Senate Public Safety Committee
Derzeit keine Kapitel verfügbar
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
Senate Public Safety Committee California State Senate
Ihren Sitzungen folgenRedner 3
Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair. On behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, my name is Matthew Greco. We're here in support.
Redner 2
Thank you, sir. Okay. At this time, we'll take anybody who would like to be a principal primary witness against the measure. You can come up, sit in these couple of chairs wherever you're comfortable, But it has to be these two chairs. And yeah, you each have two minutes.
And because of the length of our hearing today, we're really going to try to stay on that two minute. Whichever of you would like to start first, you may go proceed. There you go. You're on.
Redner 4
the Public Safety Committee for your thoughtful consideration of the parole process. My name is James King. I serve as director of programs for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. I'm here today in respectful opposition to SB fourteen forty six, a bill which would loosen restrictions on a parole hearing process and make an already conservative process considerably more restrictive. Indulge me for a moment.
As a formerly incarcerated person who went through the parole process and the en banc process, I never thought I'd be testifying not to change the current system. Of the 21 parole commissioners, 17 come from a law enforcement background. They're former wardens, police officers, and prosecutors. Before finding anyone suitable, they review all documentation from the parole candidate's incarceration history. They review a comprehensive risk assessment conducted by a forensic psychologist.
And finally, they hold a hearing with survivors in the district office district attorney's office also often participating. Following a rigorous assessment, they make their determination, and afterward, the decision is reviewed to ensure it's factually and legally correct. Additionally, the psychologist provides the board with information about risk to others, including risk of sexual violence or other violence. So a second assessment by the state mental hospitals as proposed by this bill would be redundant. The governor initiated en banc referral stand as the final check-in the system, and the current guardrails around what the en banc panel considers protects the process from undue political influence.
We can imagine a future governor who takes issue with the very notion of second chances. I personally empathize deeply with the survivors, and the Ella Baker Center and allied organizations strongly support investments in better victim services to make survivors and their families whole to every extent possible. We must emphasize, however, that removing the existing guardrails subverts our art towards a more just and balanced system. Thank you.
Redner 2
Thank you very much, and thank you for adhering to the two minutes. You may begin your testimony.
Redner 25
Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to be here. My name is Darby Iwona Scheck, and I'm an attorney at Uncommon Law, an organization that represents people serving life sentences in California. I'm here today to oppose SB fourteen forty six, which would would create confusion, reduce integrity, and waste resources without improving safety for any of us. First, the bill changes the en banc review process for certain parole grants.
Redner 5
This will create confusion and inconsistency by subjecting grants to different review processes solely based on when the review was requested. Additionally, changing the substantive standard of review raises ex post facto concerns that will likely lead to costly litigation. Finally, rescinding a parole decision without holding a rescission hearing would very likely be unconstitutional under the cases Inray Pruitt and Morrissey V. Brewer. Second, this bill would publicize the names and votes of commissioners in en banc decisions.
Those decisions are supposed to be based on law and evidence but this bill would force commissioners to decide whether following the law is worth getting harassed, doxxed or worse. Finally this bill would expand the SVP process to include people serving life sentences, ensnaring already strained resources of state and county agencies in order to duplicate the analysis that the California Parole Board already does without any analysis needing to be redone. California already has one of the lowest parole grant rates in the country and our parole board is even more conservative when it comes to people convicted of sex offenses with grant rates dropping to as low as five percent. The few people who are granted parole have an exceptionally low recidivism rate of less than three percent. Everyone in this room wants and deserves public safety.
But no matter what your vision of public safety looks like, sinking resources into a problem that does not exist will not achieve that vision.
Redner 2
We'll wrap up. Thank you. All right. Anybody else who wishes to express opposition to this bill can come to
Redner 8
Good morning. Glenn Bacchus, entering the opposition of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Thank you. Good
Redner 10
Good morning. Embargo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.
Redner 11
Good morning, Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in Respectful Opposition.
Redner 2
All right, thank you all for your testimony and coming up and expressing your opinions today. At this time, we'll bring it back to the dais, which is, I guess, just me. You may close.
Redner 59
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, what this bill does is, one, specifies that the governor when the governor requests an en banc review, that commissioners have additional discretion to evaluate the granting panel's decision, specifies that the decision, the vote of the commissioners during an en banc review are public record, and clarifies that the Department of Corrections or Rehabilitation may refer any incarcerated person, whether serving an indeterminate sentence or a determinate sentence, to the State Department of Hospitals for sexually violent predator evaluation if they meet the criteria and either scheduled to be released or up for parole. The amendments that we, are also, making to the bill clarify that the standard review is whether the granting panel's decision was supported by substantial evidence, while still deferring to the panel's factual findings and credibility determinations, not substantially changing the criteria that Board of Parole Commissioners would consider in the process of determining whether a person is suitable for parole. Clarifies that the commissioners reviewing a parole decision have the discretion to order a new hearing, rescind the proposed decision not based on new information or set the case for rescission, requires the en banc decision to include a statement of reasons, and once again clarifies that the CDCR referral for SVP evaluation happened six months prior to the incarcerated person's parole hearings.
Redner 1
I just want to clarify what the bill does and what the amendments would do. Once again, it's largely preserving the criteria and discretion of the Board of Parole Commissioners, but ensuring that when there's an en banc review that the commissioners will not just consider the public record, but need to look at whether there's substantial evidence to support the determination. And I agree that in most instances, the determinations on parole suitability are supported by the evidence and balanced public safety interests with whether the individual is suitable for parole. We certainly know of some recent very high profile decisions by the Board of Parole Commissioners of sexually violent predators who've been released, And really, is intending to to clarify the law, to improve the process, to make sure we're balancing public safety, and also making sure that people that are suitable parole can be considered for parole without a respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 2
Thank very much for your testimony in your bill today. We do not have a quorum right now, so we will take the vote up later when we do establish a quorum. Thank you all for being here, and we will be moving on to the next item as soon as I pass the gavel.
Redner 1
Okay. Our next bill in the special order business is file item three SB twelve seventy eight by Senator Nilo. I see the senator present. Good morning.
Redner 1
And if there are any principal witnesses, senator, they're welcome to join us. And ever whenever you're ready to present, senator, you may begin.
Redner 13
Thank you very much. I appreciate that. So today I am presenting SB twelve seventy eight. Some bills are about policy. Some are about process.
This bill is about people and the lifelong trauma inflicting on inflicted on victims. SB twelve seventy eight asks a simple but very important question. Should the worst predators be eligible for release simply because they turn 50? Under current law, California allows individuals convicted of heinous sexual crimes to become eligible for parole after just twenty years served, regardless of sentence and after reaching the elderly age of 50. That eligibility is not theoretical.
It's happening. And I'll talk about a few. In 1999, serial child predator David Funston was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and sexually assaulting seven children, all under seven years of age. One victim was five years old, kidnapped, and taken to the remote mountains for hours, horrifically assaulted, and later abandoned on the side of the road. She was found beaten, crying, and wandering alone.
She could have been killed. He then lured a four year old girl into his vehicle. He took her to a residence, bathed with her, dressed her in different clothing, held a knife to her throat, and forced multiple sex acts on her causing bleeding. I apologize for being so graphic, but this is an important part of the issue. Funston was convicted of multiple crimes.
The judge sentenced Funston to the max, three life terms plus twenty years, telling him, and I quote the judge, you are the monster parents fear most. There is no man on the face of this earth who deserves this sentence more than you, mister Funston. He was sentenced to die in prison, yet under California's elderly parole law, he is eligible for parole. He has been deemed safe to reenter society, and the only reason he was not released was because Placer County has arrested him on another child abuse case from 1996. They chose not to prosecute at the time because there was no concern he would ever get out of prison.
Yet here we are. Now consider Gregory Vogelsang, nearly 30 counts of sexual abuse involving children ages five to 11, a sentence of three hundred and fifty five years. These are not one time mistakes. These are patterns of calculated, might one say habitual repeated harm. Even if parole is denied, the process itself causes damage.
It reopens old wounds by forcing families and victims to revisit trial records, review graphic evidence, prepare statements, and sometimes testify in person forced to face the perpetrator and prove once again why sometimes people think that criminals have more rights than victims. SB twelve seventy eight makes a clear targeted change by excluding enhanced sentences for rape, sodomy, lewd acts, and habitual or serial sexual offenses from eligibility, for elder parole. This bill does not eliminate elder parole. It draws a line where it matters most. These sentences are not arbitrary.
They reflected the severity, the pattern, and the irreparable harm of their crimes. SB twelve seventy eight ensures that those sentences are respected and victims are respected and not forced back into the system again and again. California already recognizes limits in other parole programs such as the youth offender parole program, which excludes certain sex offenses
Redner 13
eligibility. The opposition argued that elderly parole program is cost saving and that money could be better spent elsewhere like roads, etcetera. But I ask you, is cost saving worth the revictimization of people? Is it worth the sleepless nights or living in fear? The thought of what if they do it again?
SB twelve seventy eight is about drawing a moral line to commit to protect victims, respect sentences, and recognize that some crimes leave permanent scars. Turning 50 does not absolve people from of their crimes or heal the wounds of survivors. I have as a witness here Matt Greco, San Diego D. A. Office.
Redner 3
Thank you, Chair, and hopefully that won't count against my two minutes. Thank you, Chair and Vice Chair. My name is Matthew Greco. I'm a Deputy District Attorney in San Diego, which is a co sponsor of the bill. I'm also here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support of SB1278, which strengthens public safety by excluding dangerous sex offenders from eligibility under the Elderly Parole Program.
Recently, California's Elderly Parole Program made headlines for the release of Gravery Vogelsang. Vogelsang is a 57 year old sex offender convicted of 30 counts of kidnapping and sex crimes against multiple children between the ages of five and 11 in the 1990s. Vogelsang was released after serving only 27 of his three fifty five year sentence to the surprise and disappointment of mothers and fathers and victims. And the entire community was shot. $3.55 was a 90% off sale for their victimization.
Vogelsang was released. And his release occurred on the heels of a Board of Parole hearings decision to release David Funston after serving only twenty years of seventy five years of his life sentence for 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation. SB1278 appropriately ensures that individuals like Vogelsang and Funston convicted of violent sexual offenses remain ineligible for early parole consideration. Specifically, this bill would exclude from the elderly parole program the crimes of rape, sodomy, oral copulation, lewd or lascivious acts with the child, sexual penetration. This bill would also exclude sex offenders sentenced under the one strike law and sentenced as habitual sexual offenders.
California has made significant efforts in recent years to reform the parole system, but those efforts must be balanced with the need to protect the public and respect the rights of crime victims. SB1278 would not repeal the statutory elderly parole program. SB twelve seventy eight simply seeks to narrow the eligibility criteria for elderly parole. Inmates would still be eligible for Thank you. If you
Redner 3
I'm almost done. I will wrap it up. I understand we're under time pressure. So thank you. Would still be eligible for a three judge panel.
For all of these reasons, San Diego District Attorney's Office and CDA is happy to support SB1278 and would urge this committee's I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. We'll now take any members of the public wishing to express support for SB1278. If you can please push the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB twelve seventy eight? Okay.
Seeing no one can forward, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill, and you'll have two minutes to address the committee. After which time we'll take me to testimony of those in opposition to SB twelve seventy eight.
Redner 9
Good morning. Thank you for your time. My name is Lily Paratore, and I'm the director of legal services at Uncommon Law, where for nearly a decade, I've represented people convicted of serious and violent crimes, including crimes of sexual violence in the parole process, and I'm in respectful opposition of this bill. From my work, I understand and acknowledge how deeply harmful crimes of sexual violence are. My opposition to this bill in no way discounts those experiences and harms.
And instead, my opposition is rooted in my belief that this bill will not result in increased levels of public safety. Instead, this bill will unravel the progress California has made in safely releasing rehabilitated parole candidates and accelerate fear based policies that put politics over public safety. The elderly program for parole is strenuous. To be granted parole after a conviction for sexual violence is extremely difficult. The parole board requires evidence based programming regarding sexual violence, positive psychological evaluations, and a battery of tests examining risk for future sexual violence, and robust parole plans ensuring continued compliance with sex offender treatment.
Redner 66
When the board does grant parole, which it does in only sixteen percent of scheduled elderly parole hearings, it's because the evidence overwhelmingly supports the decision. The public narrative that people convicted of sexual violence are especially dangerous and cannot change is false, and carving them out of this program is not evidence based. There has never been a single documented case of sexual reoffense from this program. Aging also significantly impacts sexual recidivism. Most people convicted of sexual offenses do not reoffend, and the likelihood of reoffense declines significantly with age.
Redner 9
The data is clear. The carve outs in this bill are simply not based in the facts. And last, these carve outs are also wasteful of taxpayer dollars. The health care costs alone to incarcerate someone over the age of 70 are almost $140,000 a year. We should be investing that money in real healing for survivors and the people in our prisons who are ready to come home.
Thank you.
Redner 4
Thank you, chair, members of the public safety hearing for your thoughtful consideration of the matter before you. My name is James King. I'm director of programs at the Ella Baker Center, and I'm before you today in opposition to SB twelve seventy eight, a bill we believe will substantially harm efforts to incentivize rehabilitation for people with very serious convictions. As my colleague noted, the current parole board hearing process is extremely conservative and rigorous. Of those who do earn their way out through the parole board hearings, the overwhelming majority stay out.
Currently, only two to four percent of people who are released through this process recidivate, and less than one percent are convicted of new crimes against people. Once released, those who fall under the category we are discussing today undergo an extensive post release parole supervision process. They're typically given ankle monitors, weekly lie detector tests, extensive mandated self help programming, frequent check ins with their parole officers. These conditions may extend for the remainder of their lifetimes unless extraordinary circumstances demonstrate otherwise. People in prison with the types of convictions this bill includes already face significant barriers to pursuing rehabilitation.
Redner 28
Undermining incentives to them pursuing change will send the wrong message. Lastly, elderly parole is not a get out of jail early card. It's an opportunity for the commissioners to do a careful review of whether it is still within the state's best interest to incarcerate them, knowing that elderly people are not only the least likely cohort to recidivate, they are also the cohort that most significantly drives the cost of incarceration. The elderly parole process was initially authorized by the federal receivership that oversees our correctional system, not due to altruism or a lack of empathy for survivors and victims, but because our rapidly aging prison population is a solvable problem. Making elderly parole more restrictive risk undermining the progress California has made towards making our correctional system constitutionally compliant.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. We'll invite any members of the public wishing to express opposition to s b twelve seventy eight to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. I'm assuming you're in support.
Redner 15
Good good assumption. Sorry for speaking out of turn. But Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, support of the bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to s b twelve seventy eight? In support.
Redner 16
Good morning, chair members. George Pramtheu on behalf of ACLU California action in respect to opposition.
Redner 10
Good morning, Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 17
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Micah Doktarov on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition.
Redner 1
Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB1278? Okay, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments? Vice Chair Sierto.
Redner 2
Vice you and thank you for tackling this. I know it's controversial for some. It's not controversial for me. I don't consider 50 years old to be old at all. In fact, I don't consider 60 year old to be old at all.
That's just a number. And this process that has been developed in the interest of justice does not provide justice for families. I've seen it firsthand. I have a a friend of our families who who their four year old was was killed. Strangled, probably molested, but they didn't charge him for that because they were getting him on murder.
And they thought he was going away for life. But since he's turned 50, he's had three parole hearings. Three. Every couple of years they drag him out, have him answer the questions. Unfortunately, they're not coaching him enough how to answer them right and so he always gets stumped on one of the questions and and even though we are beating up on the parole board today, they did the right thing this time.
They put him away back back away for five more years. But every time that happens, they have to come out. They have to relive this nightmare that happened to their daughter. And you can just read it in the transcripts. It's it's brutal.
In this is lost. We lose this concept that prison is, yeah, we try to rehabilitate people. Some people deserve rehabilitative efforts and they respond to those real but there's also a justice for the victims part of this. There is no therapy for having your four year old strangled and killed. The therapy is that person doesn't ever get out.
They chose to do that act, and that's what they chose for themselves. If there was a death penalty, they would get the death penalty. Since we do not have that, they get to go away and spend the rest of their lives, I don't care until they're 90 thinking about what they did to that family. And that family should never ever have to worry about even a 90 year old getting out. Because somehow he's paid the price for killing a four year old.
So, I see this as a whole different type of issue and and part of that is this nonsense that we've come up with elderly parole and started it at 50. So this bill makes sense, at least a little bit. It moves it to 60. The number is 60 for these. But these sexually violent predators, there's just no way.
No way you can reconcile that with the general public out there. Because if that guy, mister Funston, moved next door to you guys? Anybody in this room? You know what? You'd move.
You'd move. Can't tell me any different. Because if you wouldn't, then you should step up and offer the parole board a room in your house or the house next door. If you want these folks running around out in the out in the public. And if you don't think they're a public safety risk, hey, you know, bring em in.
Take care of em. So, yes, I will be supporting your bill and I I hope I hope that we arrive at some kind of sense that this is about justice for victims as well and they and that comes first. Not second or third. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Senator, I'll turn over you to Close. I appreciate that. So
Redner 40
it was first of all, I'm not here to argue against elderly parole, although I do think we ought to rethink what is elderly. Originally the three judge panel placed it at 60, and for some reason the legislature felt it wise to reduce that to 50, But nonetheless, I'm not arguing against that program generally. Nor am I arguing against rehabilitation or existing incentives for rehabilitation. But there are some crimes that, not just with regard to sensitivity and respecting the rights of victims, But there are some crimes behaviors that suggest that rehabilitation, that is overcoming that person's burning desire to do those horrible, heinous acts cannot be changed. Mr.
Redner 13
Vogelsang in the evaluations prior to his initial decision to be released, said that he was still attracted to young boys between the ages of five and 12. And yet, the first panel, decided to release him. The it was stated that this bill would not make us more safe. I would suggest that not passing this bill, particularly if mister Vogelsang had been released, and he was the only reason he wasn't released was because of public outcry. He'd be out on the streets now.
I would suggest that not passing this bill, that would make things less safe. We must respect victims. Yes. And we must respect, at least pay initial respect to initial sentencing, and look behind the behavior that motivated that very severe sentencing. Not in all cases of elderly parole consideration, but in some that are particularly heinous.
I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you for joining us today. We do not yet have a quorum, but we're entering a motion when we establish a quorum. Thank you. Thank you.
So that completes our special order of business at the top of our agenda. And so we do take up measures in file order, but do you have an agreement to let senator Archuleta go first? Okay. Thank you. So, with the agreement of the authors present, we'll proceed now to file item 21, senate bill thirteen fifty four by senator Archuleta.
Good morning. And if you have any witnesses, senator, that could please join
Redner 19
Mister Scherer, thank you. And committee members, I wanna start off by accepting the committee amendments and, thank committee staff for working with me and engaged with me on this bill. We work, for quite a number of hours to reach that agreement, but we have. Members, it's with great sense of duty that I present senate bill thirteen fifty four, which would prohibit military personnel not operating under title 10 from another state, territory, or district to enter California to perform military or law enforcement functions without the express permission of the governor of the state of California. The bill's clear prohibition is on out of state, unapproved military activity, reinforces the governor's constitutional authority as our commander in chief here in the state of California, which includes state militia.
It ensures California retains control over any armed or law enforcement operations conducted within its borders. Unfortunately, California is well aware of what it's like to have a National Guard activated in our state without the express permission from our governor. California should not live in fear of unwarranted, unwanted military involvement from any other state National Guard. I want to clarify that this bill does not affect the activation of the guard under Title X. This legislation would not impact current mutual aid agreements such as the Emergency Management Assistant Compact or prohibit outside military personnel from attending schools or training here in California.
Redner 30
At least seven other states have passed similar legislation that prohibits outside forces from entering their states, including Maryland, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, North Carolina, and Washington. Oregon currently is has legislation pending similar to our bill. This measure perhaps will prevent misuse of military power. With me today is Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, and I respectfully ask your I vote.
Redner 1
Well, you, Senator. Before I go to Ms. George, I just want to summarize the amendment that the author has accepted that the committee requested. It's Section five seventy, Subsection B, striking the criminal penalty, And the reason for that is, technically, the criminal penalty would be against individual service members who were deployed. And I think the issue is the executive or the president or whoever, is deploying those individuals.
The attorney general can still enforce the statute and file legal action against a particular state that's in violation of the statute. So there are, penalties and accountability mechanisms in the bill. So I just want to summarize that amendment. I'll turn it over to Ms. George to present.
Redner 10
Good morning. Thank you. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and thank you to the author and to the committee for the amendment. The California Public Defenders Association is proud to support SB thirteen fifty four, which sends a clear message to the governors of other states who might be tempted to send their state National Guard units to California without the express request or permission of the governor. SB thirteen fifty four would make it illegal for military personnel from another state or territory to enter California to perform military law enforcement functions without the express permission of the governor.
Redner 68
And according to the amendment would apparently give the attorney general the authority to enforce that Californians are grateful for the assistance that the Nevada and Wyoming National Guard provided in multiple air and ground fighting efforts as the wildfires raged across the Los Angeles Basin and Southern California in January 2025. Although it's unclear if other states national guards were mobilized and arrived in Los Angeles in June 2025, a number of states volunteered their National Guard to assist with immigration enforcement and other states in Washington DC. Responding to requests from Trump, GOP governors from nine states have agreed to activate their guard troops under Title 32 for deployment in the District Of Columbia. Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Tennessee. As public defenders, we have long witnessed how unauthorized and overly aggressive law enforcement actions, particularly those involving militarized tactics and racial profiling, inflict deep and lasting harm on our clients and communities.
Redner 10
SB thirteen fifty four is a critical safeguard affirming that Californians will not tolerate unlawful or uncoordinated incursions by outside state or federal forces that threaten our residents' constitutional rights, safety, and peace of mind.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB thirteen fifty four? You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
You should be able to speak. Okay.
Redner 11
Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for SB thirteen fifty four? Seeing no one come forward, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition SB thirteen fifty four. Seeing no one come forward, we'll take anyone wishing to express opposition to SB thirteen fifty four. Okay.
Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais. Thank you, senator, for this bill. This is extremely important. Thank you for working with our committee staff on the amendment, which does give the attorney general the authority to enforce this against any governor or or president or federal, agency that seeks to send, military personnel into our state without us requesting them to come. It's unfortunate that we have to take this action, but I think this is a critical measure to protect our state and to ensure that other states and our federal government is acting within the bounds of our constitution.
And as a proud veteran and somebody who served this country, I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I'll turn it over to Close.
Redner 19
Good. Thank you. And of course, committee members, I ask respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 1
Okay. Thank you. We don't have a quorum, so we'll obtain a motion when we establish a quorum. But thank you, Senator. We'll proceed now to the back and file order to file them six SB nine twenty six by senator Strickland.
Redner 21
Good morning, mister chair. Members, I'm here this morning to present SB nine twenty six. Proposition 36, the homelessness, drug addiction, and theft reduction act was approved by the voters with 68% of the vote on November 2024 general election ballot. Notably, it passed all 58 counties, affirmatively. I've been active a long time.
I can't recall the last initiative that passed all 58 counties. Its provisions are now in state law and in effect, having added sections to the health and safety code, the penal code, the government code. The purpose of my bill is simple and straightforward. It was introduced to provide funding for the implementation and going on, to administration of this law. The cities and counties and public officials of the state are required to implement the new provisions of this law.
I believe that the state should be providing adequate funding for our cities and counties to implement this initiative. I would hope that each of you would join me in supporting our cities and counties, and believe that together we can obtain the necessary funding. The most essential role of government is public safety. I have discussed this bill with the chair and the committee and proposed amendments. I thank the chair and his staff for his cooperation and accept the committee amendments.
Redner 22
Those amendments remove the specific appropriation while recognizing the program services and functions that require the funding so we can continue to work on this issue. So I want to make sure we are understanding. I'm accepting the committee's amendments in order to get this moving forward. And I also it's in your committee analysis that I requested the budget funding through the normal budget process. With me today are two witnesses that will provide comments, Julian Faurice from the League of California Cities, and Amy Costa from the Chief Probation Officers of California, and the California State Sheriff's Association, and the California District Attorneys Association.
Redner 23
clock in at a minute. Good morning, my name is Amy Costa. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Stated, I'm here on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, the California District Attorney's Association, and the Chief Probation Officers of California in support of SB nine twenty six.
Unfortunately, many of us have a personal experience with a loved one who has struggled with substance use disorder. We know how incredibly difficult it can be for those battling addiction to successfully complete treatment. It is even more difficult and complex for justice involved individuals to overcome substance use disorder. Successful completion of treatment for substance use disorders, whether someone is justice involved or not, requires support. For individuals who are justice involved, it requires treatment support, and a full system response to provide them the best chance at rehabilitation.
These support services ensure individuals are paired with the best treatment options for their unique circumstances, and assistance to complete their treatment. SB nine twenty six provides a reasonable funding methodology for providing local governments with funding to provide both treatment and support services. Counties are managing increasingly complex cases, requiring structured treatment, physical detention, and increased monitoring. This methodology also ensures people can be served in a variety of environments. Many of the individuals who are in our jails will need treatment and support.
Redner 2
Probation is critical in connecting the court's treatment and accountability. Probation is seeing impacts in our pretrial caseloads, and can be instrumental during drug court or felony probation when Prop 36 defendants are not in an incarcerated setting. The committee amendments would make the amount of funding subject to legislative appropriation. Recently, the Senate Budget Committee released its state budget plan, which did include funding for exactly this purpose. We look forward to continuing these conversations with policymakers to ensure these local efforts, which provide the best chance at treatment success, are funded.
Redner 23
We thank the author for bringing forward this important measure, and we respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 41
Mr. Chair and members, Jolina Voris, on behalf of the League of California Cities, we are in support of SB nine twenty six, which would provide that Proposition 36 funding to be provided to key services and supports. As, the senator said, if you if you go back to 2024, you remember we were experiencing a lot of smash and grabs, organized retail theft, shoplifting, people were seeing this in their everyday lives in the grocery stores and retailers. In 2024, the voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36, which made changes to existing law related to fentanyl, organized retail theft, shoplifting, and created a new treatment mandated felony. For the League of California Cities, one of the key reasons they were in support of Proposition 36 was due to the focus on treatment and diversion, not on returning to mass incarceration.
Redner 24
Last year, the Legislature provided $100,000,000 to fund the implementation of Proposition 36 with funding to behavioral health throughout courts and public defenders. However, their absence from this list of services is funding for probation and other assessment needs for these very complex cases. As proposed to be amended, SB nine twenty six will provide upon appropriation funding the key services needed to provide treatment and services. These amendments are consistent with Cal City's priority and advocacy related to Proposition 36 and the budget requests submitted by Senator Blakespeare and Esme Mordenwynn, and the Spoken would continue to emphasize the legislature's priority to fund Proposition 36 and address the will of the voters. For these reasons, we are in support of this bill and urge your I vote.
Thank you.
Redner 2
All right. Thank you very much. At this time, people, if you are in support of the bill, may come up and state your name, your support, and then your organization that you represent.
Redner 54
Thank you. Senators, Paul Yoder on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists. They just took a support position very end of the week. I owe you a letter but urge your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 26
Good morning on behalf of the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and the San Bernardino County Police Chiefs and Sheriff's Association in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for SB nine twenty six? Seeing no one else will now take two principal witnesses in opposition to SB nine twenty six. Is anyone wishing to testify? And you'll reach out to two minutes to address the committee on the bill.
I would like to begin.
Redner 27
Great. Thank you. I'll start. Good morning, chair, members, staff. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice or CSJ here today in respectful opposition to Senate Bill nine twenty six, the funding of Prop 36 Act authored by Senator Strickland.
While we acknowledge the voters intent with Prop 36 and the need for increased investments in behavioral health, even with the recent amendments SB nine twenty six is a fiscally reckless solution that fundamentally misallocates the state's resources. As California faces a significant budget shortfall and ongoing cuts to federal funding, this bill would funnel hundreds of millions of dollars from the general fund into sheriff's county probation and other entities without necessary transparency or accountability guardrails. Our opposition is rooted in three critical concerns. First, fiscal irresponsibility. Diverting general fund resources at this time is unsustainable, particularly when those funds are funneled towards agencies that already have established revenue streams while leaving out essential providers impacted by 36 implementation like indigent defense.
We cannot prioritize a flawed funding bill when our essential investments in behavioral health, food security, housing, and healthcare are at risk. Next, lack of accountability SB nine twenty six fails to include robust guidance on how funds will be divided among receiving entities. It creates a new public safety services support fund, lacks the guardrails to ensure these dollars are used effectively. Thirdly, redundant funding. This bill overlooks existing resources already flowing to the same these same agencies, specifically the $2,000,000,000 annual investment through AB 109 which design which is designed for the exact purpose of managing and rehabilitating non serious non violent offenders at the county level.
Redner 39
California cannot afford to fund redundancies while life saving public safety services are at the risk of collapse like our trauma recovery centers or TRCs without immediate state action thousands of survivors will lose access to these critical services that the TRCs provide. Furthermore, the Senate Democrats have maintained a $100,000,000 allocation for Prop 36 in the twenty twenty six-twenty seven budget plan, and we believe the annual budget process for fiscal fiscally responsible venue for these conversations and decisions. Do You're
Redner 27
While we fully endorse dedicating more resources to behavioral health and treatment, the bill is misguided, and rather than addressing the most urgent treatment centered needs for our communities, the bill shifts funding towards probation departments and loosely defined entities. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote. Thank you.
Redner 7
Yeah, good morning, Chair, committee staff, Committee Members. My name is Claudia Gonzalez. I'm a Senior Program Associate at Vera California. We are a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice, a national criminal justice advocacy and research organization. I am here today to strongly oppose Senate Bill nine twenty six by Senator Strickland.
SB nine twenty six seeks $400,000,000 in funding for Prop 36, a twenty twenty four initiative that misled voters. Prop 36 promised expanded treatment and to end homelessness. It has delivered neither. While SB nine twenty six would deliver needed funding for treatment, it will not address the reasons this policy has failed so far. Proponents of Prop 36 explicitly said to voters, Proposition 36 is not about going back to an era of mass incarceration.
This is about creating a new era of mass treatment for the underlying condition, fueling so many thefts and driving so many people into homelessness. As jail population statewide continue increasing towards pandemic levels, it is clear this is not true. In addition to funding treatment, this bill delivers a massive influx of funding to incarcerate people. In an earlier draft of the bill, the bill suggested that only one third of funding would go to treatment. This is not what California voted for.
Redner 29
A recent poll asked more than 5,000 Californians what the state should prioritize to funding to support Prop 36. 59% said treatment, and 56% said transitional housing and job training. On the other hand, only 22% just said jails and courts. But lack of treatment funding is not only the reason this is not working. A judicial council report found only seventeen percent of people charged with treatment mandated felonies have opted to receive treatment.
Redner 7
This suggests that coercing people into treatment is not as effective as high quality voluntary and community based treatment. Unfortunately, prop 36 takes money away from many of these programs. Under prop 36, Californians are still languishing in jail instead of receiving treatment. They are being charged with harsh felonies that make it more difficult for them to find housing, jobs, second opportunities, and rebuild stable lives. This is why
Redner 7
This is why one in four voters believe the state should repeal prop 36. California should invest in real solutions to homelessness and addiction. And for this reason, we ask the legislature to please reject SB nine twenty six. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB nine twenty six? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Redner 8
Good morning. Glenn Vakis, Ferrella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition. We will review the amendments. We'll likely still be opposed, but we will review and consider.
Redner 11
Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in opposition.
Redner 29
Shivani Nashar, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, we will also review the amendments, but currently in opposition.
Redner 12
Good morning. Alex Tuckman with the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office Union Local one hundred forty eight in opposition.
Redner 17
Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California were also opposed and will review the amendments.
Redner 10
Good morning, Margo, George. We'll review the amendments, but at this point we remain opposed on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Thank you.
Redner 16
George Pramptu on behalf of ACLU California Action in respect of opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
And apologies, Ryan Moore Muni with California State Association of Counties in support of SB nine twenty six. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB nine twenty six? K. Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the DSM.
Just wanna summarize the amendments, and thank you for the author, to working with the committee. The amendments do the following. Delete the 400,000,000 appropriation. That's something that will addressed through the budget process. I'll note that the Senate Democrats do have proposed $100,000,000 in this in their budget plan.
Delete police and district attorneys as being eligible for the grant program. So, if this bill were to pass in December the governor, funding would be prioritized for county behavioral health departments by treatment, to support interventions in the community offset incarceration costs, to county probation departments, and for administrative And to delete the word fully from subdivision d, because the the prior language said that that governor shall include a proposed transfer to forever amount sufficient to fully fund the ongoing administration of the Prop 36 Act, and, you know, this is ultimately going to be addressed through the budget process, and we need to determine what the sufficient amount is and other conforming changes. So thank you to the author for working with us on these amendments, and Vice Chair Sierto.
Redner 2
Thank you very much and thank you for bringing a bill that shouldn't be necessary because the voters already spoke on this. You don't get to come up and and and undo the voters will. We we can't make a law that says that you'd have to go through a petition process, a referendum process, and, put it back on the ballot and, put it in in in words of of what you want to do. The issue here is that no, proposition 36 has not worked out as intended. Because we haven't funded it.
And we haven't funded the other infrastructure that's required for these things to work the right way. In order for a Proposition 36 person to come through and choose that drug treatment over jail, there has to be a judge, there has to be facilities, there has to be probation to follow-up on them to make sure that they got the treatment and that they didn't just come in and say, yes, I'm going to go get treatment and go out and not get treatment. That whole thing, if if we don't fund, we we can't complain that it's not working. All this is telling us is all the the voters said would they want to help? That's what I've been hearing for four years.
We need to help these people. Get off their addictions. Because that's why they're doing their crimes. But then we underfund every piece of what's going to help them. And our and and the what we were doing before just simply trying to fund the the help that's out there for them.
Having, you know, trying to fund that and having it be a choice that they make before they do their crime, they're not doing it. They're not making that choice. So what we're left with is we have work to do and it's a priority because the residents, the voters in California told us it's a priority. And if we want to help people then that's what we're going to have to do. We need to strengthen the court system, we need to put the judges in that are going to be able to make these go through quickly enough so people can get their treatment and we're going to have to have a probation department that can help people follow-up on that stuff And and we need to fully fund the part where the behavioral services are paid for and things like that.
That this bill that this proposition promised. We can't underfund it and say it's it's failing. The only thing that's failing is our leadership in that case. So, I'll be supporting your bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. Senator Cortesi, we're on SB nine twenty six by Senator Strickland. The funding proposition 36 Act. If you have any questions or comments, I'll recognize you at this time. Okay.
Thank you. Just to address, the bill, I wanna first be clear. I did not support proposition 36 because it was an unfunded mandate. And, the proponents had promised that, this bill was going to ensure that people with serious drug addiction issues were going to get treatment. But there was no money in in the proposition, to increase funding for treatment.
And what we're seeing throughout California are people that are crowding our jails because we don't have enough treatment for those people. We don't have enough staff to evaluate people and refer them to treatment, and we don't have enough treatment programs. So, we have to increase our investment in treatment, in behavioral health treatment, substance use disorder treatment in California. But Proposition 36 is the law of California. The voters throughout the state spoke overwhelmingly in support of passing this act.
So now it's our responsibility as the legislature and the governor to fund the implementation of this measure to honor the will of the voters and make sure it's working right. Because right now, it's not working right. Because this is woefully underfunded. And so, this ultimately will be addressed through the budget process, which is why I appreciate the author striking the specific dollar amounts in the bill. And once again, as the chair of this committee and as a member of the senate democratic caucus, the Senate Democrats have included $100,000,000 for the ongoing implementation of Prop 36.
I'll note that administration included no money for the implementation of Prop 36. And so, it's critical that we continue our investment to make sure that this law works the right way, that we're getting people connected to treatment, that we're keeping our neighborhood safe. And so I appreciate the author bringing this forward. And with that, I'll turn over you to close unless Senator Cortezi has any questions or comments. Okay.
Senator Strickland.
Redner 21
First of all, Mr. Chair, I want to thank you so much for your leadership as chairman of this committee. I also want to thank your staff for working with me on this particular item. You know, everybody can agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I happen to believe the most essential role of government is public safety.
It should be the first thing that gets funded, in my opinion. But I know we have various opinions throughout the legislature. I will say that where we are today is this is implemented. 70%, almost nearly 70% of Californians voted for this initiative. And I can't recall the last initiative, that passed all 58 counties.
That means overwhelming amount of Democrats, Independents and Republicans said that they want to make public safety a top priority and give law enforcement and local cities and counties the tools they need to keep us safe. Even my opposition said one in four voters said that they would like to repeal this initiative. That means it's only 25. We're talking about, again, over 70% of Californians, nearly 70% of Californians voted for this in the affirmative. Where we are today is zero money is being put in for probation, which is the centerpiece and the accountability piece of this initiative.
Another part that I agree with you, Mr. Chair, I actually think it's going be about $400,000,000 a year, and we can argue about that. But even $400,000,000 a year, I think, is not enough and sufficient because I think our mental health issues in California are more severe than anybody thinks about in this legislature. And we need more data on that information. But I respect that the Democrats are asking for $100,000,000 I'm pushing for more because I think it's going to need more money.
But this bill allows me to at least keep this discussion moving forward. And I appreciate you for allowing me to get this, moving forward. I am working on the budget side, asking for funding. And I know our caucus, the Republican caucus is asking for funding. And that's something that we can come together with.
But this is the law of land. As Senator Stiarto said, this is the law of land. And what we are seeing is it's going be a failure if we don't get proper resources on the ground, particularly when it comes to probation and the accountability piece. And what it really comes down to, I was a mayor of a city, and I know you were mayor of a city. It becomes another unfunded mandate to cities and counties where they're asked to do the job but have nowhere near the adequate resources to do the job and the will of the people.
So I stand with, 70% of Californians, overwhelming amount of independents, democrats, and republicans who voted for this, and I'm pushing all 58 counties voted for this. And so I want to keep this issue moving forward, and I appreciate the chair's, willingness to work with my office to get this forward. And I really appreciate your staff's work. And with that, I ask for your I I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. We do not yet have a quorum. We need one more member. But when we do, we will entertain a motion of the bill.
Redner 1
Okay. We'll move back in file order to file item four, SB eight seventy four by Senator Weber Pearson. After which time, we'll take up SB twelve ten by Senator Doctor. Weber Pearson. Good morning.
Redner 31
Good morning, chair and colleagues. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present SB eight seventy four. I accept the amendments from the Senate Health Committee that will be taken in this committee given a short time frame between the two committees. SB eight seventy four strengthens oversight and standardization of behavioral health treatment services and Medi Cal. Behavioral health treatment services include applied behavioral analysis, commonly referred to ABA treatment, and other behavioral interventions that prevent or reduce behaviors that interfere with learning and social interaction, most commonly for children diagnosed with autism.
Recently, utilization of ABA services has grown significantly in both Medi Cal and the commercial market here in California and across the nation. Some of its growth is by design, as the legislature has passed many bills to reduce barriers that families faced in accessing ABA services and to ensure that children could access behavioral health treatment early when it can be most beneficial. However, as a result, a referral for behavioral health treatment services is simpler than many other referrals for many other Medi Cal specialty services, and many of these providers do not have the same licensing requirement as for other Medi Cal services. At the same time, we have seen several media reports documenting ABA services that were overcharged or overprescribed, and at least one ABA provider in California has been charged with false billing and settled. Additionally, beginning in 2022, the Federal Office of Inspector General initiated audits of Medicaid payments for ABA services in several states.
In the four states reviewed to date, audits identified significant improper payment and compliance issues resulting in substantial repayment obligations. Prior to introducing this bill, I had in fact considered requesting an audit of the program. However, an audit review is largely for compliance and the real issue is whether the benefit itself needs additional parameters or guidance to ensure that children who need the benefit are the ones that get it, and that families aren't unwittingly signed up for more hours than necessary. Furthermore, we must prevent services from being delivered by paraprofessionals without adequate supervision who were not even required by statute to be fingerprinted despite their work with children. It is the issue of background checks that brings this bill within the jurisdiction of this committee.
SB eight seventy four requires DHCS to take the following actions to evaluate and improve Medi Cal's behavioral treatment services, require background checks for BHT providers who are not already subject to fingerprinting during licensing, convene a stakeholder workgroup to advise on standards for BHT services, issue and maintain clear clinical guidance for BHT services based on stakeholder input and federal guidance, and report to the legislature on BHT utilization and recommendations to improve program integrity and compliance. Back in 2014, when these services were first added to Medi Cal, there were very few providers and much less awareness of services available. The services in the field have changed considerably, so now is a good time to conduct a thorough review. People who work with vulnerable children, whether in their homes or at treatment centers, should absolutely have a background check. And I respectfully ask for an I vote.
And with me today is Rachel Blacher, representing California Association for Behavioral Analysis, and Katie Andrew from the Local Health Plans of California.
Redner 1
Thank you, and good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.
Redner 5
Good morning, Chair members. My name is Katie Andrew, and I'm here to speak in support of SB eight seventy four on behalf of the local health plans of California, which represents all 17 local community based Medi Cal plans serving over 9,000,000 Californians. LHPC supports SB eight seventy four because it strengthens critical safeguards to protect Medi Cal members, especially children receiving behavioral health treatment services from unlicensed providers. The bill helps ensure these services are delivered safely by establishing a more consistent statewide approach to oversight. In particular, the bill's requirement for a centralized process to collect and retain background check information is a key patient safety protection.
Redner 32
It helps ensure individuals who should not be providing care are appropriately screened out while also preventing gaps duplication or inconsistent standards across the system. This focus on safety and accountability is especially important in today's environment of increased federal scrutiny. Strengthening program integrity and ensuring proper vetting of providers not only protects patients, but also reinforce trust in the Medi Cal program. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your I vote on SB eight seventy four. Thank you.
Redner 57
Hi, good morning. Rachel Blucher with Nielsen Merxmur on behalf of the California Association for Behavior Analysis, CALABA. We are the professional membership association representing over 37,000 practitioners of behavior analysis in California. Our mission is to advance, promote, and protect the science and practice of behavior analysis. Our members provide applied behavioral analytic services, or ABA, services across a range of settings, including homes, schools, clinics, and community environments.
Redner 33
Many practitioners serve individuals diagnosed with autism and other developmental disabilities, and these services are critical to improving functional outcomes and quality of life. We support SB eight seventy four because it establishes important safeguards to ensure that individuals providing BHT services meet appropriate background check requirements, while also strengthening statewide clinical guidance and program integrity. The bill requires that unlicensed providers delivering Medi Cal BHT services undergo fingerprint or finger image based background checks, and directs DHCS to specify how this information is collected and maintained. This promotes both consumer protection and clarity for providers responsible for compliance. It also creates consistency across the industry.
So, for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. I will invite any members of the public wishing to express support for SB eight seventy four to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay. Don't anyone after this gentleman?
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no one else, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to SB eight seventy four. And seeing no one come forward, is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB eight seventy four? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais.
Any questions or comments? Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. It's extremely important, and I'll turn it over to you if you'd like to close.
Redner 31
I just want to thank the committee, and at the appropriate time, respectfully ask for an I vote on SB eight seventy four.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Once we establish a quorum, we're entering a motion on the bill, but thank you for joining us today. It will now move to the second bill by Doctor. Weber Pearson, filed item five SB twelve ten. And whenever you would like to
Redner 31
Thank you. Good morning again, chair and members. I'm here to present SB twelve ten, a bill that advances both California's privacy interest and law enforcement's need for collaborative tools to investigate organized crime. For nearly thirty years, California's law enforcement agencies had used the CalGang database to store and share information related to the investigation of criminal street gangs. In 2015, an audit of CalGang found that, as a result of its weak oversight structure, it contained questionable information that may violate individuals' privacy rights.
