanessa Guerrero, deputy attorney general. Also testifying is Jeff Rodson, assistant director of the Bureau of Forensic Services.
Speaker 30
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Vanessa Guerrero, and I'm a deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice. The attorney general is proud to sponsor AB twenty eighteen. I am joined by my colleague, Jeff Rodson, who is the assistant director of the Bureau of Forensic Services. I would like to thank assembly member Ramos for authoring this important legislation, which helps California continue leading and identifying remains and missing persons.
The Missing Persons DNA database program was established in 2001 to help address cases of missing individuals, many of whom are children. It has helped identify over 2,300 missing people and remains, bringing closure to families. The program uses two separate DNA databases. One contains DNA profiles from unidentified persons and human remains, and the other contains DNA profiles from relatives of missing persons and personal items of missing persons. These databases are separate from the convicted offender database.
Participation from family members is strictly voluntary, and the family DNA is never used in criminal investigations. It is only used to help identify missing persons. The California Department of Justice maintains complete control over the DNA samples uploaded to CODIS. If an identification is made between the identified person and family member of a missing person, the DNA profiles are removed from CODIS at all levels and the family member sample is destroyed. Updating the law ensures all families benefit from modern forensic technology and a system committed to locating missing persons and identifying remains.
This commitment is especially critical for communities of color and indigenous families who experience disproportionately high rates of missing persons. Thank you for your consideration, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 38
K. Well, good evening, chair and members. My name is Jeff Rodson. I'm an assistant bureau director, California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Services. I oversee their forensic DNA testing program within the bureau, which does include our missing persons, DNA program or the MPDP.
I do wanna thank assembly member Ramos for authoring AB twenty eighteen, which which will modernize California penal code sections fourteen two fifty and two fifty one, to help us use modern forensic DNA technology to, again, to reunite families with their missing loved ones. The MPDP program exists for one reason, to put a name to the nameless, to identify unidentified human remains to be reunited with their families. To date, we facilitated over 2,300 identifications, including high profile cases like JC Dugard, victims of the Tubbs fire and the Camps fire, some of the deadliest wildfires in the state history. Also, critically and crucially, the MPDP is not a criminal investigative program. It exists merely for identifying unidentified human remains and missing persons.
Speaker 28
We as mentioned, we compare DNA from unidentified remains against samples voluntarily provided by family members or personal items belonging to that person such as a toothbrush. The DNA profiles of family members, as mentioned, are kept in a database that's entirely separate from the CODIS databases that house crime scene and convicted offender and arrestee DNA profiles. AB twenty eighteen is necessary as forensic science has evolved since the program's inception in 2001. Proposed amendments also ensure we can retain samples to identify additional human remains if a full recovery isn't made initially, preventing the need to re traumatize family to obtain new samples. I do want to be clear on a couple of the points regarding previous opposition concerns.
Speaker 38
We are not doing what's known as FIG or forensic investigative genetic genealogy in this program currently. That is something that is used more for criminal investigations. Again, we're not a criminal investigation program. Participants participation from family members does remain strictly voluntary. As previously mentioned, their DNA profiles are never searched against the criminal databases, and their samples are destroyed once the identification is made or upon the donor's request.
There's already exist substantial privacy guardrails for DNA samples from living persons in California penal code sections fourteen two fifty.
Speaker 1
And I'm sorry. I'll have to stop you there. That's two minutes. Okay. Well, you for
Speaker 38
Yeah. So in closing, yeah, thank you for your support. Again, thank you guys, you know, for your service to the state of California and encourage you to vote in favor of the passing a b twenty eighteen. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I I let him go a little extra because y'all should be for your service. So there we go. Thank you for the thank you, sir. Next, we'll take the me too's.
Come on down.
Speaker 19
Lauren Apter, California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Pamela Lopez on behalf of the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tachi Yokuts tribe in support.
Speaker 1
Alright. Great. Thank you, everybody. Is there anyone here testifying in opposition, or is there anyone who just wants to register a position on the bill? A me too?
Maybe maybe one or two. Sure. If you wanna just do a me too, come to this microphone right over here. You know the drill.
Speaker 25
Ari Rodriguez with ACV California action. I wanna thank the author for accepting amendments. We're reviewing and may reassess our position. Also wanna state the same for the San Francisco public defender's office.