Redner 23
The alarming results included the discovery of more than 600 individuals in Calgang who had purged dates extending beyond the five year limit, many of which were not scheduled to be purged for more than one hundred years and that the agency failed to provide the basis for gang designations. The report actually goes on to conclude that the Cal Gang current oversight structure did not ensure that law enforcement agencies collect and maintain criminal intelligence in a manner that preserved individuals' privacy rights that there was no transparency nor meaningful opportunities for public input. And although it asserted compliance with federal regulations and state guidelines, standards designed to protect privacy and other constitutional rights, there was little evidence that existed that CalGAN's governance had ensured these standards were met, and as a result the user agencies were tracking some people in CalGang without adequate justification, potentially violating their privacy rights. And further, by not reviewing the information as required, CalGang's governance and user agencies had diminished the system's crime fighting value. It was recommended at that time that CalGang needed oversight structure that ensured that information is reliable and that users adhere to requirements to protect individuals' rights.
Redner 31
It was recommended at that time that the legislature adopt state law assigning it to the Justice Department the responsibility for CalGang oversight and specify that CalGang must operate under defined requirements such as supervisory and periodic record reviews. And so, following that audit, the legislature rightfully acted and AB2298 was passed which created notice to appeal rights for individuals whose personal information was added to CalGang or any other shared database. That was followed by AB90, who tasked the Department of Justice with regulating and overseeing CalGAN and other gang database. And in 2020, the Department of Justice promulgated regulations that established governance guide rails, including the requirement that all personnel who had access to a shared database undergo comprehensive and standardized training, and that any records contained in a database not be disclosed for employment screening or enforcing federal immigration law, among other requirements. Unfortunately, we are now seeing that many law enforcement agencies have chosen to disregard the Legislature's reforms by ending their relationship and use of CalGang.
The number of law enforcement agencies entering records into CalGang has dropped from two fourteen agencies to just 19. There is no evidence that these agencies stopped collecting gang intelligence altogether. In fact, if you read the Opposition's letters, they actually admit the fact that they are still collecting this information, but just keeping it locally. And rather, the available evidence suggests that once regulations went into effect, the agencies began adopting the use of local databases not subject to regulation. Stockton Police Department is the clearest public example.
In 2019, Stockton Police Department told ABC ten that it chooses to use its own database instead of CalGang, citing time and resources to add names to both. The same report stated that Stockton maintained more than 2,000 names in its local gang database, while DOJ reported that Stockton had only added eight names to Cal Gang. Finally, it is worth noting that the use and accuracy of GAIN databases is not only a statewide issue as it was initially, but it is a nationwide immigrant issue now. In 2025, the Trump Administration began using gang database entries as justification to fast track the removal of immigrants to the prison in El Salvador. Most notable was the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was sent there on the basis of a Maryland gang database entry that alleged gang membership on only the slightest of evidence.
Being wrongfully placed in a gang database can have serious, life altering consequences, which is why the audit in this became an issue in the first place, including increased police scrutiny, higher bail, harsher sentencing through gang enhancement, barriers to employment, and even now the risk of deportation often without the individual's knowledge or meaningful opportunity to challenge their inclusion. For all of these reasons, SB twelve ten amends penal code to make all gang databases, regardless of whether they are shared or not, subject to the legislature's previous enacted reforms, including the Department of Justice and Oversight and Regulation. With me today to testify is Sean Garcia Lathes, Executive Director for the Peace and Justice Law Center and Israel Villa, Deputy Director at the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.
Redner 34
Thank you, Chairs, members, staff. At its core, this issue is about a basic constitutional principle. Law enforcement cannot keep intelligence files on people who are not suspected of specific criminal acts. We do not allow dragnet surveillance of people based on how they look, where they're from, or their attitudes towards police, even if that might seem effective. That kind of approach is simply inconsistent with American principles of civil rights, privacy and limited government.
But like all general legal principles, there are exceptions. Here, there is an exception for people who are reasonably suspected of actively participating in a criminal organization with the intent to further the organization's criminal activities. But that's a high bar. It essentially says there must be reason to believe the person is participating in organized crime. For many years, that standard was not followed in the context of gang databases.
Instead, people were added based on appearance, neighborhood or perceived associations and not based on their connection to organized criminal activity. At one point, a Los Angeles County report found nearly half of all young Black men in Los Angeles had been entered into a gang database. That was not targeted enforcement. It was gang suppression as a tool of what's been called the new Jim Crow, law enforcement practices that claim to be race neutral but produce overwhelmingly racial disparities. Over the past decade, the legislature has looked hard at the problem.
Redner 6
You reformed cal gang oversight, strengthened DOJ regulation, updated the STEP Act to require actual participation in organized crime, and more recently, defense attorneys have begun using the Racial Justice Act to challenge prosecutors' use of gang allegations as a proxy for racist stereotypes. But one area has not worked as intended. In response to these reforms, many agencies simply left CalGang. As you heard today, only about 20 agencies remain, while nearly 200 have moved unregulated in house databases. Some agencies, like Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino sheriffs, and my local agency, the Santa Ana Police Department, have stayed in CalGang and shown that compliance is workable, but many others have opted out to avoid oversight.
Redner 34
SB-twelve 10 addresses this gap. It does not expand the law or rebalance public safety and civil rights. It simply ensures that all gang databases, shared or local, follow the same standards the legislature set. In short, SB1210 preserves the effectiveness of your prior reforms and ensures they apply uniformly. Thank you.
Redner 53
Good morning, mi Buenos dias, chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Israel Salazar Villa, a 48 year old from East Salinas who survived the school to prison pipeline and spent nearly two decades incarcerated. I clearly recall being labeled a gang member as a child before any real affiliations. I'm now approaching twelve years of freedom and serve as a deputy director of the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, have been mentoring hundreds of young people from throughout California, see YCJs in 24 counties and growing, and supporting system reform and transformation.
Redner 11
Yet in 2019, Salinas police claimed I was living a double life as a documented gang member in their internal files. Because this information was never entered into CalGang, I had no way to challenge or clear my name. This unregulated designation cost my employment at the time and harmed my ability to serve my community. My story experience highlights a broader problem. Unregulated databases allow people to be labeled without notice based on inaccurate or outdated information with no path to appeal.
This erodes trust and undermines effective public safety. The solution is simple: Amend Penal Code Sections one hundred eighty six point three four one hundred eighty six point three six to remove the words shared and ensure all gang databases are subject to existing oversight and due process protections. This restores the law's original intent without creating new burdens. If the database they put me on was regulated, I would have been able to go to the Superior Court and have a judge look at all the evidence that I have successfully transformed my life and ultimately clear my name. I respectfully urge your support to close this loophole and protect both civil rights and public safety.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Okay. We'll invite any members of public wishing to express support for SB twelve ten. Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.
Redner 8
Good morning. Glenn Bacchus Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.
Redner 10
Good morning. Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support. Thank you.
Redner 16
George Bramflew on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 7
Claudia Gonzales, and as someone who spent many years on the CalGain database, in strong support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB twelve ten? Seeing no one can afford, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB twelve ten.
Redner 15
Morning, chair members. Good Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association in respectful opposition. I do want to start by apologizing to the author and her staff. They did reach out after the bill was introduced several weeks ago to meet, but it being April, we haven't had a chance to actually sit down and talk. You have my commitment to do that.
But unfortunately, as the bill stands now, we are opposed. This is a very familiar issue. I was lead with the police chiefs when the original Cal Gang audit came through. The history there is that we actually ran our own bill to reform the system at the same time then assembly member Shirley Weber ran her bill AB 90, and there was a deal that was negotiated throughout the course of the year where a lot of the police chief's language ended up in AB 90. We were there for every part of the development of the regulations and the oversight, have heard these arguments, have heard, you know, the abuses that occurred and acknowledged that there was definite need for oversight and reform.
Redner 16
And, you know, through the work, obviously, the CalGain database system has changed tremendously. And I understand, you know, the shift then to the local databases, not as an attempt to circumvent, I think, the oversight, but in terms of doing active investigations and needing to record that information on a daily basis as you're developing leads before it's formalized, there is a need at the local level to be able to, you know, develop those leads and collect that information without going into a formal database system. So I do think it's very, very difficult to take those AB90 CalGang standards and apply them ubiquitously to all gang databases. A lot of these are informal, in process, developing investigations, thousands of potential data sets that we'd have to then regulate, and there'd have to be notification and outreach and chances to remove them, even if it's an ongoing investigation. I do think that there's some room to talk about reforms and oversight that's needed in these local systems, but I don't think it's as simple as taking Cal Gang's statutes and applying them to every single database that we've got.
Redner 15
And then the last concern that we have is there's a small change in the definition of criminal street gang, where we now would have to prove that the association is organized. That's actually a pretty significant change. A lot of the criminal street gangs that law enforcement faces are loosely affiliated. There is not some type of hierarchy. There's not, you know, a boss and a captain and lieutenants down below.
It's just an association. So we do think that that's a pretty significant change in the definition. We like to talk about that as well. But happy to continue working on this one as it moves on and answer questions respectfully in opposition today, though.
Redner 1
Thank you, Mr. Feldman. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB twelve ten? Okay. Seeing no one can afford, I'll bring it back to the dais and ask if there are any questions or comments from committee members.
Redner 1
Well, thank you, senator, for bringing this forward. You know, this ensures that the will of the legislature is reflected in these local databases. It's extremely important given the testimony we heard from our witnesses of the impacts of these databases and how it impacts people's lives. And I really appreciate you bringing this forward and encourage you to continue to talk to opposition. But thank you for bringing this bill forward.
I'll turn it over to Close. Yeah.
Redner 31
Thank you, Chair. Really want to thank my witnesses who came and spoke today and, you know, being vulnerable, letting us know your story. When this was originally an issue that the legislature was grappling with back in 2015. I wasn't here, but my mother was here. And I would hear about the stories.
I would hear about the things that were going on. But it was also personal, and I think she may have mentioned it as well. I have a younger brother who is six, five, and was kind of much bigger then than he is now. And the San Diego Police tried to put him on a gang database. Never been affiliated with a gang in his life.
And so, you know, the legislature did a lot of work. The Department of Justice did a lot of work to ensure that this information could be collected but not in a manner that infringed on individual rights. That was done in a way that was not racist or biased or stereotypical and it was not done in a way that if you got on it there was absolutely no way that you could get off. Even when I called my mom last night and I told her I was doing this today, she was like, remember there was like a three year old kid on the database. A three year old kid was put on the gang database.
There is a reason why we needed oversight. I look forward to speaking with the opposition, like, you know, was stated. My staff has reached out multiple times to sit down to talk about this, and so I look forward to doing that. I do want to just note that the criminal definition of street gang in the bill just aligns with already established definition of criminal street gang in our current penal code. But we can definitely consider continue to have conversations about that.
And there is an exception for providing notice if an active criminal investigation will be compromised. And so, if that is the case, you would not have to disclose that information, and that is also already in in in statute. But definitely look forward to further conversations. But you know, I was quite surprised and disappointed that I would be doing something like this this year because I thought the legislature had handled this. But it also shows why we always need to go back and review whether or not the bills and the regulations that we have passed are actually working or if people have found a potential loophole.
And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote on SB twelve ten at the appropriate time.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. We are one short of a quorum, but when we do, I'll initiate a motion on the bill. And thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward and thank you Thank to our Next in file order is SB nine thirty eight by Senator Menjivar, but I don't see her here, so we'll move to the three bills by Senator Grove. And so the first in file order is SB ten nineteen, the California Cargo Theft Task Force. If there are any principal witnesses, you're welcome to join us here at the table.
And good morning, Senator.
Redner 36
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. SB ten nineteen would establish a dedicated cargo theft task force in the Department of Justice to enhance coordination between federal, state, and local law enforcement and industry representatives to target the rise in cargo theft.
I appreciate the committee suggestions to add the data collection on cargo theft and the task force mission on the annual report, and I'm happy to accept those amendments. Thank you, mister chair and your staff for working with us. Members from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the rail corridors and highways across the Central Valley, California moves more goods than any other state in the nation. Our farms, factories, energy producers, and retailers depend on the freight network that works safely, efficiently, and without criminal interference. Unfortunately, that system is under coordinated attack by sophisticated criminal networks that operate across the state and national lines with little fear of consequence.
These are not isolated thefts of petty crimes. They are deliberate, strategic operations designed to exploit gaps in the state law and weak coordination among enforcement agencies across different levels of government. Nationwide cargo theft costs the trucking industry an estimated $18,000,000 every day. $18,000,000 every day. Railroads have reported a $100,000,000 in losses on last year alone, a 40% increase from the year before.
Given California's role in the global trade gateway, the state bears a large share of these losses. Rail theft is a huge problem in rural communities with criminal crews monitoring train movements, identifying high value shipments, and striking when the trains slow in a remote access area. A perfect example of that is the Tehachapi Loop. It's an amazing feat to see where a train will wrap around the mountain several times, but they have to go very, very slow to not derail the train. There have been several videos that were submitted to me from cargo theft individuals and these people are well organized and well armed.
This is not your average everyday criminal or homeless person walking down the road seeing a train and trying to break into it. These people are throwing Molotov cocktails, grenades, all kinds of crazy stuff at these trains, and it's affecting the safety of the operators of those trains at the same time. When one train is stalled, the whole system shuts down, which ceases the delivery of the products that we need to get to stores. Rail theft is a huge problem in rural counties. These theft rings move goods quickly across the city, country and state lines, making cases difficult to investigate and prosecute because as soon as they sell or steal, you know, a thousand boxes of Nike shoes being released, it immediately goes to another state or another country for resale.
They're very hard to catch. Members, these are not mobs of teenagers or swamps of Lulu Mellon outlets. This is not what this is. They're organized criminal gangs. And like I said earlier, they are well armed and well organized.
I appreciate the committee's support on the bill. If you haven't seen it, I would like to draw your attention to Milwaukee tools letter. The company notes that they will no longer ship out of Southern California corridor, including ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach because of the frequent cargo losses that they have suffered. One of the other things that I want to mention is Tyson Foods. And not that the perpetrators are interested in the food product, which are like chicken nuggets and things that go to feed our children in the food program that we provide for our schools.
But once the container of food is opened, it can no longer be used for resale. It has to be destroyed because you don't know if it was contaminated. So we've lost millions upon millions of free and reduced lunches provided to our schools that taxpayers pay for in order for the our kids that are that can't afford lunch at school that we provide. They're losing out on that as well. The Department of Justice currently has a task program with eight separate task forces targeting a number of critical areas impacted by crime.
Each task force commander works closely with police chiefs, sheriffs, and other local and state federal agencies from Oregon to the Mexico border. SB ten thirty nine would direct the Department of Justice to add a task force focusing on cargo theft moving through the interstate and interstate supply chain, including goods in transit, warehouses, distribution centers, and other storage locations. By creating a specialized intelligence driven unit, SB ten nineteen strengthens California's ability to protect supply chains, safeguard businesses, and disrupt organized cargo theft, including operations targeting rail rail rail yards and freight lines. Again, from Long Beach, Los Angeles through the Central Valley and up north. I ask for your I vote, and with me here to support is Brian Lohrey, the chief of police Protection for BNSF Railroad.
Redner 1
Brian Hi. Good morning. You have two minutes to adjust the committee on the bill.
Redner 6
Brian Chair Arguin and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity for me to speak. My name is Brian Lorry, Chief of Police for BNSF Railway Police Department, and I'm here to represent BNSF as the sponsor for SB ten nineteen. Cargo theft in California has evolved into a highly organized, coordinated threat to the state supply chain. What we are seeing today is not petty theft. It is systematic criminal activity targeting rail lines, intermodal facilities, staging areas, and distribution centers, activity that disrupts service, endangers workers, and affects communities across the nation.
On 03/24/2026, along our Cajon and Needle subdivisions, we saw just how sophisticated these operations have become. 16 trains were impacted in a single night. Excuse me. We documented five sabotage events, including cut air hoses and tampered brakes, actions that could have caused catastrophic accidents. One train had 111 burglaries alone.
Across multiple trains, dozens were breached. Hundreds of boxes of consumer goods were stolen. These groups moved with precision, bypassed locks, and disappeared before law enforcement could respond. Unfortunately, this is not unusual. Every day, our employees encounter tactics such as suspects sabotaging safety systems for trains to stop, climbing or cutting open railcars while they're in motion, dumping masses massive amounts of debris along the right of way, and even threatening workers with deadly weapons.
Redner 52
Routes serving California's ports are specially targeted to the point that some major shippers are choosing to route freight through other states to avoid the risk. This is why SB ten nineteen is so important. This bill establishes California Cargo Theft Task Force within the attorney general's office, an intelligence driven statewide unit designed to match the scale and complexity of the threat. It strengthens coordination among state and local law enforcement, improves information sharing, and supports targeted investigators investigations into organized theft networks. It also ensures that rail and freight industry expertise is incorporated into enforcement strategies, which is essential for operations that span multiple jurisdictions and move at high speed.
Redner 6
The bill's broad definition of cargo reflects how modern supply chains actually work, covering goods in transit and in temporary storage, and the required annual reporting beginning in 2028 will give the legislator clear sorry, clear visibility into theft trends, recovered cargo, and recommendations for strengthening enforcement. Cargo theft undermines California's economy, threatens worker and community safety, and weakens the reliability of the state supply chain. SB ten nineteen provides a coordinated statewide response needed to confront this challenge. On behalf of BNSF, I respectfully urge your support. Thank you for your time.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support, for SB ten nineteen? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Redner 2
Good morning. Nick Chappie with the California Trucking Association. We registered our position after the deadline, but we are in support. Thank you.
Redner 25
Mister Chair, members, Paul Yoder, on behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 13
Mister chair, members, Bo Biller on behalf of the California Association of Port Authorities asking for your aye vote. Thank you.
Redner 17
Morning. Faith Conley with Weidmann Group on behalf of the Supply Chain Federation in strong support.
Redner 31
Jennifer Good morning. Jennifer Curry with UPS. Thank you for your support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Okay, unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for SB ten nineteen, We will now move to opposition witnesses. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SB ten nineteen? Seeing no one else come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for questions or comments.
Vice Chair Sierto.
Redner 2
All right. Thank you for bringing attention to this growing and expanding problem that we're having in California. I appreciate you being here this morning. I had a question regarding the enforcement not enforcement, but are we catching anybody? And are we able to determine what level of criminal organization they're at?
Are they at local levels? Or are they are international levels? Who are they?
Redner 6
Yes, sir. So both. We and it depends on where it's at. In some of the broader cities, it's local folks. In some of the desert areas, it's an international group.
Redner 2
Okay. Because given some of the efforts that we are hearing about here in this committee, we may have to work with some of our other members to ensure that our efforts to rein this in isn't hampered by efforts to undo databases and things like that because otherwise we're not going to be able to solve these problems either and they do cross lines they do cross international lines state lines, and we have to have that type of cooperation in order to to to unravel these and and then deal with them ultimately. So, thank you very much for the bill and certainly intend to support it.
Redner 1
Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. I strongly support it. Just to clarify, the amendments added data collection requirement to the task force objectives and annual report. So, when we get this annual report to get some specific data on, what is actually happening, to inform, law enforcement strategies and coordination, which is extremely important.
I I proud to represent the city of Oakland. The Port Of Oakland is one of the largest container ports in The United States. And just this past Friday, I was out, at the, refrigerated cargo, business in Oakland where they see a great deal of freight traffic that happens, on rail and by truck. And this is a major issue that impacts our ports, throughout the state of California, whether it's agriculture, which is one of our major commodities in our state, whether it's imports or exports. This is really about protecting our state's economy, and addressing, you know, not just local but international criminal enterprises that are, you know, engaging in these coordinated operations.
Right? It's not a one off thing. This is an actual organized criminal activity. So I thank you very much for bringing this forward. I don't think this is duplicative.
I think this adds value and helps address a very serious issue that's critical to our state's economy. With that, I'll turn over to Claus.
Redner 36
I want to thank the Chair. California is a diverse state, whether it's on our beautiful coastlines, our ports in the Central Valley where we produce food and energy, our high desert areas, or the Long Beach area and the beach area and the ports and the economy that's there. This is a very rare bill that affects our state entirely statewide, not only because of the impacts of cargo theft in each one of our areas and the impacts that it has, but the harm it potentially causes to our employees that are running the rail operations. When a rancher brought me the information, I had a meeting with BNSF Railway and we had a lengthy discussion and they were completely aware. They had been documenting this stuff.
They had been making sure that they could do everything possible. And some of the things that I got from people on the ground was just horrific. It's like a war zone in some cases in the Central Valley, and that is not an exaggeration. I would be glad to share videos with you to show you exactly what some of these employees that are engineers and people that are on these trains have to deal with when they go through that slow area I described earlier. So with my deepest respect for the chair and accepting the amendments, and I do think we need to make sure it continues to be tracked, I do agree with you.
It is not duplicative. The CHP has a wonderful program. It doesn't focus on this particular type of cargo theft, and I just appreciate your I vote. Thank you, sir.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Okay. We'll enter in a motion when we accept the quorum. Thank you, chief, for being here. Appreciate your service.
We'll proceed to the next bill by senator Grove on our agenda, which is file item 11 s b twelve seventeen, the nonconsensual intimate image clearinghouse bill. So, if there are any witnesses, on SB twelve seventeen, you're welcome to join us here at the table. And as they're approaching, just wanna summarize the amendments, which, are amendments that were, well, first, requested by the privacy committee that we're making in our committee, and those amendments changed the definition of covered platform to apply only to platforms with user generated content, eliminate images of minors from the bill, and define nude the terms nude and sexual. The amendments that we, have proposed in the Public Safety Committee edit language that peace officers must, quote, possess knowledge to verify the nonconsensual images, and that is related to the the scope of the bill that is before our committee with regard to the role of peace officers and enforcement of the statute. So with that, I will turn over to you Senator DiPrissette.