Speaker 61
David Polagasife Alliance, I hope what my friend said is true, and I can remove my opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you both very much. We'll turn it back to the Deus. Questions, comments, motions? Oh, that was a close one.
I'm gonna give that one to doctor Sharp Collins with a very close second by mister Gonzalez. We have mister Lackey and then mister Harbidean.
Speaker 12
Yeah. Just real quickly. Obviously, I would like to thank the author. We just talked about this in the subcommittee yesterday. This MMIP is a very difficult situation.
It's hard to really understand how it's gotten to be this severe. But nonetheless, this is just another tool that might bring some closure, so it clearly has my support.
Speaker 41
Thank you, mister chair. I also appreciate the author for bringing this bill. And if you don't mind, I'd like to be a coauthor.
Speaker 15
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to the members who agreed to come on as coauthors and the members of making the motion in the second. And with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, mister Ramos. I do recommend deny. They stole my thunder. I'd also like to come on the bill as a coauthor. Most popular guy here today.
With that, we have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.
Speaker 11
For item 11 a b twenty eighteen by assembly member Ramos, the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 15
Thank you, mister chair. And I believe that member Harbetian is asking to be a a co author also.
Speaker 1
That that that's that was wonderful telepathy right there. I love that. Alright. I I have to go present two bills of my own, so I'm gonna leave you all in the very capable hands of our vice chair. I believe the last two that we have up is doctor Sharp Collins, and then mister Gonzalez has a bill as well, and I hope to be back by then.
Thank you all.
Speaker 18
2108. Shoot. Alright. I'm tired. I'm tired.
I'm tired. Okay. Alrighty. Alright. It's evening.
So good evening, mister vice chair and members. Today, I am presenting assembly bill twenty one zero eight, creates a statewide diversion option for low level nonviolent retail theft so offenders are held accountable without being pushed deeper into the justice system. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their for their work and collaboration with my office on this bill. And, yes, I do accept the amendments outlined in the analysis. Incarceration carries severe and long lasting consequences.
A criminal record can limit access to employment, housing, and education, making it harder for individuals to stabilize their lives and increasing the likelihood of future justice systems involvement. Diversion is a holistic intervention approach to public safety that focuses on the individual as a whole. Research shows that well that well designed diversion programs can significantly reduce recidivism by addressing the root causes that contribute to criminal behavior. Public safety strategies that focus on meaningful interventions before an individual is deeply involved in the justice system are highly effective and warrant increased investment of resources. So Assembly Bill twenty one zero eight is a meaningful intervention.
This bill echoes ex the existing successful and and familiar diversion infrastructures while ensuring an equitable retail theft diversion consideration process that is consistent across all 58 counties. It provides prosecutors with a structured pathway to divert appropriate retail theft cases while also including guidance for the courts to consider available workforce development programming or job training as a component of the defendant's diversion. Prop 36 promised voters rehabilitative rehabilitative opportunities and accountability, and that's what diversion truly is. And while we have diversion programs for drugs and mental health, we do not have the same for crimes of necessity which is led by poverty. So Assembly Bill twenty one zero eight with the amendments create pathways into work, whether vocational or apprenticeship programs to help lift individuals out of property and curb retail theft.
This bill excludes any theft that involves violence or threatened violence, organized retail theft offenses, and habitual repeat theft offenders. Furthermore, this bill ensures judges retain the discretion to evaluate a defendant's suitability for diversion based on the specific case. Assembly bill twenty one zero eight promotes real accountability, invest in a proven public safety solution that reduces recidivism, and refocuses enforcement resources on serious public safety threats. With me today to provide additional testimonial support, I have Anthony DiMartino from the Californians for Safety and Justice and Ignacio Hernandez who will who will be providing once again additional testimony. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Thank you, chair. Good evening, chair and members of the committee. My name is Anthony DiMartino, and I'm the director of government affairs at Californians for Safety and Justice. I'm here today as a proud cosponsor in support of AB twenty one zero eight authored by the assembly member. We support strategies that reduce costly reliance on incarceration and build healthy communities.
Speaker 79
A b 21 o twenty one zero eight creates a diversion consideration process for nonviolent theft defenses with judicial discretion. Under current law, there is not a consistent framework across all 50 counties for theft diversion. This inconsistency allows for an inequitable diversion consideration process that lacks equal opportunity for defendants to be considered for diversion on a case by case basis. AB twenty one zero eight mirrors and builds upon the success seen with drug diversion through penal code 1,000. It brings a familiar structure and needed uniformity to the use of diversion in appropriate theft cases.
AB twenty one zero eight provides more access for defendants to be connected with appropriate resources or programs to help foster their success in the community while establishing appropriate guardrails and maintaining the discretion of the court. AB twenty one zero eight strengthens the safety of our communities by scaling up proven strategies, meeting individuals where they are, and investing in public safety solutions that prioritize long term safety. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote on AB twenty one zero eight. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 46
Thank you, mister chair and members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California attorneys for criminal justice, statewide associate association of criminal defense lawyers, and we also are a proud cosponsor. Let me just add that this bill, as was stated, builds on existing diversion framework. And as criminal defense lawyers, what we have seen in particular on retail theft is that there are subset of cases every year that we've been dealing with for years and years and for decades where the circumstances really are different than other types of retail theft cases. And so when we talk about looking at a case by case basis, we have seen cases in individuals and our clients that it is their theft offense is really their circumstances around it have a lot
Speaker 46
economic challenges and other circumstances are going on. What this bill does is recognize that there is a subset of theft cases, retail theft cases, where diversion makes sense and can make sense and can turn someone's life around. It is not someone as stated earlier, this bill doesn't cover organized retail theft. This bill does not cover those folks who are in the business of committing theft. This bill is available at the discretion of the judge if it makes sense and it fits for those individuals who can show circumstances where they need this help, and this help will get them back on their feet and keep them out of our criminal justice system.
Speaker 51
Our criminal laws are set up that way to have tough penalties, but it's also set up to have these types of diversion options where it makes sense. So you can be strong on punishment, and you could be strong for diversion. They're They're not inconsistent, but where we want to be strongest on punishment is when the circumstances show that this individual is kind of in a life of crime, like they like to say, as opposed to someone who is dealing with the life circumstances of, you know, struggling economically, and that's why they committed theft. So that's what this bill focuses on, and we ask for your support.
Speaker 41
Thank you. Anyone else in support, please come up. Name organization, please.
Speaker 20
Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in support. Leslie
Speaker 27
Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office
Speaker 71
And little on behalf of Reentry Providers Association of California Repack in support.
Speaker 49
Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.
Speaker 41
Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none, anyone in opposition? Please come on up. You have two minutes.
Speaker 19
Good evening, vice chair and members. Lauren Apter, assistant district attorney Santa Cruz County on behalf of CDAA in respectful opposition. AB twenty one zero eight represents an attempt to undermine the will of California voters who in 2024 overwhelmingly approved proposition 36. Prop 36 passed statewide with approximately 67% of the vote and received majority approval in every California county. Voters were clear that the cycle of endless consequence free theft needed to end.
AB twenty one zero eight moves in the opposite direction. The bill creates a sweeping diversion eligibility scheme for theft related offenses and includes grand theft, receiving stolen property, and vandalism. It does not disqualify individuals with prior thefts directly conflicting with the core purpose of proposition 36 and voters focus on repeat offenders. AB twenty one zero eight reopens the very loopholes voters sought to close. While the bill attempts to preserve prop 36 by excluding individuals charged pursuant to penal code section six six six point one, this protection is illusory.
Speaker 27
It does not exclude individuals who qualify as repeat offenders, and the risk is uneven enforcement and application just based on charging. It is troubling that the bill also uses vague and undefined language such as no contemporarious violation relating to theft, the absence of any definition, creates uncertainty, and invites inconsistent interpretation and uneven application. Further by including offenses such as receiving stolen property and vandalism, the the bill risks sweeping in individuals who are involved in organized retail theft and related criminal activity. It is of note that penal code section 1,001.95 already creates a judicial diversion scheme for low level theft and and vandalism offenses. And in that diversion, people can make a pitch about economic factors that are driving that theft and a judge can consider that.
Speaker 19
So a b twenty one zero eight is not minor procedural change. It is a substantive rollback of voter approved policy, and the legislature should not override the clear and recent will of the voters. Thank you.
Speaker 41
Thank you. Anyone else? Alright. Seeing no one, we're bringing back to committee. Committee, any questions, statements?
Mister Lackey?