Redner 36
Thank you, Mr. Chair again. SB twelve seventeen. Before I begin, I want to accept the amendments as the chair just described in Senate privacy committee that provide a definition for what an intimate image is, and to clarify the bill does not cover images of minors, and to refine the definition of a covered platform. I also want to accept the Public Safety Committee's amendment to change the phrase of who is able to verify the to able to possess the knowledge in section 647.05 b, which adds clarity for law enforcement.
I want to publicly thank the sponsors of this bill who are survivors of sexual exploitation themselves and their tireless engagement on this bill to try to get their images out of the public eye that were taken against their will. I said survivors. One survivor is here to testify with us today. The mother of another individual who was severely impacted on this is here today, but the individual is not. And I'll share more about that later.
This is a complex issue, and the collaboration that we've seen so far has been completely incredible. My commitment to protecting the vulnerable in our state, particularly women and children, has been the cornerstone of my work in the legislature. Representing the Central Valley, I came up here to protect oil and ag. Never in a million years did I think I was going to be standing before you trying to protect children from being sold for sex in this state, protecting individuals for their privacy to not have horrible images up online that anybody has access to, or individuals who are affected by mental health diversion. In the modern day era, traffickers and exploiters have a new weapon that serves survives long after they're behind bars.
The digital record of their abuse is still out there for everyone to see. We're seeing an explosion of non consensual intimate imagery also called NCII, which includes not just stolen photos or pictures and videos taken under duress, but increasingly sophisticated AI generated deep fakes. These images are used to blackmail, silence, and re traumatize survivors often preventing them from ever truly rebuilding their lives. SB twelve seventeen is the next step to fight against human trafficking and exploitation. The bill establishes a secure state administrated clearinghouse within the control of the California DOJ that will allow survivors to submit verified request for removal of which the department will authenticate that request and generate unique identifiers and transmit them to covered platforms like Instagram and Facebook.
These platforms would have the required be required to remove the images within forty eight hours, which is consistent with federal law under the 2025 Take It Down Act. The bill ensures that when criminal harm ends, that the digital harm can finally end as well and not carry on and haunt these victims for life. I'm proud that SB twelve seventeen is a survival driven proposal. And it's a solution focused on fixing every real problem that plagues many human trafficking victims and sexual assault survivors. The bill reflects what survivors have been asking for which is a system that recognizes the ongoing nature of this harm and importantly shifts the burden away from those who are exploited.
The bill focuses on three critical areas. Closing the tech gap. We explicitly include AI generated content to ensure that laws keep pace with predators using digital forgeries to harass victims. Number two, the frontline victim response. We require peace officers to act as a bridge to recovery by informing victims about the clearinghouse the moment the crime is reported.
Letting victims, know that the clearinghouse is available to them. So if a victim comes and says my images were caught online and they report it to their local law enforcement, the local law enforcement to say have you heard about the clearinghouse? That's it. It's not a big task. A certified or a centralized number three a centralized enforcement pillar while federal law will undertake the take it down act.
It now requires platforms to remove this content. SB twelve seventeen creates the how to take it down. It provides a secure state portal where the DOJ verifies the request once the victim submits the information through a nonprofit and demands the removal of the platform simultaneously. So it's not like whack a mole where a victim has to go to every single platform to try to get their images taken down just to have them move to another image another platform. I want to reiterate that my commitment to refining this bill further sharpens the verification process to ensure that the clearinghouse is safe, secure, and bulletproof process for all survivors to use.
For women healing from trafficking and those lives that are being devastated by deep fakes, we should not force them to chase down and fight multi billion dollar tech companies on their own. We can provide them with a centralized government backed clearing house to help them reclaim their dignity. SB twelve seventeen is supported by a large number of survivor led organizations and I respectfully ask for your I vote. With me here to testify, two incredible individuals with lived experience. They are lived experience experts.
They're fierce advocates and representatives of the California Survivor Coalition, Nyatza Nyabla Serrano, and Candice Lynn, a mom that has a story to tell.
Redner 1
Thank you so much. Thank you for joining us this morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. Where would you like to start?
Redner 33
Okay. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Nithya Nieblesserano. I am a federally recognized victim of sex trafficking in the girls do porn case. I'm here today for myself from Mariah Reef, who is in Washington, D.
C, advocating for the same bill and alongside a mother who is speaking for her daughter because her daughter can't. This issue does not end when the crime ends. Non consensual intimate imagery is not just a privacy issue, it's an ongoing public safety issue. When this content is uploaded, it spreads instantly copied, downloaded, and re uploaded across countless platforms. Even when it's removed, it comes back.
And it doesn't just come back, it actually evolves. There are entire online communities built around this content. They track victims, trade our identities, and treat us like collectibles. They call finding our names and lives the holy grail. They exchange that information with each other.
We are being traded like Pokemon cards. They categorize us by our bodies and what they have done to us. They mix our personal photos with those videos. They upload our names. They leave timestamps marking moments of pain.
They mock us. They shame us. Now they're using AI to recreate us making it look like we are speaking, participating, and even celebrated what happened to us. This is not passive. This is ongoing exploitation.
And the system today tells victims to handle it themselves. They track it, we report it, we relive it over and over again. There are cases where the same image is removed and re uploaded within hours again and again until victims just simply stop reporting because the process becomes more traumatic than their original violation. This is the system we have today. SB1217 changes that.
It verifies content once and removes it at scale shifting the burden off victims and onto systems that can actually stop it. Because when this content stays the harm doesn't end, it grows. One in five adults has experienced this. This is not rare and it's not going away. For those of us who are still living,
Redner 38
Committee. Thank you. My name is Candace Candace Lynn. I'm the mother of Isabel Shucart, a victim of sex trafficking in the girls' deportant case. Isabel lost her life as a result of unchecked, nonconsensual, intimate imagery.
I've come from Seattle to support this critical bill and to attempt to convey the tragedy our family has experienced. Isabel was vibrant, funny, intelligent, and deeply loved. As a child, Isabel enjoyed animals, music, and drawing. She had attended college, became a licensed real estate agent at 19, and had big dreams. Then everything changed.
Just before her twentieth birthday, she began to withdraw. I knew something had happened to my daughter. I begged Isabelle to tell me, but she never would. I could never have imagined the reality that she had been coerced, raped, filmed, posted online, and that the trauma would follow her publicly forever. On 09/20/2023, Isabel died under suspicious circumstances that have still not been investigated.
Redner 31
Last May, I stumbled on an obscure Reddit posting referencing GDP. It read, quote, One of the girls, Isabel Shoukard, said they kept her in San Diego for several days and wouldn't let her leave until they had two videos, end of quote. This is how I learned of GDP and Isabel's trauma. A few months later, at Michael Pratt's sentencing, I learned what fully what happened to my daughter. I saw Isabel in every brave woman who gave testimony that day.
Redner 38
These young women were tricked, coerced, and raped. They complied so they might live. They didn't know that within months, their trauma would not be behind them but ahead. To this day, these women live with fear and anxiety, knowing their content continues to circulate. They're raped, viewed by friends, coworkers, boyfriends, professors, and by millions of porn consumers.
I now understand why my daughter I now understand my daughter was doxxed, attacked, trafficked, and trolled, and trafficked again. What I live with today is this: My daughter is gone, but her content of rape is not. It still exists online, accessible, searchable, and impossible to fully remove. I've had to tell her sister and brother. Her brother, who is still in high school, lives in a world where that content is one click away.
Following Michael Pratt's sentencing, U. S. Attorney Adam Gordon stated, We, as a society, failed these women. They were forced to walk alone. I completely agree.
I've learned that Isabel tried to get help. She went to law enforcement. She reported to platforms. Like so many others, nothing worked. She was left to carry the trauma, the shame, the burden of trying to remove her own abuse from the Internet.
Now that responsibility falls on me. Senate Bill twelve seventeen changes that. It creates a system that verifies and removes the content at scale and finally shifts the burden of off victims and families. Lately, I have been working with a GDP survivor and their nonprofit who is taking down content. She's successfully removed much of Isabelle's content, but not all.
This clearinghouse is a critical piece needed for a coordinated full scale takedown, one that will truly make a difference for the victims and their families. This bill comes too late for Isabelle, but it does not have to be too late for others. I am asking you to vote yes to protect victims, prevent further harm, and ensure no family has to live in a world where their child's abuse remains online after they are gone. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you both for being here today. On behalf of the committee, we are deeply sorry for your loss and the harm your family and friends had endured. And I really appreciate your courage being here to talk about this very difficult issue and why this bill is so important. So thank you for being here today. We'll now invite any members of the public wishing to express support for SB twelve seventeen.
If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Redner 17
My name is Justine Lee. I'm here in my personal capacity as a survivor of trafficking, and I support.
Redner 3
I'm Matthew Greco. I'm here on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and the California District Attorney's Association in strong support.
Redner 39
Hi, my name is Ashley Bazelon. I'm with Diamond Collective and the California Survivors Coalition. I'm also a survivor of human trafficking in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 40
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association in support.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB-twelve 17? Okay. Thank you all for being here. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to SB-twelve 17.
Is anyone wishing to testify in opposition to the bill? K. Seeing no one come forward, are there members any members of the public wishing to express opposition to SB twelve seventeen? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring her back to the dice for questions and comments. Vice Chair Sierto?
Redner 2
Again, to the author, thank you. It's a tough issue to tackle. Part of what makes it really tough is there's been such a resistance to bringing justice to these folks going after people that are perpetrating this. It's it's not fair to them. It's not fair to their the the people that have been personally affected and their families.
And and so you know once again you've brought us a bill that needs to move and and and the time is right for it to move because this isn't getting better. It's getting worse. I have zero sympathy for people that are engaged in this type of activity. That are they're continuing to exploit these young ladies. And and and so and and sometimes young men also.
So you know with that I I appreciate you having the courage to to bring bills like this and and then having, you know, people that can come in and give us their story because that's really really important and I I'm glad there was no opposition today because otherwise, I would make this even tougher. Thank you and I will be supporting your bill.
Redner 41
will be supporting the bill. I just have one question of the author and it may or may not have come up with this particular bill yet. In working in this area myself, and I'm very glad that you're tackling the issue, But in working in this area, we've had a very, very difficult time trying to navigate federal section two thirty, which basically causes to be dismissed any action based on content, based on the content of that which shows up on a platform. And I'm just wondering, I mean, clearly, you've done a good job, and I guess with committee help, have done a good job of talking about what the content is, right? We're depicting very specific things.
No qualms here. But it's that old congressional based, you know, federal protection of, you know, what shows up online as if it's in the public square. And I just don't know if you've encountered that yet, or if you have, if you have a game plan for it through the process that you're going be going through after this committee.
Redner 36
So your specific question is the first time that's came up. The Take It Down Act, which just recently was passed on the federal side, did address part of that. And then I can have I can actually have I know that Mariah is in Washington, D. C, but I also I also know that Natesia is very familiar with what happens in that arena. What the federal government didn't do is allow us a mechanism on how to do it.
He they relegated that to the states. So this is a way that Californians survivors can have a mechanism to take it down unilaterally once their images are verified by an authenticated trained law enforcement officer. That were the amendments that were taken and you are right we did take the amendments from the chair and the committee staff that have been graciously working with us on the bills that we have here. All of the bills that we have here the chair has been just phenomenal and I don't say that lightly. I've been here since 2010 and when he first agreed to meet with me I was in shock that he was the public safety chair because he really does believe in public safety.
So I we did work on these this language. This committee staff requested that we clearly identify exclude minor children obviously and then clearly identify what a non consensual image was and an intimate image was, and we did take the committee's amendments to address that as a concern that was in the analysis.
Redner 41
Appreciate that. I'm more than happy to share some of our old experience if it comes up as an obstacle of any kind as you go through the process. I had what we believe to be the sharpest academic attorneys on the topic from both Stanford and Harvard try to help us navigate the issue and get around the content base. Know, it's really the First Amendment, so I don't want to call it a loophole, but it is fundamentally a loophole for platforms to be able to hide behind the First Amendment, you know, with this kind of content. So again, I completely commend you and I'm eager to see somebody overcome this whole problem with a bill.
Last year, my office, under my authorship, we just took the old statutes that have been in the books for years, decades, that say your image can't be usurped, it can't be taken by somebody else and put into commercial distribution or sharing, regardless of the content. But all we could really do with that bill was just try to clarify that restraining orders should be issued on demand for that kind of activity in forty eight hours or less. Because we've had tragedies over the years in our own district where in talking to not the, you know, with non survivors, in talking to the family members, the family survivors, that the most frustrating thing for the week to ten days after the image was being distributed was trying to figure out how to get it taken down before any other issue comes up. Obviously that's very understandable. So appreciate the testimony.
Appreciate your effort. Again, I'm supporting the bill. I was just and I appreciate you answering my question about whether or not that's become an issue. I hope it doesn't become an issue.
Redner 36
I appreciate you, sir, and I know that we have worked on several. We are working together right now as coauthoring or joint authoring a bill that's very high profile as well in a different area, And I've always appreciated your wisdom on certain situations like this and the bills that we work on. I'd be glad to meet with you and try to address this issue. I am a constitutional conservative. I believe in the First Amendment, but I also know that the First Amendment does not allow victims to continue to have their images that were forced upon them.
These girls were told they were going to a modeling agency and that they were going to be models. And when they came out of the dressing room, they were forcibly raped, beaten. They were doing everything they could to comply just to survive the ordeal. 600 people were arrested during this operation, And their images still haunt them today online. Over a thousand downloads a day on two thirty one platforms with comments of sick people that if I read this, I think the chair would shut me down about what they say about these beautiful women and how young they are and their braces and their blonde and glad blank blank blank blank blank that happened to her.
And what they're advocating and cheering on when they watch these videos of these young girls and the abuse that they endured. I wish there was a way to go after those people as well. But right now we have a bill before us that will allow us to protect these victims that have
Redner 36
victimized. Prosecutions have already taken place and now we need to make sure that they are not continually haunted and make sure that platforms should be doing this themselves. But I know that that doesn't work well in the state of California and we need to make sure the DOJ authenticates the images, and these images are no longer available on anyone on the platform for any of you, anybody in this room to just download and watch. And that to me is completely unacceptable.
Redner 1
are no other questions or comments, thank you, Senator. This bill is extremely important, and I really appreciate you tackling a really difficult issue and working with us to clarify some language so that we can ensure that this bill can be effectively enforced. And with that, I'll turn it back over to you to close.
Redner 36
Thank you. I first I want to thank the chair again for your willingness to work with us on these serious public safety issues. I want to thank Nitzia for her courage to come forward, and Candace. I'm a mother of five and a grandmother of 11, and we're just not equipped to lose our children. They're supposed to take care of us.
And I have the last birthday picture of Isabelle who will never celebrate another birthday because of what these people did to her. And so this bill is supported by a lot of survivor organizations. I'll just read a few because there's three pages full. Three strands global, California Survivor Coalition, Central Valley Justice System, Love Never Fails, Current Coalition Against Human Trafficking, and many, many others. And I respectfully ask for your I vote for justice for those that are still alive and that are dealing with this, and justice for individuals like Isabelle who will no longer is no longer with us, but justice nonetheless.
Redner 1
Thank you so very much. Thank you for joining us today. And when we establish a quorum, we'll entertain a motion on the bill. Thank you very much. And I know that we have members in the Energy Committee.
They're presenting or serving, and hopefully they'll join us when they're available. That's hopefully before noon so we can establish a quorum. Okay. Will now
Redner 36
All due respect, sir, is there another author? I just need a little bit of a break. Sorry. If there's not, I'll continue.
Redner 1
And so as we are taking a brief recess, sergeants, I know you're working on trying to get members here.
Redner 36
My deepest apologies, Mr. Chair. I really did come up here to fight for oil and ag and I find myself in a situation that as a mom and a grandmother it's a little emotionally distressing, especially when you think about all the perpetrators that are way ahead of us on any criminal activity that we could ever possibly legislate in this body. So thank you for your indulgence. So first, want to thank the chair again on the third bill for his willingness to meet with me over the past several weeks and discuss these issues and work really hard on language together that we could get an eye recommendation out of this committee.
I also want to thank the committee staff, specifically the chief consultant. Your diligent work on this bill was pretty incredible and I really do thank you for that. In 2018, California created a mental health diversion allowing judges to stop criminal proceedings. Stop criminal proceedings. So eligible defendants could receive treatment instead of going through the traditional court process.
The goal was to improve public safety by addressing the root causes of low level non violent offenses, particularly individuals with manageable mental health needs. However, the reality on the ground is that this program was not built with sufficient guardrails and has opened the door for violent, repeat offenders to avoid accountability and return to our communities without the oversight necessary to prevent re offending. All across California perpetrators are going free with no record of their crimes. Victims are left with the pain and no recourse while the individual who destroyed their lives is receives a clean slate after maybe just a few therapy sessions and some medication. In my own county, disgraced former county supervisor Zach Scribner serves as a primary example of how broken this program is.
Despite felony charges of child abuse and possession of assault weapon, he was granted diversion. He went to work as a county supervisor that day. He introduced a piece of legislation on victims right and victims advocacy, And then he went home taking the same medication and getting the same counseling treatment that he was under orders for. And he assaulted his children, every one of them. And he didn't get a plea entered.
He never spent a day in jail. And once his diversion was complete, his record will be wiped clean. Keep in mind that the same sentence that he got under the diversion program is the same medication and counseling he was receiving when he assaulted his own children. He could go to work or volunteer at an elementary school or be around children because nothing will appear on his background check. That's what happened in my community that alerted me to mental health diversion.
And then I dug deeper, and I came up here and I met with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, and I met Sergeant Soudhau, who investigates horrific crimes against children, which we're going to go over in a few minutes. This is just one case that I talked about, and we've been given recorded jailhouse calls of career criminals talking about using diversion as their way out. We have recorded calls of individuals talking to family members that say, hey, I'm going to use this diversion thing. It's a new thing where we don't have to go to trial. And the respondent on the other end of the line basically said, but you did it.
How are you gonna get out of it? He said, I'll explain it to you. It's called mental health diversion. We're seeing habitual offenders like the one in San Francisco and Sacramento that use loopholes to commit brutal assaults and even murder while out on diversion. In San Francisco, a man had beaten grant been at the excuse me.
A man had been granted mental health diversion that murdered a young woman by strangling her to death as he slept in her bed and she bled out at the foot of her bed. He was a transient passing through the neighborhood. He had previously faced arrest for second degree robbery, battery, assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting injury on an elderly dependent adult, possession of burglary tools, drug paraphernalia, and drug paraphernalia. The violent repeat offender released on mental health diversion left to face no consequences, free to assault, abuse, and kill at will, which he proved. All across California, there's absolute horrendous cases of child abuse where the parents and abusers are using mental health diversion as a get out of jail free card, not even having to go through the court process.
A one year old baby girl died from skull fractures and brain hemorrhaging while this while in the sole care of her father who admitted to heavy drinking claimed he didn't remember what happened and he was granted diversion. The baby girl will never have another birthday. A three year old boy was found overdosing on lithium that his parents had been force feeding him their medication. Locked in a filthy room with cats eating cat feces. The room was clear signs of abuse yet both caregivers were granted diversion and never charged with child abuse.
A 20 old baby is dead. He had a catastrophic he had catastrophic internal injuries with nearly 50 fifty five zero external wounds while his parents blamed his clumsiness blamed blamed clumsiness and they have sought diversion. A three month old infant suffered a skull fracture and brain bleeding consistent with abuse living with conditions too severe to face and was completely covered in cockroach bites all over his body. And of course, his mother sought diversion. And a two year old little girl was brutally beaten, held underwater and slammed against concrete abuse and torture which was captured on video that was proudly displayed by the individual doing it, and the abuser sought diversion to escape any type of justice.
Some may argue that these cases are an exception and not the rule, But the truth is these are just a handful example that we could pull from. We could sit here for hours reviewing case after case after case from across the state. It's estimated that the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office alone, five percent of the people in custody are using mental health diversion that are offenders of child trauma, which I have described just now. That's two hundred. One child that I'm gonna describe later, the effects on that child is one too many.
We're talking about 200 individuals in Sacramento County alone. There are countless reports of violent repeat offenders being released under diversion, and the public is simply asking why. Why is this happening? With me today is deputy district attorney from Placer County that can explain just how many violent repeat offenders are free to go under this program on a daily basis. And the reality is there is nothing they can do to stop this unless we give the prosecutors across the state of California the tools to do so by passing this reform.
It also upholds the original intent of the program. The original intent of the program was to ensure that those that need mental health diversion, that can be helped through mental health diversion classes and programs and therapy, that they get that help and they don't end up with years and years in prison. That was the intent. The description of what happened in our county and the description of what I'm going to describe later is not the intent of what this original mental health diversion program was established for. The reality is that nothing can do to stop it unless prosecutors have
Redner 36
tools. SB thirteen seventy three finally fixes a broken system. It enforces and restores full judicial discretion consistent with AB 46, which this committee approved last month, ensuring that a judge can deny diversion if they feel the defendant possesses a risk to public safety based on their history and the language that the chair and I worked out to substantiate that. However, because we all know that California courts don't operate uniformly, there are some may impose jail time for certain offenses while others may allow defendants to avoid it. Judicial discretion alone is not enough.
We absolutely must ensure that those who commit the most heinous acts, repeat violent offenders, and those that assault and have offenses that are horrendous against children such as child assault resulting in death, human trafficking. Those things should never be allowed for diversion. Removing diversion as an option simply means that they have to go through the court proceedings. The diversion programs that are available now. There's no evidence to go present to court on behalf of a child abuse endangerment wall wobbler under PC code section two seventy three where Hudson a 20 old baby died from several lacerations.
That evidence doesn't even get to be presented in court because the individual got mental health diversion. We want justice and the victims part of justice and healing is going through the court process. Because the courts don't always operate uniformly and they commit heinous acts in these repeat offenders, we shouldn't have loopholes like I just described. Justice diverted is justice denied. We must ensure those who truly need help get it under the original bill for mental health diversion and those using the program as a get out of jail free card are held accountable and it is about this is not about politics, it's about policy.