Speaker 12
Yeah. I would just say not to rehash what the opposition said, but she couldn't more clearly outline exactly the reason why I oppose this particular measure It directly is contradictory to the spirit of prop 36 because, I mean, you can no longer accumulate priors. Diversion disallows you to be convicted. So there's no way you can accumulate priors, no way to know. So, yeah, I I can't support this.
I'm sorry.
Speaker 18
I can. It's fine. Sure. Thank you. So just to make it clear, this bill does not undermine prop 36.
In 2024, proposition 36 dramatically increased the severity of sentences, including allowing state prison sentences for people who are in active cycle of repeat step theft. This proposal establishes a consistent structure for diversion, consideration for low level theft offenses, and authority that the court legally already has and has had long before prop 36 passed. It gives prosecutors and judges additional tools and structures to differentiate low level theft offenses and the more serious repeat crimes impacted by prop 36. When prop 36 was was passed, a promise was made to voters to rehabilitate folks and give them the opportunity and, yes, to hold people accountable. Most of the things that are done right now, as I mentioned before, is for drug and mental health.
There's nothing really in place at all that is dealing with the economic factors, meaning poverty for the reasons why they are moving forward. When you think about diversion, it is a recognition in second chances and the power of being rehabilitated. It is not a get out of jail free card, but a commitment to do the hardest work possible, and that is the commitment to allow people to work on themselves. So Assembly Bill twenty one zero eight allows that opportunity while working to reduce crime levels and also changes lives. And with that, I do respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. I do recommend an I. I appreciate the author working with us and take her at her word that she'll continue to meet with all the stakeholders and try to perfect the bill as it goes through the process. I believe we have we do not have a motion or a second.
Is there a motion? No. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, mister Ramos.
Okay. With a motion and a second, let's call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item 15, a b twenty one zero eight by assembly member Sharp Collins, the motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Alanis, no. Gonzalez? Aye. Gonzalez, aye. Haney?
Harbetigan? Blackie? No. Blackie? No.
Gwen? Ramos?
Speaker 11
Ramos not voting. Sharp Collins? Aye. Sharp Collins? Aye.
That's on call.
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure is on call as we await absent members. By the way, I like you I like the way you say no. Just cool, very even feel no. I like that.
It's good. Alright. It's getting way too late. With that, we have one more item. Mister Gonzalez, come on down to our hot seat.
To the audience, you can ready your tomatoes and whatever we're gonna throw at them. Mister Gonzalez, thank you very much for your patience today. Colleagues, this is assembly bill 16 o seven. And before you start, mister Gonzalez, although please do get ready, this is a final call out. If your author if your if your boss is a member of this committee and they haven't checked in yet, I'm looking at you, mister Haney.
If you could please make your way to Room 126, we need you to vote so we can go home. Mister Gonzalez, the floor is yours.
Speaker 14
Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I also wanna begin by saying that I am happy to accept the committee amendments. My staff has participated and had conversations with the opposition, and I'm committed to keeping these concerns in mind as the bill continues to move forward today. Under federal law, every patient that walks through the doors of an emergency room must be treated regardless of their ability to pay. Over the past decade, emergency departments across California have received almost 50,000,000 visits annually, and approximately one in five of their patients were uninsured.
Speaker 38
When an uninsured patient cannot pay for their care, hospitals and emergency physicians rely on the MADI EMS Fund to partially reimburse the cost of life saving medical intervention. This program is supported by a small add on of $2 to every $10 of the court fines, including specific funding for pediatric trauma care through Ritchie's Fund with the Maddie's EMS Fund. AB sixteen oh seven keeps this critical lifeline in place by removing the sunset of the Maddie Fund, ensuring that we keep those dedicated physicians on shifts, ambulances on the road, and emergency rooms open. Without this support, hospitals will be forced to stretch care within their already dwindling numbers of physicians, which means longer wait times and greater cost for care. With millions of Californians braced to be stripped for their health coverage due to HR one impacts, the number of uninsured patients seeking treatment in emergency departments may grow exponentially.
Speaker 14
AB 16 o seven simply asked for more time, more time for Maddie's EMS fund to exist and allows Lifeline Emergency Medicine to continue. The bill protects access to care at most critical moments when seconds matter, and we need the all hands on deck because when someone dials on one, the last thing anyone's mind should be whether the system can afford to save their life. This afternoon evening, primary witnesses in support, to highlight the impact of the bill is Tim Madden on behalf of the American College of Emergency Physicians California Chapter and John Poland, regional executive director of Sierra Sacramento Valley EMD Agency. Take it away.
Speaker 64
Alright. Thank you, chair and members. Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians. Last April, Rand published a report on the challenges that emergency departments are facing nationwide. According to Rand, the viability of emergency care as we know it is at risk.
Speaker 33
To to preserve emergency care quality and coverage, policy action is needed on multiple fronts. This was before HR one was passed. HR one is taking billions out of the hospital based care system and will leave approximately too many 2,000,000 Californians uninsured, leaving them nowhere to go but the emergency department. While HR one will disproportionately hurt health of most of our most vulnerable communities, the timeliness and the quality of care that each of us receives when we walk into an emergency department is exactly the same because we're treated based on our conditions, not our insurance. Quite simply, the Maddie Fund results in more physicians working in the emergency department.
Speaker 64
Without AB sixteen oh seven, less money means every patient walking in wants to see will be seeing fewer doctors in the emergency department. If this bill does not pass, wait times will increase and patient outcomes will worsen. The already fragile emergency care system has no financial bandwidth to absorb this cut. Medi Cal reimbursement for the most vulnerable patients and complex is just shocking $108. The fund reimburses even less for patients with no insurance.
This cannot be sustained. Since 1987, the MADI fund has been the only source of reimbursement for emergency physicians when treating uninsured patients. If a b 16 o seven is not passed, it'll be another cut to the already fragile funding to the emergency care safety net. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your eyelid.
Hello, mister chair and members. My name is John Poland, a licensed paramedic regional executive director of the Sierra Sacramento Valley EMS agency, a local EMS agency serving 10 counties in Northern California. I'm here on behalf of the Emergency Medical Service Administrators Association of California representing 34 EMS agencies serving all 58 counties. We appreciate assembly member Gonzalez for authoring this bill. The legislature previously determined that EMS providers, physicians, surgeons, and hospitals as part of the requirement to provide emergency medical care to all patients regardless of their ability to pay or higher costs for their services but often receive partial or no payment for patients.
Speaker 80
As a result, a series of laws were enacted to provide compensation for patients who cannot pay for their own medical care. California law authorizes counties to establish a Maddie fund to reimburse physicians, surgeons, and hospitals for the cost of uncompensated emergency care and for other essential EMS system purposes. It authorizes counties to establish a Ritchie's Fund as part of the Maddie EMS Fund to provide funding for pediatric trauma centers throughout the county. If no pediatric trauma center exists, the funding must be used to improve access to and coordination of pediatric trauma and emergency services in the county. The Maddie EMS Fund and Ritchie's Fund are funded through revenues generated from local penalty assessments on fines and forfeitures for criminal offenses and motor vehicle violations.
The original authorization for this additional penalty assessment was previously extended through 01/01/2017 and again through 01/01/2027. EMS is an essential component of California's health care safety net At a time when EMS providers are being forced to reduce or cease providing critical emergency medical services and hospitals are at increased risk of a closing, it is vital that current EMS system funding resources be maintained. As such, I respectfully ask for your support for a b 16 o seven. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you all very, very much, especially for being so patient waiting late into the night. Let's next take our final me too's of the day. Come on down.
Speaker 45
Mister chair and members, Betsy Armstrong on behalf of the County Health Executives Association in strong support.
Speaker 43
Michelle Rolgawa with Nielsen Ruxmo on behalf of County of Yolo in support.
Speaker 48
Hi. Kelly McMullen. I've waited all day to do this. On behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children's Specialty Care Coalition in support.
Speaker 1
Good evening. Josh Gogger on behalf of the Santa Clara and Ventura County Boards of Supervisors in support and also on behalf of a colleague with the California State Sheriff's Association also in support. Thank you. Thank you all very much, thank you to those who did wait all day to register that. You at least get to enjoy a full committee.
So you get a full committee on this one. This is great. Alright. Anyone here to oppose the bill? Okay.
We do have one. Is this a me too, or do you wanna do you wanna testify? Okay.
Speaker 1
Great. You'll have two minutes whenever you're ready, mister Balak. Well,
Speaker 61
I don't doubt the benefits of this increased fees, and you just all remove fees in another bill. I'll take you back to 2001 when I was a younger, not so smart guy. I was living down by the beach. I rode my bike on the Venice Boardwalk, which is a misdemeanor. I got pulled over and cited.