There needs to be a balance. The balance that should be struck is that like I said, those that need help, that are rehabilitative, that have the ability to have mental health diversion and get back on track like the people I pass driving in, some of them on the street. They're out there with no clothes on and they're catching things that aren't even in the air. That person needs help. That nerds person needs help to get off the street.
Redner 42
If there's a crime that's committed that person needs to be rehabilitated in a mental health diversion just as an example But the crimes that we've uncovered by investigating this legislation and how it's affected California communities all across our state, all across our state, it doesn't need to take it doesn't need to continue to exist. And this get out of jail free card without even going through the court process is completely unacceptable. Today, with me to support this bill is Timothy O'Hare, deputy district attorney for Placer County in the district of Zurnick district attorney's office, which is a technical witness and also prosecutes these cases. And also one of the bravest young men I've ever met in my life, Robert Scrivner, who two years ago today, interfered and got into a knockdown drag out battle with his father to protect his siblings from what was occurring in their household. And it's just ironic that that fell on today.
Redner 1
Thank you, Senator. Good still morning. You have two minutes to address the committee and the bill. Thank you.
Redner 42
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and members. My name is Tim O'Hare. I'm a Deputy District Attorney in Placer County who litigates mental health diversion cases on a near daily basis, and I support SB thirteen seventy three.
Mental health diversion is a valuable tool that threads the needle between public safety and treatment for mentally ill defendants. That was the original intent of it. And my office supports diverting cases for individuals who have genuine mental health disorders, and who can be safely treated in the community. But the mental health diversion in its current form, the statute in its current form, needs the guardrails that thirteen seventy three offers. So, just last week in Placer County, we saw a human trafficker, a man who sells women for a living.
He received mental health diversion. And like so many other cases that we see, this defendant's request for diversion was granted solely based on his post arrest self serving hearsay statements that he makes to a court appointed forensic psychologist. That psychologist had no prior relationship with the defendant and did not review any mental records whatsoever. And still, that psychologist renders a diagnosis that essentially paves the path for this human trafficker to have his case dismissed. That's not an outlier in Placer County, but it exemplifies at least three reasons why thirteen seventy three is so badly needed.
Redner 14
So, first, SB1373's amendment to subdivision E would ensure that defendants seeking to divert prosecution provide more than self serving hearsay or offers of proof that they substantiate their claims with real evidence. Second, thirteen seventy three's amendment to subdivision C4 would create much needed discretion for judges who are so often forced to grant diversion to domestic abusers, elder abusers, and human traffickers. Third, SB thirteen seventy three would outright eliminate mental health diversion eligibility for human traffickers, people like the defendant in Placer County last week who sell women for sex. So I urge the members of this committee to stand behind SB thirteen seventy three's efforts to improve a law that has great intent, but it needs guardrails. Thank you.
Redner 8
Hello. My name is Robert Skriminer, and I'm a victim of the mental health diversion program. On 04/23/2024, my dad came home from work and then later that night crawled into bed with one of my younger siblings and molested them. My sibling came downstairs crying to me that their own father had done the unspeakable. I then walked upstairs to confront my father, to protect my sibling, and in an altercation, I had to take a firearm away from my father with my older brother.
Redner 43
After that, I had surgery on my right arm from the damage from the physical abuse, at my father's hands. And I can't it's it's hard to put into words how horrible that night was, but to me and my siblings, it was the most traumatic night of our lives. Senate bill thirteen seventy three matters because survivors of abuse are left with no justice across the state of California. To me and other victims, it is it is a disgrace that we live in a world where criminals can get the benefit of the doubt and get let off scot free. Furthermore, this is not a political issue to be clear.
My father was an elected republican and I'm asking you to put your political loyalties aside and pass this bill to protect vulnerable victims across the state. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much for being here. Okay. We'll invite any members of the public wishing to express support for senate bill thirteen seventy three to please state your name, organization, position on the bill.
Redner 25
Mister chair and members, Paul Yoder, in support of the bill on behalf of the Tulare County Board of Supervisors. Late last week, our other another client of ours, California State Association of Psychiatrists, voted to support the bill with some hopefully friendly amendments for the author. And then I wanna apologize to the author on s b twelve seventeen. The boards of supervisors of Fresno and Tulare County support that bill as well. Thank you.
Thank you.
Redner 3
Good morning still. Matthew Greco, on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's, office in support, as well as the California District Attorney's Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 10
Libby Sanchez on behalf of the chief probation officers of California in support.
Redner 26
Max Perry on behalf of the California Police Chief Association, also in support.
Redner 44
Rula De Leon in support on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office.
Redner 23
Stephanie Herrera with the Empower and Resilience Project in support. Thank you.
Redner 39
Tiana Herrera, dual licensed mental health therapist in support. Christina Scrivner, mother of Robert Scrivner in support. Lauren
Redner 20
John Siedo on behalf of Sacramento County sheriff Jim Cooper in support.
Redner 39
Ashley Faison, a mother and, victim of mental health diversion and strong support.
Redner 40
Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association in support, as well as the California Narcotic Officers in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Unless there's anyone else wishing to express support for SB thirteen seventy three, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill, if there are any.
Redner 16
Morning, chair and members. I'll be reading a statement from retired judge Peter Espinoza in opposition to SB thirteen seventy three. SB thirteen seventy three will significantly limit the use of mental health diversion, a crucial court supervised intervention that improves public safety while connecting Californians with the care they need. I had the honor of serving as a superior court judge for twenty five years. During my time on the bench, I presided over criminal cases of hundreds of criminal defendants experiencing mental illness.
Redner 4
Because I retired before the passage of California's mental diversion law, I often had no meaningful choice but to send those people to state prison or county jail because there are no options for viable community based care. In 2016, I retired from the bench to direct the newly founded Office of Diversion and Reentry in Los Angeles. In that role, I was fortunate to be able to help implement the treatment end of menthol diversion in Los Angeles County. Menthol diversion has been one of the single most effective public safety tools we have seen in LA County in decades. Research on LA County's Rapid Diversion Program found that fewer than ten percent of participants had new charges filed against them for an offense occurring after graduation.
Redner 16
By contrast, approximately forty five percent of people released from California state prisons have a new conviction within three years. As a former judge and the former director of the office of diversion and reentry, I would strongly caution against the passage of s p thirteen seventy three. SB thirteen seventy three is not needed in light of judge's existing discretion under the mental health diversion statute. For these reasons, I urge you to reject SB thirteen seventy three. Thank you.
Redner 12
Good afternoon. My name is Alex Tuckman, and I am a public defender from LA County. I am here representing Local forty eight, which is the LA County Public Defenders Union. And I'm here in opposition to AB thirteen seventy three. AB SB thirteen seventy three would make the granting of mental health diversion more stringent and have long lasting negative impacts far beyond the courtroom.
I personally have practiced in mental health diversion. It is a crucial program to address the root causes of harmful behavior that has impacts on criminality and recidivism. Something that incarceration simply cannot do. Jails and prisons are not treatment centers. I have seen in practice that mental health diversion is the best tool to protect the public, provide mental health treatment to the most vulnerable, ensure accountability through rigorous, long treatment requirements, and promote long term stability.
Mental health diversion is a holistic solution because it both supports defendants, but it protects victims and the public from future criminality. And Practically speaking, also seeking mental health diversion doesn't ensure it is granted. That is a rigorous process. There is a hearing where prosecutors can be heard and present arguments, and victim impact statements can be made, allowing victims to have their day in court. As I mentioned, mental health diversion is a rigorous process.
It is far beyond medication and a couple therapy sessions. I have seen multiple cases that last upwards of two years that require monthly check ins with the court, weekly therapy programming, medication, and any additional terms, such as, gang reduction counseling or substance abuse treatment. It is far beyond, simple counseling and medication. I also want to focus on this, the five year requirement that SB thirteen seventy three would basically state that the mental that the court would have to find that the mental disorder was a significant factor in the commission only if that mental disorder has been diagnosed within five years of the current offense. I want to highlight that mental health is not linear.
These conditions are often lifelong, and they do not expire or follow some strict timeline that is the one suggested by SB thirteen seventy three. As an example, I
Redner 12
Yes, of course. So, just want to end that I would be remiss as to not mention the disproportionate impact that this would have on indigent and the unhoused community who lack the ability to go see providers, seek care, and obtain medical records. This would unfairly prevent them from taking part in such important program to prevent recidivism and protect the community. And so, for those reasons, I respectfully oppose SB thirteen seventy three.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB thirteen seventy three? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Redner 8
Good morning. Glenn Backus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.
Redner 10
Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Redner 3
Malik Bynum on behalf of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in respect for opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in Opposition.
Redner 17
Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in opposition also registering opposition for the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, the Felony Murder Elimination Project, and Californians United for a Responsible Budget.
Redner 7
Claudia Gonzales on behalf of your California and as a survivor who received life changing diversion and strong opposition.
Redner 21
Male Trent Murphy with the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives in respect of opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Anyone else wishing to express opposition SB thirteen seventy three? Seeing no one come forward, bring it back to the dais for questions or comments. Senator Cortezi?
Redner 41
Yeah. I don't have a question, but I'll make a comment to, you know, just briefly explain why I won't be supporting the bill today. And it's just, I think, a little different perspective. I appreciate the author's passion and for the issue overall, not just the bill in front of us before us today, and the need to do something about it. My concern about the bill itself is I don't think that this is an issue to be dealt with one type of crime at a time.
Redner 34
I don't think if we start saying mental health diversion is available to people who do this but not that, And then we do that again the next time, and the next time, and the next time that we're headed down the right course. And the reason I say that is because having served twelve years in one of the most populous counties in the state, Santa Clara County, I had, as President of the Board of Supervisors for multiple years and a member of that Board for twelve years, the unfortunate front row seat and worse than a front row seat, the participation in response after response after response for a system that's so broken that we're incarcerating people over and over and over again. In Santa Clara County alone, just in the jail system, I'm not talking about people that go off to CDCR. At times we have over a majority of the folks in our jail are dual diagnosed with behavioral health issues, Mental health issues like bipolar, schizophrenia, other issues that create psychotic behavior, but also substance abuse and addiction at the same time. We, as supervisors, tried to force the issue.
Redner 41
And in fact, one of the last votes I took before coming to the State Senate was to defund a new additional jail construction that was not needed because we have vacant beds in our jail currently to build a new state of the art mental health. And I understand, by the way, Los Angeles has actually done that. I don't know how that's working out. But to build instead a building of beds for inpatient treatment for those that in some manner generally not by crime, but generally we're describing today people out on the streets, the author said, We are losing close to two hundred people a year rotting away on our streets, forty percent of whom have diagnosed mental health issues that our courts are aware of, our mental health departments are aware of, just in my county, who are literally dying on the streets from exposure and rotting there until somebody picks them up. To me that is absolutely as disgusting and gross and sickening and should be to every member of this legislature as anything that's been discussed today as a crime.
That is a crime of our entire society. And frankly, we should all be indicted for continuing to let that problem go forward, all of us. We should all be indicted for the lack of mental health beds in the state. It's not just me in Santa Clara County, where during that time I was serving, we had about 30 inpatient beds for a community of 2,000,000 people. 30 inpatient beds.
Okay? So that is the broken problem. It's not that mental health treatment doesn't work. It's that we put people in jail instead of giving the mental health treatment. And of course, they're released, and of course, they're released back into their own neighborhoods.
Folks in our CDCR system are released back into Bakersfield and San Jose or wherever they came from. They are not rehabilitated. They are not going through appropriate mental health treatment. And my belief is, my support of diversion programs in the past has been less about the efficacy of the actual program, and completely about using that vote to try to force this issue, to try to make a statement and put a cog in the gears and say, we're going to stop treating mental health and behavioral health and medical issues on a criminal platform. We're not going to do that.
We're going to bifurcate those issues because medical issues are medical issues or criminal issues are criminal issues. In a sense, I think the author and I have some actual agreement on that piece. You know, I certainly wouldn't put words in your mouth, you're doing a great job articulating your position. But it's not Okay to conflate mental health issues with serious criminal proclivities and risk assessment. That shouldn't be done, one, in exchange for the other.
But there are many of us who are absolutely committed, not just philosophically but as legislators, to making sure that we have the actual treatment capacity to eliminate crime before it happens. I had to stand in front of probably a 100 television cameras as President of the Board of Supervisors and try to explain why a guy named Michael Tyree, who was having a bipolar episode, was put in our county jail and had the ship beat out of him by three correctional officers who were later convicted of murder because there was no place to divert him in our county. The judge, whose name I won't mention, one of the most prominent and I think effective judges in our county, felt it was better to put him in a jail cell than put him on the street. He was wrong. He was wrong.
And it's not just my county, as I said, that has these problems. Former Senator Roth, year after year after year, brought bills here before he was turned down to try to expand our investment in mental health care, mental health facilities, and specifically beds in inpatient facilities so that people could be properly diverted. That 50 onefifty doesn't mean that you're never going to have a 50 onefifty two because there's no place to put you. It doesn't mean you're going to be out in two or three days. It means you're going to get the inpatient care that you need.
My county has 2,000,000 people. Riverside is 2,800,000 people and they had even less beds available than Santa Clara County. Basically two dozen beds for the entire community. So we're having a discussion about, you know, are people doing bad things because the treatment isn't working? When we have all kinds of bad consequences and bad things happening.
I could sit here both as a former criminal defense attorney earlier in my life and as a county supervisor, and also list case after case, ugly, disgusting cases. The most recent was a constituent that came to me, a young lady less than one hundred pounds in weight, who was having a mental health crisis that was pulled over by law enforcement, all documented, and who did not understand law enforcement did not understand that that young lady was having a mental health crisis, did not bring in any sort of mental health intervention, did not bring in a crisis intervention team, instead pulled her out of a vehicle. Five officers pulled her out of the vehicle, dragged her down the streets of San Francisco, handcuffed her, and threw her in the back of a car. And when it was all over, said, You didn't do anything wrong. We're going to send you back to your home county in a cab, by yourself.
This is a broken system, well beyond any particular ugly crime that's being committed. And I would submit to you that what I just described is a crime in and of itself, excessive use of force, happening all the time with mental health patients. Because there's a lack of insight and recognition as to what's happening when somebody comes out after an emergency call and is manifesting mental health issues that law enforcement is not equipped and not trained to deal with and yet we're not investing in the proper response. Again, I could keep going with those kind of examples. And the only reason I say that is not because we should be piling on whose examples are more severe.
They're all bad. The examples that you indicated, Senator Grove, I respect what you're trying to do here completely, should be moving to all of us. And then I'm just trying to point out that we have other examples on the edges of where this bill is trying to go that are equally as egregious, and we're not doing anything about them. And I just don't think we can get there by dealing with them one type of crime at a time. So I apologize for my inability to support the bill, but I wanted to indicate that this is not about a political decision on my part.
It's not about whether I like the support in opposition, where they come from, or anything like that. I harbor very deep convictions and a lot of lived experience around these issues, and I just can't get there with the bill today. I appreciate you as an honor. Thank you.
Redner 1
We have less than thirty minutes until we have to recess this committee, and we have two authors that need to present before we adjourn and recess. And so Senator Sciarto, you're welcome to comment. Just want to keep you mindful of that. In your closing, if you can try to be as concise as possible, I'd appreciate it.
Redner 2
Yeah, I'll be really concise. So I'm going to reframe this bill. This bill is aimed at people that have learned how to game the system. It's not aimed at all the people that have learned to game the system, only the people that are gaming the system that are being charged with attempted murder, kidnapping, carjacking, human trafficking, gross vehicular manslaughter, serious child abuse offenses and crimes creating great causing great bodily harm. I have news for everybody that haven't been out there, people learn to game the system.
They learn how to say the right things in the right environment and then they get off scot free using the system that says, hey, you get mental health diversion when they don't need it. That's what this bill is doing and I do support your bill. Thank you.
Redner 36
Thank you. I would like to make a correction if that's okay, sir. Oh, go ahead, sir.
Redner 1
Apologize. The correction is that some of the crimes that the vice chair had noted have been stricken from
Redner 36
That was the correction I wanted to make. So based on your state sorry, go ahead, sir.
Redner 1
That's I'm happy to clarify and just to keep the conversation moving, if that's okay. You can you hold your comments until
Redner 1
We do have a quorum, so if the committee assistant can please call the roll.
Redner 1
Thank you. Senator Perez, we're on SB thirteen seventy three. We do also have two authors that like to present before we have to resist the meeting, but if you'd like to make any brief comments, we'd welcome them.
Redner 46
Certainly, and I'll try to keep my comments brief. First of all, I want to thank the senator for bringing this forward. I have been talking, you know, with my staff and my team about your bill since last night trying to figure out how I'm going to be voting on it. You know, I understand and I was listening to your testimony as I was running around, you know, that you're centering this bill around protecting children. And, you know, I understand and I think that that's a righteous effort, an important effort, and something that's really important and close to my heart as well.
I've also heard concerns from, I think, the opposition that are you know seeking further refinements around this bill as well. And I would just like to know from you Senator Grove if this bill is to move forward, if you'll be willing to work with the opposition to try to reconcile some of those desired changes that they'd like to seek and further refine it. I recognize that you've accepted the amendments from the chair, which I think are excellent, and continue to move things forward, but would love to hear from you.
Redner 36
Absolutely, and we're always willing to work with opposition. And just to clarify the comments so that I can respond to that, human trafficking child abuse as specified, meaning a 273A is charged as a felony, and then human trafficking under 236.1 attempted murder was stricken out, so someone could still apply for mental health diversion if charged with attempted murder. And they could also be charged with other items like child abuse endangerment, you know, all these things, continuous abuse of the child, those things are still in there. Kidnapping, carjacking, gross vehicular manslaughter, all of those were removed. So, those the things that we're trying to focus on that where mental health diversion cannot get a discretion from a judge.
I think every individual that has a repeat offense for human trafficking, selling a human being for whatever purposes, for it to be gainfully employed like the example the district attorney, They should not have an opportunity for mental health diversion with no court case. They should go to before court, present the evidence between a jury of their peers and let the jury decide. I think that while mental health diversion is a good program and it was well intended, there are people taking advantage of it, including the people that I'll mention in my close. You do have my word. I've worked with you excellent.
We come from way different spectrums of this state, and you and I work very well on issues that we to solve the problem. In response to Senator Cortese, I do believe that balanced government is the best way to solve problems. I do believe that the cases that you mentioned are just as horrific as the cases that I'm going to mention in my close. But we can't not protect these kids because of what's going on on the other side and vice versa. We can't protect what's going on on the other side on that issues that you brought up and not protect the children that I'm talking about today.
And I think it just requires balanced government, and I think this bill is a good bill. And I'd be glad to work with you if you would like to help us work with the opposition, Madam Chair or Madam Chair.
Redner 46
Could I just hear really quickly from the opposition just about, you know, reconciling some of these concerns and working with the author?
Redner 1
I mean, if you can briefly respond to that question. As I said, we have two authors that, one of which has witnesses that have to leave at noon, and we all and then we have a senator who's not feeling well who needs to present so she can go home. So just in the interest of time, if you
Redner 16
I'll just say quickly one point to point out that two weeks ago, the Committee on the Revision of Penal Code put out a report that in 10 largest counties, diversion was only granted in two percent of all felony cases. In six of the 10 largest counties, the diversion rate was less than two percent. For example, in Kern County, diversion was only granted in point eight percent of felony cases. In other words, in Kern County, more than ninety nine percent of felony cases proceed as is. Mental health diversion is not widespread, though the need for treatment certainly is.
Redner 1
So, per question, if I may, was, if you can restate it, you're talking about the importance of diversion, which I agree with, but she had a specific question, so could you restate the question to answer the question?
Redner 1
Okay. I have no comments, so Senator, if you can briefly close. Absolutely,
Redner 36
sir. I will do my best to briefly close. I do want to state that there's been two extensive studies done and some of the results of that on table 11, which I will provide to all the members of the committee, shows that a pattern of higher arrest rates for going through the collaborative courts, including mental health diversion courts. There's forty one percent who went through behavioral health diversion courts at least had one new arrest, each one of them, forty two percent of them. Thirty eight percent in the youth court, forty six percent in the community support.
So individuals going through all of these courts are re offending, but not to the level of the mental health diversion court. And there's a new study out. I realize that the opposition read a letter from a judge who retired in, I believe, 2020, you said? 2020. And this study was done in 2025 across the state, not just in Kern County.
I do again to my colleague that you know agree I agree. I pass homeless people coming down the 12th Street off of that 80 or the 1 Sixties downtown freeway, and it's disgusting. There are people that are and it's hurtful. There are people out there on the street that are they look like they're in their eighties and they're in a walker and they're people of color. There are people that are Caucasian.
There are people out there naked that are, like I said, grabbing things out of the air. Those people don't even know they're on the Street and we have failed them. But we've also invested $24,000,000,000 in that treatment and we still are in that situation and we still have not addressed it. Some of the few things I just want to highlight today that I want to give justice to the victims is this child abuse endangerment. This is Cyrus.
He's a three month old baby boy who suffered a skull fracture, bleeding in his brain and his face. Was eaten by cockroaches. Additionally, there was a concern for vision loss and hemorrhaging behind the eyes. Doctor believes that is indicative to abusive trauma shaking. Both parents claim Cyrus fell off the bed and he's clumsy and Cyrus's mother filed for mental health diversion.
There's several cases like this. I am not going to go through all of them. This was a blunt force trauma over eighty eight excuse me, fifty injuries to this little this baby girl who died. And they said it was because she was clumsy. She can't even walk.
This child abuse endangerment with wobbular two to four years, 24 old baby who died in acute lacerated liver. And at his time of unresponsive he was in the care custody of his mother and father and both of the parents claimed that the injuries were again were being clumsy and running into things. He had lacerations and hemorrhages measuring two and a half to three and a half inches that were not treated. These cases go on and on. They are not isolated cases.