I had to go and appear in court. There was no bell amount. I show up to the judge, and the judge says, you know what? We're gonna reduce that down to a disturbing the peace, $25 fine. And I'm I was broke.
I'm like, why? I think I can handle that. Go into the clerk. Go to pay my fine, $25, $272. I got a list of all these different fees that I had to pay be from past criminal history, for all sorts of things.
I know it's not said in there, and I I did not write a letter, and I apologize for that. But this is like blindsweating people with doing this. And I know it's for a good cause, and I appreciate that it's for a good cause. But when you fine a person, it should be said, this is what the fine is. There should be truth in advertisement.
And that that situation, it was not truthful. I thought I was paying $25. I paid $272. Now when you get a ticket in the mail, all those assessments are on there. You know that what it is in the bell, whatever that amount is.
Speaker 26
Earlier today, I was in the I was gonna testify at the water parks and wildlife committee. There was a bill there that was for safety for our off road vehicles. If you didn't take this class for safety, you'd be fined a $102,105 $100. Not not horrible, but what really will be because of these type of fees, how much will those fines actually be? So I ask you to think about this and think about this for future legislation that that is not fair, that it's written one way, but the actual charge that you get paid that you have to pay is not what is said.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much for your testimony. If there's any other me too's, come on down at this time.
Speaker 25
Javier Rodriguez with ACLU California action and strong opposition. Also wants to register opposition for debt free justice California.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay.
Turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions? Oh, lacking mood. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay.
I'm very behind. We have a motion. We have a second. That's right. Feels like a lifetime ago.
The only thing I have for you, mister Gonzalez, be please, you can address it in your close. Just if you have any response that you'd like to highlight to the committee from the testimony we heard today, that'd be great.
Speaker 14
Just thank you, mister chair. Thank you to committee members. This is not increasing fees. This is already existing infrastructure. This is just because the bill sunset, so this is a continuation of it for the next ten years.
So let's be clear about that. In an emergency, though, the doors must always stay open. This fund is a small fee that helps keep lifesaving care within reach for every Californian. This is your reminder that illness does not check your insurance card first. A heart attack will now wait for your paycheck to arrive.
Our state's doctors cannot wait either not when every moment counts. With that respect, we ask for your eye vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Alright. Well, thank you very much, mister Gonzalez. I do recommend an eye. And if I'm so lucky, I think I'll be here before it comes up for a sunset again. So I look forward to asking questions about why we need to keep extending it, but that's a conversation for another day.
Appreciate all the testimony. We have a motion. I reco. Let's call the roll.
Speaker 11
For item two a b 16 o 7 by assembly member Mark Gonzales, the motion is due passed. Schultz?
Speaker 1
Okay. That bill is out. Thank you. Well, thank you to everyone for staying so late. We're gonna go through our agenda one more time so we can announce the final outcome of everything.
We have everyone here except for mister Harabidian. So, hopefully, mister Harabidian will come back.
Speaker 1
Got it. Okay. Are we losing you, mister Lackey? You vote on everything? Great.
Okay.
Speaker 1
to the roll one time. Hopefully, can send you all home knowing the outcome, and we'll leave it open for mister Harbidean. Alright. Please start at the beginning. For
Speaker 11
K. For item one, a b fifteen eighty eight by assembly member Stephanie.
Speaker 11
That motion is due passed as amended to the transportation committee. Alanis?
Speaker 11
For item two, a b 16 o seven was just heard waiting for absent member. Item three, a b sixteen twenty seven was pulled by the author. Item four a b sixteen eighty eight was on consent. Item five a b seventeen thirty nine by assembly member Ward.
Speaker 11
The motion is due pass as amended to the business and professions committee. Alanis?
Speaker 11
The motion is due passed as amended to the judiciary committee. Alanis?
Speaker 11
Haynie, aye. That bill is out. For item seven a b eighteen ten by assembly member Berman, this measure is on call.
Speaker 11
For item eight, a b eighteen fourteen by assembly member Alanis, his measure is on call.
Speaker 11
Schultz? Aye. Haynie? Aye. Haynie?
Aye. Harbetian? Wen? Wen? I.
Commissioner.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due passed to the judiciary committees. Alanis? Alanis not voting. Haney? Aye.
Haney, aye.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney?