There are over 200 cases in Sacramento County alone. The district attorney, if we didn't have the deputy district attorney could respond to hundreds of cases that are being diverted and no justice is being granted to these victims. I respectfully ask for your I vote and I thank the chair for working with me on eliminating things that would appease the members of the committee. When we had a conversation, hopefully that would be what happened. We took out attempted murder and we took out several things like carjacking, we had an individual, several people like in Los Angeles, the domestic violence issue where an individual beat his wife, gets diversion, beats his wife out on diversion, gets diversion again, beats his wife in the hospital and she's never to leave the hospital.
Redner 36
There are hundreds of cases that we could talk about and just because of what's not being fixed on one side, I would join you in a bill, Mr. Senator Cortez, to fix the side that is not being addressed in this bill, or I could add language into this bill, but I would respectfully ask for an eye vote to help all these victims.
Redner 1
Thank you so very much. Onto a motion on the bill. So moved. Moved by vice chair Sierto. The motion is due passed to committee on appropriations.
Please call the roll.
Redner 30
SB thirteen seventy three Grove due pass to appropriations. Aragine? Aye. Aragine? Aye.
Serrato? Aye. Caballero? Cortez? Perez?
Weiner.
Redner 1
Thank you, Senator. Okay. We'll move out of file order to well, next in file order is Senator Ashby SB eleven eleven. Good afternoon or good morning.
Redner 47
Thank you. Chair, I will do my best to help you get a little bit back on time here. Let's get you back on track. I'm here to present SB eleven eleven. You good if I go, Mr.
Chair? Great. This bill is also known as the Artificial Intelligence Abuse Protection Act. The bill establishes a legal framework for regulating AI voice image and video cloning technology. California is leading the nation in AI regulations.
However, a significant gap remains. The lack of a comprehensive legal framework to address the non consensual creation of deep fake audio and images is dangerous, and it leaves victims with no remedy. This exposes individuals to various forms of exploitation. Identity theft, scams, misinformation, and of course misrepresentation of character. While some deepfakes do in fact target public figures, which you will hear about today, AI software now allows users to create content featuring anyone.
Redner 3
Often, women are targeted victims and the vast majority of incidents are sexually explicit in nature. This bill creates a framework to hold AI users accountable by creating clear legal standing for victims and defining the boundaries of AI technology. SB eleven eleven establishes violations in the right of publicity law and false impersonation law for using a person's voice or likeness to create a digital replica without their consent. As technology changes, California must continue to advance our efforts and our standards to protect against AI abuse and violence and those who are impacted by it. This bill is sponsored by Paris Hilton's company eleven eleven Media and supported by SAG AFTRA, the California Federation of Labor Unions, and the Transparency Coalition amongst others.
Redner 47
With me today I have two incredible witnesses that I am excited for you to meet. The first is Lori Segal, an investigative journalist and CEO of Mostly Human, and Caroline Cole, is the policy strategist for Paris Hilton's company eleven eleven Media with her own incredible story.
Redner 48
Great. Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Public Safety Committee, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today. It really means a lot. My name is Lori Siegel. I'm an investigative reporter.
For fifteen years, I've covered technology. First at CNN, then sixty Minutes, and now my company, Mostly Human Media. In 2022, I came across a website called Mr. Deepfakes. When I opened the site, what I saw was something I will never forget.
Millions of AI generated sexually explicit images and videos of women being depicted in acts they never agreed to with folks they never met. But what alarmed me most wasn't just the content, it was the community and the movement that it enabled. There were step by step guides teaching users how to deepfake, tools to digitally undress someone, a marketplace where you could go and upload a photo and pay a creator to turn it into sexually explicit deepfakes. Your wish was AI's command. At its peak 17,000,000 users were visiting the site every month.
Mr. Deepfakes was ground zero for this type of abuse, but it was one of many sites and apps that existed. To me this was the beginning of a tech enabled system that not only normalized the exploitation of women and girls, it turned it into entertainment. And I thought to myself, we have to do something about it. Through the work I've spoken to so many victims.
They've told me I've lost control over my body. I felt humiliated. One woman told me she stood on the roof of her building and considered ending her life. The images may be fake, but from years in the trenches covering this type of abuse, I cannot emphasize this enough. The impact is real.
Two months before we helped get mister deep fake shut down, I became a mom. I knew the urgency then and I really know it now. I ask myself what kind of world are we building for my son? The tech is only getting better. The lines between real and fake are disappearing.
Redner 18
And without action, so are the protections for our children, our neighbors, our students, our coworkers, everyday people with no platform and no recourse. Which is why Senator Ashby's SB eleven eleven matters so much. I don't want to opt into a future where anyone's identity can be weaponized, used to humiliate, and used to silence without their consent in the click of a button. And I hope you won't know either. Thank you so much.
Redner 49
Thank you. Thank you, vice chair and members of the committee. My name is Caroline Cole, I'm the strategic advocacy lead for eleven eleven Media Impact, Paris Hilton's organization. We are so proud to sponsor Senator Ashby's bill SB eleven eleven, the artificial intelligence abuse protection act. Paris has spoken publicly about the trauma of having a private intimate video shared to the world without her consent when she was just 19 years old.
At the time, there were no laws and not even the language to truly capture what this was, abuse. Today, the same violation is happening again in a new way through AI. Someone no longer needs real images. They can create explicit fake ones instantly without consent. Paris is now the target of more than 100,000 sexually explicit AI generated deep fake images online.
None of them are real, but the harm that it causes very much is. And the impact of that kind of violation does not simply just go away. But this issue is far beyond any one person. UNICEF recently reported that at least, and I really want this to sink in, 1,200,000 children have had their images turned into sexually explicit deepfakes. And here in The US, 95 of these images online are over, excuse me, overwhelmingly target women and girls.
Redner 15
The harm is very real. California's Department of Justice cites research showing that ninety three percent of victims suffered significant emotional distress. Fifty one percent, that's over half, had suicidal thoughts, and forty nine percent reported being stalked or harassed online by the people who saw the material. And yet under current law, victims are too often left without a clear path to justice. That is why SB eleven eleven matters so much.
Redner 49
It makes clear that using someone's voice or likeness to create a digital replica without consent violates their rights and gives victims a clear path to hold abusers accountable. Technology is moving very fast, and victims are ultimately paying the price. Survivors deserve dignity, recognition, protection, and justice, and SB eleven eleven moves us in that direction.
Redner 1
support Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing express support for Senate Bill eleven eleven? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Michael Mendoza with Latino Justice in support.
Redner 23
Crystal Strait representing the Music Artists Coalition and Common Sense Media in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Okay. We'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, SB eleven eleven. Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing no one, is there anyone wishing to express opposition to the bill?
Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions, comments, a motion? Senator Press? Senator Cortese?
Redner 46
Yeah, I well, one, I was going to move the bill, and two, I just appreciate the author for bringing this forward. Honestly, it is utterly terrifying to just see what's been happening with A. I. And the way that it's been weaponized against women, against children. Just to hear that 1,200,000 images have already been created of children, and I can't even imagine what it must be like to be someone that is a celebrity in the public eye that has thousands of your images out, and for those to be weaponized against you without your consent.
I mean, it's terrifying. And I think for any one of us as women, you know, it's just chilling because it could happen to any single one of us. So, I really appreciate the author for bringing this forward. This is really, really scary times. And yeah, I'm certainly an I vote and think we need as much restrictions on this as possible.
Thank you.
Redner 1
Unless there are any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back to the author to close.
Redner 47
Senator Perez uses the right word, chilling. And I'm just grateful to all of the people who made it here today to testify. Many of the witnesses even who just came here to say me too flew in to do that. I thank you all so much and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Okay, we have a motion, which is due pass to the Senate floor. Please call the roll.
Redner 30
SB eleven eleven Ashby, motion is due passed to the floor. Aragine? Aye. Aragine? Aye.
Aragine? Aragine? Aragine? Cavallero? Cortese?
Redner 1
Keep that bill in call for absent members. Thank you very much. And so our last bill here before we have to recess the committee will be SB thirteen seventy nine by Cervantes. It's just to summarize, the amendments that we are making our committee from the local government committee at findings and declarations explaining the need for the special legislation, specifically that Riverside has disproportionately high in custody deaths. So those are the amendments.
And Senator, you may present.
Redner 50
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and committee members, for allowing me to present Senate Bill thirteen seventy nine, which would separate the Riverside County Sheriff Coroner and separate offices and establish an independent medical examiner. I want to begin by accepting the committee's proposed amendments on page ten and eleven of the committee analysis and thank your staff for their work. This bill is an attempt to fix a broken subs system in my home county of Riverside. At its core, the goal of this bill is simple.
When an individual dies in custody in county jails, the family and the public deserve transparency and the truth in a timely manner. This bill is limited and targeted in scope and seeks to address a specific serious situation happening in Riverside County. In 2024, a Cal Matters investigation into deaths of individuals in custody in Riverside County jails concluded, and I quote, quote, some of the state's deadliest jails are in Riverside County, and forty five people have died in lockup there since 01/01/2021, end quote. A 2025 article in the New York Times said the number of deaths in Riverside County jails from 2020 to 2023, and I quote, made the county system the second deadliest in the nation during that period. This bill is about restoring public trust and protecting the rights of families of the deceased and ensuring that every death is investigated with independence, transparency, and medical expertise.
In some cases, deaths involving trauma or neglect have been classified as natural or undetermined, raising serious concerns about investigative integrity. Right now, in Riverside County, the same department that may be responsible for the death of a person in custody is also responsible for investigating and determining the cause of death. The results of this structure are not hypothetical. They are tangible. That is why we this is what we know.
Redner 55
Between 2011 and 2022, there have been two twenty six in custody deaths in Riverside County. During that same period, ten percent of all in custody deaths in California occurred in Riverside, despite only six percent of the state's population residing there. Families are left navigating the system where they cannot access timely information and questions the accuracy of findings. That leaves many families with no option but to seek justice through the courts. This has led to nearly $100,000,000 in settlements due to in custody deaths and have that have been paid by Riverside County taxpayers over the last decade.
Redner 50
This is reflective not just a financial cost to taxpayers, but a system failure in our county. Community organizers, including the Riverside Sheriff Accountability Coalition, have demanded structural change, including separating the office of sheriff and coroner. This bill is a direct response to that. There have been major California counties like LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Ventura that have independent medical examiners. These jurisdictions demonstrate that independent medical examiner systems can improve accuracy, strengthen public trust, and facilitate medically informed decisions.
This bill will ensure that when someone dies in custody in Riverside County, their death is not investigated by the same broken system that held their lives in its hands in the first place. With me to testify in support of the bill is Lisa Matus, a beloved mother, Richard Matus, whose son tragically died while in custody of Riverside County Jail. We also have Doctor. Nicholas Schapiro, Assistant Professor at UCLA.
Redner 1
Thank you. Good afternoon now. Thank you for joining us, and you each have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.
Redner 37
Thank you, chair and board members. My name is Lisa Mathews, a member of the Riverside Sheriff Accountability Coalition and mother of Richard Matus Jr, who died Riverside County jails in 2022. I'm here today in support of SB thirteen seventy nine. Riverside County has faced persistent challenges within custody deaths, including underreporting, inconsistent determination of cause of death, and limited access to information for families. These are not isolated incidents, and we also don't have to speculate because there is sworn testimony.
Mario Solis, who died 2022, had a cause of death determined by a forensic pathologist that directly conflicted with what Sheriff Bianco determined and certified. The same happened to Jamal Brown, who was left to die after being denied medical care. His death was ruled an overdose, and that was simply not true. His family only learned the truth years later. This is exactly what this bill addresses serious concerns about inconsistent determinations and investigative integrity.
My own son, Richard Mathews Jr, was also ruled an overdose. He had bruising, blunt force trauma, and severe heart blockage. I was not even notified of his death. The sheriff coroner and the jail would not confirm it to me or my family. My attorney had to find and confirm his death.
Redner 43
Families in Riverside County wait over a year for autopsy reports only to later learn the truth does not match what they were initially told. And time and time again, we see the same pattern, and the conflict is too great, and public trust at this point is broken. Riverside County has known about these issues and has chosen not to act. SB thirteen seventy nine provides a solution. It ensures independent medical professional determine causes of the death, increases transparency, and it gives families something we do not have right now, and that's a confidence in the truth.
Redner 37
No family should have to question whether the truth they were given is real. I ask this committee committee to recognize behind every case
Redner 37
life and the family still waiting for truth and answers. I respectfully urge your support and separate the office of Sheriff Corner in Riverside County.
Redner 20
Chair Arguin and members of the committee, it's an honor to be here. My name is Nicholas Shapiro. I'm an associate professor at UCLA, and I hold a doctorate in medical anthropology. I've been researching the medical legal death investigation system here in California for the past six years, and I appear today in support of SB thirteen seventy nine. When public outcry drove Riverside County to audit their their sheriff corner in 2024, the county concluded that the county should maintain this long out of date system.
This result appears to be by design. Our research into this audit found it to be fundamentally flawed in terms of methodology, depth, and transparency when compared to a similar study commissioned by San Joaquin County. Between the sheriff corner investigating deaths it may have caused and the county investigating itself via their in house report, we see nesting dolls of the same problem, the well known corrupting power of institutions investigating themselves. SB thirteen seventy nine cuts through the fray of oversight theater and supports the truism that defendants should not be their own judges. The public health benefits of this bill extend far beyond the acute crisis in Riverside Jails.
Drug overdose deaths in Coroner Counties are nearly four times more likely to go unclassified. Coroners misclassify nearly one in five suicides. Forensic pathologists in coroner offices attest to being pressured to change cause of death at nearly five times the rate of medical examiners. These in custody death issues are a microcosm of the larger failure of the coroner system. As was mentioned earlier, Mario Solis died in a Riverside County jail in 2022, and he died after announcing on multiple occasions he would kill himself with a pencil.
He did, and the sheriff coroner ruled it an accident and not a suicide. The county government that conducted this perfunctory internal review and the sheriff coroner have demonstrated their inability to self regulate. The state needs to step in. I urge you to support SB1379.
Redner 8
Good morning. Glenn Bachus, Verrilla Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.
Redner 17
Micah Doctoroff on behalf of Smart Justice California in strong support.
Redner 10
Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you.
Redner 14
Luis Rojas on behalf of the Peace and Justice Law Center in strong support.
Redner 11
And this on behalf of all of us in Riverside, Sacramento, and community healers in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Okay, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB thirteen seventy nine. Whoever would like to begin.
Redner 40
I can start briefly and just a couple of comments. We believe Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff Association, in opposition to the bill. We believe all deaths in custody are tragic, and as the author noted, other counties have chosen to separate the offices, and have done so on their own. Unlike this proposal, they were not mandated to do so by the legislature. Local boards of supervisors, the people's representatives for the county, should be able to maintain local control and determine how they want their county to operate.
And importantly, this isn't a partisan issue. This isn't Republican versus Democrat. Board of Supervisors in Riverside County is comprised of four Democrats and one Republican. We believe that the jail deaths in the last couple of years have plummeted from the peak, and we believe there's no need, or urgency for this bill, despite, the assertions of the most recent amendments about singling Riverside County out. So for those reasons, we respectfully oppose the bill.
Redner 44
Thank you. Good morning, Lieutenant Julio Delion on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco. We take in custody deaths very seriously. The issue is not whether these deaths matter, They do. The issue is whether forced structural separation will fix a problem, and the data clearly shows that it will not.
And custody deaths are not unique in Riverside County. This is a statewide trend. CalMatters reported California's statewide jail deaths reached two fifteen in 2022 and have maintained have remained elevated in recent years. And this trend is not limited to jails. We see the same pattern in the state's prison system.
The prison population has declined significantly over the last decade, yet death rates have not followed that decline. In fact, Axios reported California's prison deaths rates increased by approximately twenty seven percent from 2019 to 2020, even as the population was being decreased and reduced. The drivers are clear: overdoses, specifically fentanyl, medical and mental health issues, and more complex inmate populations. These are systematic issues. They are not tied to who the coroner reports to or how death determinations are structured, And separation is not a guaranteed fix either, as the proponents propose.
Redner 61
Los Angeles County already has a separate medical examiner system, yet reported in custody does still increase from thirty two in 2024 to forty six in 2025. San Diego County experienced the same issue, and they have a separate medical examiner as well. As in fact, in 2022, a California auditor's report reported that San Diego was one of the highest total among counties in the state. The key point is this, separation does not prevent these deaths, and it does not address the underlying issues. Riverside County already studied this issue through the formal executive office report, which you've already heard, and the Board decided not to separate the County Sheriff and the Coroner.
Redner 44
Riverside County already has multiple layers of oversight. We have district attorney investigations, force investigation details, central corrections investigations, attorney general reporting, civil grand jury review, and now with the implementation of AB eleven oh eight, which was passed last year, which directly addresses the concerns that proposed in this legislation. In closing, this bill assumes a governance change will fix a statewide systemic problem, but the data does not support that assumption, and Riverside County should not be used as a testing ground for it. We respectfully ask for a no vote.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to Senate Bill thirteen seventy nine? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Redner 26
Dylan Lasasi with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in opposition.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to the bill? Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Sierto.
Redner 11
Okay. I think I have a different I kind of see this issue through a different lens than some of our colleagues, and that I've been in and around and known most of the elected officials and and seen the county go through different iterations of government through the last thirty some odd years. And, you know, and I also know the relationships, and many of them are strained relationships between public officials, each other, etcetera. When we're looking at in custody to deaths, I went and did some research myself when the DOJ decided they were going to go down and in a very well publicized DOJ coming in to to investigate Riverside County. So, that was three years ago.
Redner 2
There's nobody in jail. There's nobody been charged with anything. You know, essentially, what we're dealing with is something that happens in many jails. I found the same information about LA County and San Diego and some of the other jails throughout California. They have the same problem.
And the problem spikes when we have drugs like fentanyl that somehow get into the prison. Some of the ways that they get into the prison we've had bills that actually try to keep people from having their belongings searched. And I remember one in particular was, you know, they're searching the child's stuffed animal and, you know, it's traumatizing the child as they're trying to go visit their loved one. The problem is that's where they're stashing the drugs. And if we're not going to search that, then the drugs are going to get in.
And if they're going to get in and somebody takes fentanyl, too much of it, and they go to bed, we don't have one to one staffing. We can't monitor people every minute of every day. Now, in this case, with a coroner that is separated, it doesn't remove politics from the issue. The coroner's going to find causes of death still just like in LA back in the day. I remember the coroner there was always in the paper, always in the media and people scrutinizing his determination.
The sheriff does not do the autopsies. The sheriff does not determine who it is or what the cause of death is. The coroner does. Sheriff is not a doctor. The person that's hired as the coroner is the person who does the the medical examiner.
That's the person who determines what the death is. This is not going to fix anything. It's not going to fix the bad relationships between public officials. And I think it just makes it more complicated. And on top of all of that, this is a Riverside County issue that the Board of Supervisors need to deal with.
And they have dealt with it for us to come from the state and then demand that especially given the relationships that are out there, I think is wrong.
Redner 1
Just a comment on the bill. You know, recognize that you represent Riverside County. You're bringing us forward. It's a an issue that affects your constituents. And there's a separately elected sheriff and a separately elected Board of Supervisors.
And the actions of the sheriff, you know, there's a limit to what the Board can do to in fact, I think Sheriff Bianco has called himself a constitutional sheriff. But there's a there is a legally bright line in terms of what the Board can do and what the sheriff can do. And I would say that the number of in custody deaths are unacceptable. They think this bill is necessary. I respect your position, Vice Chair, and I thank you for bringing the bill forward.
And I'll turn over to Close.
Redner 50
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We owe the families the truth. We owe our communities accountability and transparency, and we owe taxpayers a system that they can trust. I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Okay. We're going to entertain a motion after we reconvene at 01:30. And thank you, senator, for presenting. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. So as I announced at the beginning of the hearing, we had 26 bills on our agenda.
We now have 11 more bills that we need to hear, before we complete the agenda today. We are going to recess the committee and reconvene at 01:30PM. Thank you. The Senate Public Safety Committee is back in session. Welcome to this afternoon's, bill hearing.
We'll proceed now with the next bill and file order, which is filed on thirteenth SB ten twenty two by Senator Validaris. Good afternoon.
Redner 22
Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm here to present Senate Bill ten twenty two establishing the California Multidisciplinary Alliance to Stop Trafficking. But before I get into this bill, I want to ground this in reality here. Human trafficking in California doesn't always look like what people expect. It's not always chains.
It's not always abductions. More often, it's the young girl who runs away or thinks she's running towards something better. And within days, someone has found her, built trust, and taken control. One survivor described being targeted within forty eight hours. That is how fast this happens.
In recent operations across California, law enforcement uncovered residential brothels operating in ordinary neighborhoods, victims being moved from city to city, organized networks using online platforms to recruit and control victims. These weren't hidden in some far off place. They were in communities that look just like ours. And many victims didn't even identify themselves as victims at first. Because by the time we find them, the psychological control runs deep.
There is a pattern here. Run away. Contacted online. Relationship isolation. Exploitation.
And traffickers are not guessing. They are targeting vulnerable youth, especially runaways, because they know how quickly they can gain control. Now layer in what's coming. The Super Bowl, the World Cup, the Olympic Games. These events bring global attention, but they also bring increased demand for commercial sex.
And historically, that correlates with spikes in trafficking. California is hosting all three of these events over the next few years. So the question isn't whether or not this becomes a bigger challenge. It's whether we are prepared for it. Right now, our response is not fully coordinated.
Redner 12
We have law enforcement working cases, nonprofits supporting survivors and state agencies funding programs. But too often, they're not operating as one system and traffickers exploit those gaps. SB ten twenty two creates a statewide multidisciplinary task force to bring coordinated and accountability to this fight. I will be taking amendments to add mental health professionals at a university researcher and direct a study on trafficking patterns so that we can better prevent it. The task force will identify gaps in prevention and prosecution, align agencies across jurisdictions, center survivor informed solutions, address sex trafficking, labor trafficking and familial trafficking.
Redner 22
Today, testifying in support is Ashley Faison, legislative advocacy lead for the Sacramento region with the California Survivor Coalition.
Redner 39
Thank you. Good morning chair and members my name is Ashley Faison and I'm here on behalf of the California survivor coalition and strong support of SB ten twenty two. I also want to thank senator Valadez for her leadership in advancing this effort to strengthen California's response to human trafficking. For survivors this bill is important because it does more than invite them to speak it creates real opportunities for them to drive change It affirms that survivors are not just people the system should serve, but experts whose voices belong in shaping solutions for this state. This kind of leadership matters.
It builds legacy, creates professional pathways, and gives survivors the opportunities to model positive community contribution for their children, families, and peers. Too often, have experienced systems in government as places where they are misidentified, underserved, re traumatized, or even punished instead of supported. Too often they are tokenized for their stories instead of trusted for their expertise. This task force changes that by making survivor voice an integral part of solutions. SB ten twenty two matters because it pushes us beyond siloed responses and towards shared understanding, stronger coordination, and statewide solutions.
Redner 60
California is already spending millions to respond to trafficking, including 27,000,000 in human trafficking victim assistance funding and more than 4,400,000 in lost wage compensation approved through CalVCB. This bill helps ensure those investments are coordinated, informed by survivors and reaching the communities too often left out, including those experiencing labor trafficking, familial exploitation, non street level commercial sexual exploitation, and those in rural and under resourced communities. It is fiscally responsible to strengthen statewide coordination and survivor informed planning to make those investments more effective. This also matters because the most marginalized survivors are often the least visible. Indigenous survivors, boys and men, LGBTQ survivors, women of color, migrants, and survivors outside major cities are too often left out of how systems identify harm and design services.
Redner 39
A statewide response must work for all of them, not just for the survivors most common and convenient for systems to see. I'm especially fond of the inclusion of a familial trafficking survivor on this task force because their perspectives are often left out of large scale conversations regarding human trafficking. SB ten twenty two helps build a survivor centered trauma informed and durable system of accountability, coordination, and care. Survivors know where systems fail, where services unintentionally cause harm, and what real safety and stability actually require. This is why survivor voice on this task force is so important.
Survivors should be full participants in shaping recommendations, not a pawn for legislative agendas. This task force would provide findings and recommendations to the governor, the attorney general, the legislature, and the Office of Emergency Services, helping turn what we learned into statewide action. I respectfully urge your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. We'll invite any members of the public who wish to express support for SB ten twenty two to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay. Seeing no one come forward, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB ten twenty two. Is anyone wishing to testify in opposition?
Seeing no one come forward, does anyone wish to express opposition to SB ten twenty two? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Thank you very much, senator, for bringing this bill forward. This is a great bill. And the issues of human trafficking impact our entire state.
And I'll just speak to what's happening in my district. I represent and live in the city of Oakland, which has really been impacted by issues of human trafficking, particularly along International Boulevard in East Oakland. And we I think we made a lot of progress over the last several years, including last year with the passage of Senate Bills or AB three seventy nine. But we need to do more to not just enforce our laws, to hold perpetrators accountable, but also to help support those that are being victimized by human trafficking. I think that that's why your task force, I think, is particularly important to make sure that we're centering the voices of people that have been victimized by trafficking, who have lived experience and those that help serve and provide services and resources to those who are impacted by trafficking.
And thank you very much for taking the amendments, and would love to be considered as a coauthor if appropriate. And I'll turn over you to Close.
Redner 22
Mr. Chair, happy to have you as a coauthor and respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Moved by Vice Chair Sierto. And the motion is, do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Please call the roll.
Redner 30
SB ten twenty two Valadares, motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Aragine? Aye. Aragine aye. Sierto?
Aye. Sierto aye. Caballero Cortez Perez Weiner.
Redner 1
We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us. We'll now move to the next bill by Senator Valderas, Senate Bill thirteen ninety five. And whenever you're ready, Senator, you may present on the bill.
Redner 22
Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here today to present Senate Bill thirteen ninety five, Kayleigh's Law, a bill focused on real protections for child survivors of sexual assault. First, I want to thank you, send a big thank you to the chair, to the committee staff, to the many members on the dais, or who will be on the dais later, that helped me with this bill, and to Carolyn Strauss, who was very important had a very important contribution in working on this as well. I will be accepting the agreed upon amendments, and I want to be clear about what those changes are.
As amended, this bill does three key things. First, it allows a judge at the time of sentencing to issue a protective order of up to twenty five years for felony sex offenses against a minor. Second, it moves us away from the current system where restraining orders only last for four to seven years forcing survivors back into court again and again. And third, it gives judges the discretion to provide longer term meaningful protection so survivors are not forced to repeatedly relive their trauma just to stay safe. Because that is exactly what is happening right now.
In California today, a child who has already been through unimaginable trauma is forced to return to court over and over again, face their abuser, and retell their story just to maintain basic protection. That is not justice. That is re traumatization. And this is happening to real people. It's a teenage survivor who is finally starting to stabilize, only to be told she has to go back into a courtroom and sit across from the person who assaulted her.
It's a young woman trying to move forward, to go to college, to build a life, but she can't fully move on because the system keeps putting an expiration date on her safety. It's families who thought the worst was behind them, only to be pulled right back into it. Now I want to be transparent. Before amendments, this bill Kaylee's Law allowed for a lifetime injunction. And that does remain a goal of Kaylee and myself both in California and nationally.
Because the threat doesn't expire. If the threat doesn't expire, the protection shouldn't either. But even with these amendments, this bill is still a significant step forward. A twenty five year protective order gives survivors the ability to grow up, to build their lives, and to heal without being forced to repeatedly prove they still deserve protection. Kaylee, whose story inspired this bill, could not be here today, but I want to share her words directly with you because they speak exactly why it matters.
These words are from Kaylee. The ultimate goal is lifetime protection for survivors. This law has become a symbol of hope for survivors across the nation, gaining widespread bipartisan support and transforming survivors' lives. But here in California, this critical protection for victims remains unfulfilled, leaving countless survivors without the safety that they need. California ranks amongst the top three states for incidents of sexual violence, highlighting the urgency of addressing this crisis and the need for lasting protections.
It's about real people, real lives, and the very real pain they endure as they strive for safety and healing from what was done to them. Without this protection, so many are forced to live in fear, unable to move forward. These are human lives forever changed by violence at the hands of another. Each number represents someone's pain, someone's story, someone's fight to survive. I see the millions of survivors behind these numbers.
I see their resilience. I see their courage. And I fight for them. Today, I ask that you fight for them too. This is the first step and I ask you to please support this bill.
And members, she's right. Government's number one job is public safety, especially for the most vulnerable. Right now, our system puts the burden on survivors to keep coming back and asking for protection. This bill stands to fix that today. You'll hear support from the California commission on the status of women girls and the California district Attorneys Association as our key witnesses in support.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Hi. Good afternoon. You each have two minutes, to present the bill. Where would I like to begin?
Redner 62
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Katherine Squire. I'm a legislative analyst with the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, and I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak as a proud co sponsor of SB thirteen ninety five. As we know, women, who make up half our population, continue to face gender based and sexual violence at disproportionately higher rates.
Redner 51
A report by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center found that one in five women in The US experience sexual violence in their lifetime, and one in three of these survivors are between the ages of 11 and 17 when they first experience it. It can take tremendous courage and strength for survivors at this age, as well as any age, to come forward and face their abusers in court. And as further studies show, this can lead to additional trauma, emotional stress, and mental health impacts. It is unimaginable to consider what the long term impacts are of having to repeatedly appear in court to rejustify their pain, ask for basic protection, and the strain this puts on their ability to heal and move forward. And yet, survivors like Kaylee have been forced to do just that, in order to ensure her basic right to feel safe.
SB thirteen ninety five is an important step in the right direction, toward placing the rights of survivors like her at the forefront by granting judges the discretion to issue protective orders that are valid up to twenty five years, expanding existing law and restraining defendants from any contact from just that victim if the defendant has been convicted of a registerable sex offense involving the minor. This bill importantly gives judges that additional room to consider, not require, on a case by case basis if this prolonged extension is warranted, putting their well-being first and reducing the time survivors spend in court. For these reasons, the Commission is proud to be cosponsoring SB1395 and respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.
Redner 3
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Mr. Vice Chair. My name is Matthew Greco. I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support of SB thirteen ninety five as a very important move forward when it comes to protecting the rights of the victim in issuing a extended protective order restraining a defendant from any contact with the victim, if the court finds that it within, the court's discretion that it is appropriate.
I wanna tell you the story of a victim who I will call Joy. She was 15 years old when she was victimized by a defendant who I will not name. But I prosecuted this case. He was 41 at the time. She lived through two trials, and during that period of time, he actually maintained contact with her and had her come in and and lie about their relationship.
Unfortunately for him, it was all uncovered using jail communications. Everything was recorded. And ultimately, she elected to come in, expose herself to prosecution, and face the person who had victimized her for three years and who had led her to perjure herself. This young lady, during this whole prosecution that took almost four years, grew up, went through high school, then entered college, the defendant ended up firing his attorney so that he could cross examine her during the trial. He was convicted and sentenced.
He is now out, and she is now married, has children, and, is continually concerned about not just him recontacting her, but of exactly this issue. This bill is a huge step forward for Joy and all of the other joys that are out there in every single one of our 58 counties. And although there's room to do additional things, this is an important step forward, especially for the victims, to give them some sense of security and hope. For those reasons, we strongly urge you to vote aye in support of this bill.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Will that any members of the public wishing to express support for Senate Bill thirteen ninety five to please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill? Joining me to testimony in support of the bill. Okay. We'll now shift to opposition witnesses.
We'll take up to two principal opposition witnesses for two minutes each.
Redner 12
Good afternoon. My name is Alex Tuchman. I'm a public defender in Los Angeles County. And I'm representing Local one hundred forty eight, which is the LA County Public Defenders Union. And I'm here in opposition to AB thirteen ninety five.
Redner 51
While we appreciate the amendment, and that is more narrowly tailored, still find that it is unnecessary, unreasonably long, and the possibility of including lifetime electronic monitoring, or increased time of electronic monitoring are the main issues that I want to address today. We appreciate the intention of protecting survivors of sexual violence, but we do not believe that this bill is necessary given the sufficiency of existing law, and we are concerned about some of the constitutional concerns and implications for this law. First of all, the increase from ten years is simply not needed. There has been research done. There's a group in Dallas, Texas that researched three year restraining orders, which is significantly less than the ten year that's currently available, and show that there was a violence that violence decreased when individuals applied for this order, regardless of whether the court granted them.
Redner 12
There has been no research, period, indicating that the ten year limit that currently stands is insufficient. Again, I want to mention that there are avenues for survivors of violence beyond the ten years under the current law to apply for extensions, but the implications cannot be ignored. First, there will be a potential logjam in courts, which would add misdemeanor contempt charges, which would tie up not only courtrooms, but prosecutors and defense attorneys that could ultimately result in jail sentences, which can lead to more incarceration, higher costs. And as I stated earlier, incarceration is not a treatment center, and does not address the underlying issues. This will also impact individuals potentially for the rest of their lives.
Domestic violence and regular restraining orders show up on background checks. Can prevent someone from lawfully gaining employment, which could cause to issues with housing instability, inability to pay any bills, which could then lead to someone becoming unhoused. It's cyclical. It's that without the ability to rehabilitate and support themselves and their families, then the results could very likely be an increase in crime. And so, the ten year mark allows people, survivors You can please.
Of course, allows survivors to be protected, but allows criminal defendants who are beyond their sentence, who have met all of their terms, who are free from probation, to move forward with their lives. And so, for those reasons, we respectfully ask that you vote no on SB thirteen ninety five.
Redner 10
Mark O'George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. So, I appreciate that the author, and the committee, and the committee staff worked to narrow the bill. However, and that is more narrowly tailored than last session's bill which was SB four twenty one and I think the author has expressed her intention that this is just a first step and there are practical reasons why a twenty five year protective order is not going to protect the victim and is going to lead to the person who has now finished probation and parole having information about the former victim that they might not wish them to have because in order to issue a protective order, the judge has to write on the protective order who the person is supposed to stay away from and what location they're supposed to stay away from in order to give them notice. So, this is information I don't understand how this would even work because is the victim going to notify the court every time they move? Here's where I'm now living.
Please bring the former person who was incarcerated in and give them notice to stay away from that location. So it's it's not really feasible. The other thing that happens or happened in my practice was that frequently the parties think they're in control, right? They called the police. They went to the district attorney and they don't understand that they have to go back to court in order to get the order lifted.
So they reconcile for whatever reason they may have been family members to start with and then the protective order is still in place and the person is liable to be prosecuted even though that's no longer the victim's intention to have it in place. So for those reasons we respectfully oppose. I think this is just chipping away at trying to get a permanent order. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Okay, well, inviting members of public wishing to express opposition to SB thirteen ninety five to please approach the microphone.
Redner 8
Good afternoon. Glenn Bachus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.
Redner 16
George Crampthew on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB thirteen ninety five? Seeing no one approach the microphone, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Sierto? Thank
Redner 2
you very much. So I had some difference in on my sheet, said 15. Did you go to 25? Is that what happened?
Redner 22
Yes. So last night, the Chair and I negotiated. We have a fundamental difference of opinion in lifetime restraining orders, and we came to, I think, a very meaningful compromise of twenty five years. And those amendments, I'm not sure if they passed the new amendments out.
Redner 2
Well, that's better than fifteen years or ten years or five years. I would prefer the lifetime because in in in your bill, it it talks about how what the off ramps are. You can get an off ramp in two years. If the victim says, hey, I want to get rid of the restraining order. It just takes a positive act by them to go and and get the restraining order taken off.
Having them go back to court even at fifteen years. In fifteen years, they may forgot they they may forget that their restraining order is about over. And we talked about impacting courts. Why should we impact the court to go do this again? If they want it removed, they'll remove it.
If they don't want it removed or they find later on down the road that hey, you know what? It kind of is not necessary. I, you know, let's get let's get rid of it. The victim can do that but the victim needs to initiate that. Not us.
Not the not the perpetrator. So I think there's plenty of room in there for a lifetime. We've done stuff to get a restraining order on you, terrorize somebody enough to get a restraining order on you and that's not their fault. You know, and and so, you know, I'll I'll support the bill with the amendments that you wrote twenty five years is guess a a decent compromise but has the same problems in twenty five years as the victim remember and maybe the person that has a restraining order remembers better than the victim and and that could lead to problems. I would rather they didn't ever have to go to court again unless they wanted to.
Yeah. So, I think you have a a really good bill here that addresses a serious issue because a lot of times people don't get their restraining orders until they should have had one and they're not there anymore and they don't need one. So and that's the other thing. This comes off if if the person that the restraining order is meant to protect is it dies. Then it goes away.
But as long as they're alive they need the protection. And again we're landing on the side of of people that are are creating the problem in the first place. And so anyway I hope we can do that other part of it someday. But this is fine for now.
Redner 22
And through the chair, I'll also add thank you, first of all, Senator Segardo, that this also the language is very clear that it gives the judge, requires the judge have discretion and take into consideration the seriousness of the conviction and the likelihood and the necessity for the twenty five year restraining order. So, are off ramps. I think, again, the committee and the chair and my team worked very hard on trying to get this to be the best possible bill for us to agree on.
Redner 1
We have a motion by Vice Chair Ciotto, and with that, I want to thank the author for the conversations we have had about this, and certainly understand and support the goals of the bill. And as you noted, I think we had just a fundamental difference of opinion about whether the order should be permanent or whether it should be for a specific duration. And I'll just note that under current state law, the maximum period for a protective order for felony domestic violence is fifteen years. So this would be ten more years on top of that. This would be the maximum for any type of crime in the State of California.
And the collateral consequences, as I explained to you, if somebody has a protective order with regard to impacts on employment, housing, ability for, you know, people to travel, immigration consequences, so these things are real. And if somebody had committed, some sort of sex offense when they were 18 and were, for example, you know, dating somebody who was 16, and fast forward twenty, thirty years later, that, you know, that protective order is still in effect. Know, that is something that, you know, we may not necessarily want to have in place. Moreover, you know, people have done their time. They have, you know, done their parole.
They've done their court mandated supervision. They have, you know, they have they have done their time, and they have hopefully rehabilitated. If they obviously have not and they've reoffended, that's a consideration, obviously, the court will consider. And, you know, I I personally felt that having a permanent order was not something I was comfortable with, but I think this, representing the seriousness of, felony sex offenses involving a minor, and making this the longest period possible under state law, I think, is appropriate. I thank you very much for the work you've done with us.
I also want to note that the amendments do mirror existing law to allow for the order to be modified during the duration of the order by the court in the county in which the order was issued. That was not something that the previous iteration of bill would have allowed, and I felt it was important that the court had the discretion like they do in other instances to be able to modify the order because of the long duration of it. So I thank you for bringing this bill forward and the work you're doing to protect victims, and I'll turn over to Close.
Redner 22
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier today, the governor talked about standing with victims. He often also says, he I'll quote him, We need to meet the moment. Right now, we need to meet the moment.
This is where we prove it. Not just in words, but in policy. Kayleigh's Law isn't the final step, but it's a necessary one. And for many, many survivors, it'll mean the difference between living in fear. And finally being able to move forward.
Respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you. I believe we have a motion by Vice Chair Ciotto. The motion is due pass as amended to Committee on Appropriations. If you can please call the roll.
Redner 30
SB1395 Valadares, motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Paraguin? Aye. Paraguin, aye. Sierto?
Aye. Sierto, aye. Caballero Cortez Perez, Weiner. We'll keep that bill on call
Redner 1
for absent members. Thank you for your testimony. Okay. Going next in file order, we're gonna proceed to file item 16, Senate Bill twelve oh three by Senator Small Cuevas, and then we'll go to SB twelve oh eight by Senator Grayson. Good afternoon.
Redner 49
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. I am pleased to present SB twelve oh three, the Stand for Security Act, which seeks to modernize training standards, strengthen accountability, and establish a clear professional pathway for private security guards across California. At the outset it is important to understand the scale and evolution of this workforce and I had the honor of working with these men and women who guard and protect our commercial and public areas and I want to say they are so often on the front lines, the first to make that call to bring in our professional firefighters and police, and yet they are severely underpaid and undertrained. There are approximately 1,200,000 security guards in the country, making the private security industry reported to be the third largest industry in The United States.
Redner 18
California is home to over 330,000 licensed security guards, compared to approximately 90,000 police officers. This makes private security one of the largest frontline public safety workforces in the state. And in preparation for the upcoming global events, our World Cup, our Olympics, the industry has shared that they will hire another 30,000 secondurity guards. It is our responsibility to ensure that no one is injured or killed during these games. We have the opportunity to take action now and to provide the necessary training these workers will need.
I mentioned that I had the honor of working with these men and women as they were unionizing and raising standards in this industry and at the time it was during nineeleven and those security and we called them officers because that's exactly how they were responding. At the time they were asked to do mass evacuations, to set up temporary morgues, to be able to understand a red and an orange State Department alert, but yet they were some of the lowest paid and still remain some of the lowest paid workers in our state. And we know that we're back at the precipice of global unrest, and our commercial buildings are in the same line of fire. And yet security guards become more than just guarding the property, right? They are the ones who will have to take care of tenants.
They are the ones who will be the first responders in moments of crisis. They will be the ones to manage fear and confusion. They will be the ones standing in between us and danger. But we know that as the requirements of this job continue to evolve, the standards have not. Today we're asking these workers to respond to all kinds of emergencies, and I know we all have probably witnessed the mental health crises on our streets and security guards stepping in to try to deal with some of that mental health crisis across our communities.
They are dealing with the behavioral health distress, the substance abuse disorder that gets acted out in our public and private places, and the escalating conflict that we see, particularly in our commercial spaces. They are expected to de escalate. They are expected to assess risk. They are expected to protect before law enforcement arrives. Yet under the current law they receive just eight hours of initial training and then thirty two hours of training thereafter.
The training is performed on duty meaning just like you are on your dais you might have a laptop and have to watch a video while you're doing your job. That is considered the way to deliver training which is dangerous for all of us. And even as we know we have dedicated time for our staff to be trained and to have time to be trained while being paid on the job that is not afforded to many of our security officers. So we have to ask are we preparing them for the job that we are asking them to do or are we asking them to learn in real time under pressure at risk to themselves and others. And when something goes wrong then we expect them to deal with the consequences like a worker that I got to learn about who was ordered by a supervisor to intervene in a retail theft incident.
And despite raising concerns about not really knowing how to deal and being trained to deal with the situation, that worker stepped in into that spiraling scenario and ended up being stabbed on the job and then was terminated for having responded to the employee's request that action be taken. This is not a training gap. This is a failure of the system. There is also a clear economic disconnect. Though this industry, which has grown to the third largest in our country, is also assessed at $34,000,000,000 industry a year, yet average worker earns about $44,000 a year.
And in California, that places them at and near the poverty levels. So while we expand responsibilities, we are not expanding opportunity, and that results in great concern for our communities and for this workforce. And so, you know, SB twelve oh three, we see this as a way to close the gap. We see it as a way to increase training requirements for both armed and unarmed security guards, to strengthen their de escalation training through in person instruction, reviewing their wages and working conditions to ensure stability, and then holding employees accountable through stronger reporting and enforcement mechanisms, addressing also what we feel is implicit bias in racial profiling that may exist in the field. Because as we know, as this industry has grown, who does this work is largely black men and Latino men.
And why shouldn't they also be upskilled and invested in to be able to do the job that protects all of us. We think this is a common sense bill. We think this is going to help ensure safety for our workers and for the community, and respectfully are going to be asking for your I vote today. With me to testify is Claudette Hernandez. She is a security guard here in California, as well as Sebastian Avalos, who's also a security guard here in California.
We have Christian Ramirez, who will translate. Is that okay, Mr. Chair, if Christian acts as our translator today? Thank you. And then Renee Beallardo is with SEIU, and he will be here to answer any technical questions you may have.
Redner 52
Good afternoon, Chair Arrigan and members of the committee. My name is Claudette Hernandez Segovia. I live in Dublin, and I've been a security officer for over eight point five years. I'm also proud member of SEIU United States Workers West. Before working as a security officer, I served as military police with the Department of Defense and worked nearly a decade as a non sworn security officer for the Solano County Sheriff's Department.