Speaker 11
And the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Haynie? Aye. Haynie, aye.
Speaker 11
Item 12 a b twenty forty by assembly member Massito. This measure is on call.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Gonzalez? Gonzalez not voting. Haney? Haney not voting.
Harbidean? Wen? Aye. Wen? Aye.
Sheriff Collins? Sheriff Collins, no. That measure fails. And
Speaker 1
Okay. That measure fails. Assembly member Mesito had asked for reconsideration. Assuming no objection, looking for objection, I will grant the reconsideration.
Speaker 11
For item 14, a b twenty seventy three, assembly member Johnson, this measure heard testimony only and is held for committee for further conversations.
Speaker 11
For item 15, a b twenty one zero eight by assembly member Sharpe Collins, this measure is on call.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Haney?
Speaker 11
And the motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Alanis?
Speaker 11
motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Alanis? Alanis not voting. Haynie?
Speaker 11
For item 18, a b twenty two thirty two was pulled by the author. Item 19, a b twenty two sixty one by assembly member Dixon. This measure is on call.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due pass as amended to the appropriations committee. Schultz?
Speaker 11
Item 20, a B twenty two seventy three was pulled by the committee. Item 21, a b twenty three eighteen by assembly member El Huwari.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due passed to the judiciary committee. Alanis? Alanis? No. Haney?
Speaker 11
Item 22 a b twenty three twenty eight by assembly member Alanis. This measure is on call.
Speaker 11
Item 23 a b twenty three forty four was pulled by the author. Item 24 a b twenty three eighty four by SME member Lowenthal, this measure is on call.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due passed to the appropriations committee. Alanis? No. Alanis? No.
Haney?
Speaker 11
Haney? Aye. Harbidean? Aye. Harbidean?
Aye. Nguyen? Aye. Nguyen? Aye.
Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins, I.
Speaker 11
Item 26, a b twenty four twenty eight by assembly member Celeste Rodriguez. This measure is on call.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Alanis? Aye. Alanis? Aye.
Gonzales? Aye. Haney? Aye. Haney?
Aye. Gwen? Aye. Gwen?
Speaker 11
Item 27, a v twenty four thirty four by Soleim Member Bonta. This measure is on call.
Speaker 11
Alanis? Aye. Haney, aye. Nguyen? Gwen?
I. Sharp Collins? Sharp Collins? I.
Speaker 11
Item 28, a b twenty five fifty three was pulled by the committee. Item 29, a b twenty six thirty one by assembly member Bauer Cahan.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due passed as amended to the judiciary committee. Alanis? Aye. Alanis? Aye.
Haney? This is item 30 a b twenty six sixty four by assembly member Bauer Cahan. Aye. Haney? Aye.
That measure passes.
Speaker 11
Item 31 a b twenty six sixty nine was pulled by the author. Item 32 a b twenty six eighty three by assembly member Ransom.
Speaker 11
And the motion is due passed as amended to the appropriations committee. Alanis?
Speaker 11
Item 33, a b twenty seven twenty was on consent. And item 34, a b twenty seven sixty by assembly member Sharp Collins, this measure is on call.
Speaker 1
But I believe that bill is out Yes. Regardless. That's okay. So everyone except for Harbetian and Nguyen are free to go. Thank you all for be we're gonna go through a couple more items.
Just a reminder, we have our last committee hearing a week from today, 08:30AM, and we'll be all done. So good job, everybody. Alright. So why don't we go back to items one through 14 for Harbetian to cast his votes, and then we'll revisit the last item for Wynn. Item
Speaker 11
two, a b 16 o seven by assembly member Mark Gonzales. Harbetian? I. Harbetian, I. Item seven, a b eighteen ten by assembly member Berman.
Parbidian? I. Parbidian I. Item a b eighteen fourteen by assembly member, Alanis. Harbetian?
Aye. Harbetian aye. Item 12, a v twenty forty by assembly member Massito. Harbetian? No.
Harbetian, no.
Speaker 1
K. And I believe mister Harbodian arrived at item 15. So, assembly member Wynn, do wanna cast a vote on item 34? K. So Wynn not voting on 34?
Speaker 11
Yes. Item 34, a b twenty seven sixty by assembly member Sharp Collins, Wynn not voting.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thank you, everybody. We stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 21, 08:30AM. Have a good night.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.