There's a common misconception that security officers simply observe and report. The reality is very different. We are often the first point contact screening people into the buildings and the first line of defense. When something goes wrong, many of us work alone, and we're expected to make quick decisions and affect public safety. I want to share a brief example.
I want I once asked a woman to leave a property. She became belligerent. I called for police assistance. But before they arrived, she punched me. Because of the training I received in my previous roles, I was able to deescalate and contain the situation to prevent further harm.
Redner 44
Without that training, the outcome could have been much worse. Today, many security officers are expected to learn through videos or online modules, sometimes being asked for us to sign off without truly being prepared. That's not enough for the situation we face situations that can involve violence medical emergencies or people in crisis. Need in person scenario based training that prepares us for real life encounters. We need stronger training in de escalation because preventing is key to public safety.
Redner 52
And we need increased transparency to make sure that every officer, no matter where they work, has received the training to do their job safely. That's why I'm here to urge your support SB 12. Oh, three the Stanford Security Act. This bill would strengthen training requirements emphasized in person instruction, improve accountability and increase safety for our officers and the people who rely on us. SB twelve oh three is not just about protecting security officers, it's about protecting the public we serve each day.
And I thank each and every one of you for listening to me today.
Redner 53
Thank you, mister chair. I'll be transferring you for Sebastian. My name is Sebastian Avalos Tisole. I live in the Bay Area, and I'm a member of SEIU USWW. I've worked as a security officer for about four years, starting at the front desk of a building, and later moved to a pharmacy in Downtown San Francisco.
As security officers, it is our duty to interact with the public, often dealing with unpredictable behavior and difficult situations. Many times, we're the first line of defense when something goes wrong, even when the situation puts our safety at risk. While working at the pharmacy, I frequently saw people who were clearly struggling with mental health issues. One day, a man walked into the pharmacy behaving erratically. The staff asked me for assistance, and I approached him and I asked him to leave.
At this point, he became very aggressive, yelling and cursing at me. He attacked me and stabbed me. I ended up needing twenty three stitches. Because of the incident, I had to take time off of work. And because I couldn't work, I lost my job.
Redner 32
I understand that security work comes with risks, but I believe that those risks could be reduced with training, particularly in the escalation. Security officers need the tools and training so that we can handle potentially violent situations safely. I'm asking you who rely on security to keep workplaces and communities safe to consider the workers behind with that responsibility. We deserve to be to feel prepared, protected, supported. Please stand with security officers and support SB twelve oh three.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. I will now invite any members of the public wishing to express support for senate bill 12 o three to please approach the microphone. Your testimony is limited to state your name, the organization or city you're from, and your position on the bill. Thank you, chair members. Elmer Lazarda with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Redner 11
Jamil Hunt, thirteen year security officer, a member of SEIU USWW in support.
Redner 1
Hello. I'm a Chavez member of the SEIU working in security for more than fifteen years, and I please ask support for this bill. Thank you so much.
Redner 54
Malik Aaron, security officer from Oakland with the SEIW, the USWW in support of SB twelve o three. Thank you.
Redner 38
Latasha Reed, a security officer for seventeen years in San Leandro, and I'm here to support twelve o three.
Redner 24
My name is excuse my throat. My name is Akiva Carter, and I'm with SEIU USWW. I've been a security officer forty years, and I am urging you to support s b twelve o three. Thank you.
Redner 55
My name is Ariel Park. I work I live in San Francisco where I'm also a security officer and have been for the last thirteen years. I'm a member of SEIU USWW, and I want to express strong support for SB twelve oh three.
Redner 44
My name is Patrick Carden, and I've been a security officer for nineteen years asking for your support for SB twelve oh three. Thank you.
Redner 30
My name is Gustavo Garcia. I'm a security officer for sixteen years, Martinez, California, and SEIU member asking for support.
Redner 18
Good afternoon, mister chair. Tiffany White with CAU California sponsors of the bill and in strong support. Thank you so much.
Redner 1
Okay. Thank you all for being here today. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. And you each have two minutes to present.
Redner 56
Mr. Chairman, I have just a visual, if I could get it passed out to the committee. It's just a one pager. And I think what it illustrates mostly is that California is at the forefront of training in The United States with forty hours. And, you know, there is a tipping point.
I think you see that on the graph, that there is a tipping point as it relates to our industry's ability to recruit and train individuals and get them employed so that this bill increases that, which makes it more difficult for us. It also says that the company cannot train their new employee, which is creates a very difficult situation for the industry. So, SB twelve oh three will immediately make it more expensive and more difficult to employ security guards, resulting in an even greater shortage and delayed employment of the exact individuals necessary to provide protection for California citizens and visitors, especially in the light of the upcoming worldwide events. SB twelve oh three will eliminate jobs, making companies that seek to automate security functions more competitive, thereby displacing the very people the bill intends to help. Cameras, computer screens, fences, and lighting will replace human security officers with the result of less support for our law enforcement officers.
SB twelve oh three will increase unregulated, untrained security personnel at events throughout California. Unregulated activity is a significant problem in the security industry and has been a primary focus for CalSAGA and the Bureau of Investigative Services, BSIS. SB twelve oh three wage pressure on current lawful operators and those on the fringe will no doubt amplify the incentivized less than ethical providers to skip the licensing and training altogether. The bill will make the regulated companies uncompetitive in a marketplace that will be overrun by those calling themselves event staff or ushers. We've all seen those at sporting events.
Redner 35
The Department of Consumer Affairs and BSIS do not currently have a budget or resources to regulate this important issue. In essence, 12/2003 will start a race to the bottom in this important industry. It will drive regulated companies to be try and compete in an unregulated environment. California still suffers from significant theft and property crime crimes. If retail operators cannot afford to retain contract security providers, they will likely go without, thereby increasing safety risks.
Redner 56
By imposing billions of dollars of new annual costs to those struggling businesses, SB twelve oh three makes California more expensive and is contrary to the stated goal of the legislation for those reasons we oppose.
Redner 63
Chair Era Gaines, colleagues, Steengrafilo with Capital Advocacy, here on behalf of Allied Universal. I'm before you today in opposition of SB twelve oh three. Much of my testimony will be reiterative of Mr. Jensen, so I'll be brief. While the stated goal of the bill is to support security officers, this legislation will severely jeopardize public safety.
Redner 57
Well known are the high rates of retail theft and property crime. As mentioned, this builds astronomical costs before struggling retail businesses to eliminate human security jobs, replacing them with modern advances in technology. Less human presence on the ground means less direct support for our local law enforcement officers. As previously articulated, by prohibiting licensed security companies from conducting their own required training and mandating the use of third parties, this bill creates a massive recruitment bottleneck. This mandate will severely delay the deployment of security guards, worsening the current shortage.
On this point, we must be clear. Intense cost pressures will fuel the dangerous, unregulated and underground market. Small businesses will be incentivized to turn to untrained, unlicensed personnel. This proliferation of unregulated staff will directly compromise public safety at a time of heightened risk, such as the World Cup, Super Bowl, and the Olympics. I strongly request your no vote on SB-twelve oh three.
Redner 1
you. Thank you very much. Okay. We'll invite any members of the public wishing to express opposition to SB-twelve oh three to please come forward. Seeing no one approaching the microphone, do you want to for you to add on other
Redner 56
Yes. The California Chamber of Commerce is somewhere else in the building, and they are opposed to the bill.
Redner 1
Okay. It's a long line to get in the building Okay. Seeing no one else wishing to express opposition, I'll bring it back to the committee, Senator Press one, SB two zero three by Senator Small Acquaibis. Do you have any questions or comments at this time? Okay.
Move the bill? Okay. I'll turn it back with the author to close.
Redner 18
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I really want to thank the workers for coming and sharing their stories. This is incredibly important as we have just an uneven process of how training is delivered for these workers. And we know that in the absence of training there's a real possibility of the public being hurt. And so for that reason, SB twelve oh three makes common sense.
I think, you know, threats of A. I. And technology taking these jobs is not one to be taken lightly, but at the same time we need the human workers, and we know that it's the human workers that provide that real barrier between their clients and the public that may be in distress. And so the questions before us is whether we will professionalize this workforce to match that reality. And with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote on 12/2003.
Redner 1
Okay, thank you. So we have a motion, which is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations, SB twelve oh three. Please call the roll.
Redner 30
SB twelve oh three, Smallwood Cuevas. Motion is due pass to Appropriations. Ottoguin? Aye. Aragain aye.
Serato? No. Serato no. Caballero? Cortez?
Perez?
Redner 1
Thank you for joining us. Okay. Saucenter Grayson, Okay. Just went over to record his vote. He'll be right back.
Okay. So she can go Senator president, would you be able to present on SB ten ninety five? Thank you.
Redner 46
Yes, I'll be presenting. Yeah, I can do both. Do you prefer me to do one or the other? Okay. Let's do ten ninety five, and then I'll do Mounjivor's after.
Alrighty. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Thank you to the Chair and Committee staff for their incredible work on SB ten ninety five. We are accepting the amendments to establish the framework and requirements for the MOU process. Change the annual audit to an audit that occurs every four years.
Clarify the information that is required in the annual report, and authorize state elected officials to inspect fusion centers. Fusion centers were originally established to support counterterrorism efforts following the September eleventh terrorist attacks by acting as a data sharing hub connecting local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. There are six of these state run facilities located in California, which share information from sources such as automated license plate readers or ALPRs, facial recognition scans, driver's license records, utility records, and social media activity. Despite California's constitutional right to privacy, as well as the California Values Act, which prohibits state and local law enforcement from using their resources to aid in immigration enforcement, these centers share personal information with federal and out of state agencies without consent and without regard for state and local laws. Fusion Centers have documented history of being used to circumvent California's laws and privacy protections.
In Orange County, ICE agents asked a LHOPRA police officer to run searches at an Orange County Fusion Center. In San Francisco, local law enforcement circumvented a local ban on facial recognition by asking to help from a fusion center with access to the technology. The Northern California Fusion Center issued multiple warnings to 14,000 police officers stating local Black Lives Matter rallies were dangerous. In Southern California, local and state law enforcement continued to share license plate surveillance information with federal agencies, including ICE and Border Patrol, violating state law more than 100 times in May 2025 alone. These are state run operations with no state oversight.
SB ten ninety five would strengthen transparency and accountability in fusion centers by requiring state and local entities to adopt an MOU to participate, share, or disclose information with the fusion center. These MOUs must contain provisions to: Affirm that information cannot be shared for the purposes of immigration enforcement or racial profiling consistent with federal, state, and local laws prohibit targeted surveillance of individuals based on ideology or First Amendment protected activities set parameters to further protect individual privacy and prevent unlawful or unauthorized data sharing. And finally, prohibit changes to the terms of the MOU without the approval by the Governing Board. These MOUs must be adopted in an open session meeting of the entity's Governing Board, and any violation of the MOU will render the MOU invalid and result in the withdrawal of the entity from participation in the fusion center. The bill also authorizes state elected officials to enter and inspect any state fusion center, requires a report of State Fusion Centers to be sent to the California Department of Justice, and requires the DOJ to conduct a compliance audit every four years to Fusion Centers and law enforcement agencies participating in a Fusion Center.
SB ten ninety five establishes clear guardrails for the information transmitted through fusion centers, prevents their use for immigration enforcement or racial or identity profiling, and ensures that California's laws and constitutional rights are upheld. I want to be clear that this is not an attempt to undermine the counterterrorism and public safety function that fusion centers serve. This bill is intended to ensure that the main priority and use of fusion center resources are focused on issues such as preventing foreign and domestic terrorist attacks, instead of being used to help carry out immigration enforcement or racial profiling. To testify in support of the bill, I have Sariah Hussain, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask your I vote.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Hi. Good afternoon. You have two minutes to present on the bill.
Redner 58
Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. My name is Syrah Hussain. I'm a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. I'm here to testify in support of SB ten ninety five, a bill to bring accountability to fusion centers. For nearly twenty five years, fusion centers have operated with virtual impunity.
Despite $400,000,000 annually spent on the national network of fusion centers, the bulk of which comes from state and local funding, there is no federal entity that accepts responsibility to oversee and regulate these fusion centers. The little the public knows about fusion centers primarily comes from leaked documents, which demonstrate an environment rife with mission creep and civil liberties violations. For example, in 2019 ICE informally sought assistance from the Orange County Fusion Center to locate immigrants vehicles using license plate reader data, and a local officer at the Fusion Center responded to it despite our state's sanctuary law. Moreover, during the 2020 protests following the police murder of George Floyd, California Fusion Center issued multiple warnings to law enforcement about Black Lives Matter protests. And in 2022, following the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v.
Wade, a Virginia Fusion Center issued an unfounded warning of potential violence by pro choice protesters. SB ten ninety five seeks to bring a modicum of accountability to fusion centers. It requires that California law enforcement agencies enter into clearly defined MOUs if they participate in fusion centers and prohibits information sharing for purposes of immigration enforcement and racial or identity based profiling. It also tasks Cal OES of providing an annual report about the number and types of requests received by and responded to by State Fusion Centers. And lastly, it requires Cal DOJ to conduct a periodic audit to ensure transparency and compliance with state law.
Redner 65
In an environment where the federal government is painting First Amendment protected activity as terrorism and using every possible resource to carry out its agenda of mass deportation, we cannot allow fusion centers to continue operating with impunity. SB ten ninety five is a crucial first step to bringing accountability to these black box entities. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. We'll invite any members of the public wishing to express support for SB ten ninety five to please come forward. If your testimony is limited to state your name, the organization or city you're from, and your position in support or opposition to the bill. Thank you.
Redner 6
Thank you, mister chair. Dan Seaman, on behalf of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, cosponsors, and strong support.
Redner 8
Good afternoon. Glenn Bachus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.
Redner 53
Alexis Steloro, worker rights director for the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center. We're in full support.
Redner 16
George Pramthew on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 29
Anayeli Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center, proud co sponsors in support, also registering support for Secure Justice, Council on Islamic Relations Care California, New Light Wellness, Orange County Rapid Response Network, Bambicino Health and Partnership, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, and sixty seven Suenos. Thank you.
Redner 17
Xu Ming Cheer with the California Immigrant Policy Center, also registering support for the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, the Harbor Institute for Immigrant and Economic Justice, Asian Prisoner Support Committee, San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, and Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network.
Redner 31
Julia Vega with the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center in full support of the bill.
Redner 10
Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 1
Cal So to on behalf of the National Day Labor Organizing Network in Los Angeles in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 26
John Rodney, Immigrant Defense Project, proud cosponsor in strong support, also registering support on behalf of empowering marginalized Asian communities. South Bay People Power, Viet Rise, OLE, freedom for immigrants.
Redner 21
Salvador G. Sarmiento, attorney national director with national with the National Day Labor Organizing Network in Dillon, both a cosponsor and a proud supporter and also registering support from the San Francisco Public Defender's Office and 18,000,000 and rising. Thank you.
Redner 17
Miriam Tegues with the Pasadena Community Job Center and National Day Organizing Network in support from Pasadena.
Redner 11
Jose Madera, director of the Pasadena Community Job Center and part of the National Day Labor Organizing Network in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 17
Fatima Garcia executive director of Sembranos Semillas here in Sacramento in strong support Good afternoon. Cristina Alvarez with San Franos de Mias, the labor worker center here in Sacramento in strong support.
Redner 3
On behalf of the Sacramento Environmental Justice Coalition and the Day Labor Center in strong support.
Redner 1
Thank you all for being here today. We'll now, invite up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.
Redner 9
Good afternoon, Chair members. Usha Muchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, respectfully in opposition to Senate Bill ten ninety five. As amended on March 25, we recognize there are amendments that they're being discussed. At a glance, it's likely that we will continue our opposition, but in the meantime, we will go ahead and review those thoroughly. This bill, among other things, would prohibit California Fusion Center from participating in activity, cooperating, or disclosing, or sharing information with any governmental entity, or a contractor for any governmental entity, when participation, cooperation, or disclosure involves assisting or furthering immigration enforcement, unless pursuant to judicial warrant or court order.
Redner 59
This legislation will interrupt important data sharing and cooperation that keep our state and country safe. By closing the door to collaboration and cooperation between state or local agencies and the federal government in the form of agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the United States Coast Guard, including as permitted by SB 54, SB 95 will hamstring collective government efforts to protect our communities from myriad of threats. Additionally, the massive reporting requirements established by this bill risks exposing sensitive data sources and methods and making them subject to the Public Records Act. We cannot open the door to allow those who would seek to harm our state and country to simply use a government transparency tool to learn about important threat assessments, crime prevention, and government actions. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose.
Thank you.
Redner 15
Chair members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, a respectful opposition. I do want to thank the work of the committee and the author for the amendments that came forward. I think it's a huge step in the right direction, except we still have some pretty serious concerns that I'll highlight today. But, you know, I'm committed to continue to work with the author and sponsors and everyone moving forward. I still think that within the MOU requirements, there's a section that requires or limits the sharing of information with any immigration enforcement agency or for immigration enforcement purposes outside of a judicial warrant.
It's extremely problematic. We regularly share sensitive information with the FBI, U. S. Marshals, U. S.
Attorneys, and those federal agencies will share that information with Department of Homeland Security. There's no way for us to firewall off between federal agencies or request that they do that. So if we can't share it for immigration purposes, we can't share it with FBI, we can't share it with any of those other federal agencies, because they necessarily will share it amongst themselves, and we don't control that. So the only way to comply with that would be to stop sharing information, and that is at the core what these fusion centers do, gather and share intel. And then lastly, I still think that some of the reporting requirements and info required to be collected and shared with the Department of Justice in the auditing process is a little broad.
Things like how requests are submitted, categories of information, list of vendors, staffing information, including detailed flow charts, assessment of info processing systems, that's likely to collectively present a challenge, and that will be some sensitive information that we might not want adversaries to get their hands on. So for those reasons, we remain opposed, but look forward to continuing conversations.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB ten ninety five? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Sierrta.
Redner 2
Thank you very much. This is not enhanced public safety in California, so I'll be opposing it.
Redner 1
Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill forward and working with the committee on these amendments as well as the sponsors. I know a lot about the issue of fusion centers, as we talked about. When I was the mayor of Berkeley, during the first Trump presidency, This was an issue that came to our attention, particularly because of the administration's immigration policy and reports of profiling of Muslim Americans and people that are engaged in First Amendment activity. And we have heard that those types of abuses still continue. And certainly given this administration's policy of targeting political opponents and certainly targeting immigrant communities, I think this bill is essential.
I do want to make sure that we are able to allow for legitimate data sharing in collaboration between local police departments and federal agencies, because, transnational crime or, organized crime does not respect state boundaries. It's an issue that impacts our entire country, and we want to make sure that we're addressing terrorist threats or other criminal threats in a coordinated way. And so I really appreciate the thoughtful approach you've taken to this, and to make sure that if an agency is going to collaborate with the Fusion Center that there is an MOU. I remember Berkeley didn't even have an MOU. We had to require that there be a written MOU to outline the terms and conditions of our participation and make sure that there are guardrails safeguards against, identity or racial profiling, religious profiling, and to honor, state and local laws.
So this will make sure that that is the policy of the state of California. Any law enforcement agency would have to enter into a written MOU, which we approve by the local governing body. There would be reporting. There would be an audit to make sure we are seeing the, you know, what's happening and so we can make changes to law or policy, to further protect our communities. And, with that, I strongly support the bill, and I'll turn over to Close.
Redner 46
Thank you. And I have appreciated both your help, you know, Senator Otteguin, as well as the committee staff who've been tremendous in helping us to bring this bill together. You know, look, we we want to make sure, obviously, as you said, that we're continuing to address some of those issues, right? Counterterrorism, and other issues that I think we created fusion centers for. The problem is, unfortunately, we've had repeated violations of these fusion centers violating state law, violating SB 54.
You know, SB 54 was signed into law several years ago, and is supposed to prohibit, the state and local law enforcement from partnering up with federal, law enforcement to do immigration activity. That has happened in several cases, as I noted in my talking points in the beginning, and in addition to that, information, surveillance information has been weaponized to target people for their political opinions. Those things are concerning, and especially in an environment when where we have a federal government who is quite literally, you know, directing various social media companies to identify people who are anti ICE, you know, we need to take things very seriously. If we're going to take the term of who is a terrorist, and everybody is going to become a terrorist if they happen to disagree with the administration, that's a real problem, and we need to work on addressing that. So, have appreciated your work.
This is certainly, you know, a fine line that we're drawing here and look forward to continuing to work on the bill with the opposition and others. I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you.
Redner 1
Let's entertain a motion when more members are present, since I can't make a motion as Can the the author make a motion or no. So we'll make a motion when more members are present and entertain the motion at that time, but thank you to the witnesses for being here. Okay. Thank you all for being here today. Senator Press, is it okay if we go to Senator Grayson, who is back?
Redner 1
Okay. No problem. Okay. We'll now proceed to SB twelve oh eight by Senator Grayson. And whenever you're ready, Senator,
Redner 54
you may present. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am proud to present SB twelve oh eight, a bill that will empower our law enforcement agencies to seize and return crypto assets to victims of scams and fraud throughout California. In my role as chair of the banking and financial institutions committee, I see the alarming explosion of scams and fraud as a grave threat to the financial well-being of Californians.
Since the onset of the COVID pandemic, we have entered into a new era of internet enabled crime that is largely perpetrated by transnational criminal organizations. These organizations are highly sophisticated and operate at a shocking scale. Using slave labor from people trafficked to compounds in Southeast Asia, these criminals have weaponized our telecom systems, digital platforms and financial networks. They trick and deceive millions of Americans into turning over their hard earned assets under the false belief that they are making a sound investment, sending money to a budding love interest or paying someone to fix their computer. The losses are staggering and are growing at a mind blowing rate.
According to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, Californians lost $3,000,000,000 last year from online fraud and scams. This compares to just under $500,000,000 of losses reported in 2019. That's more than a 500% increase. Over the past five years Californians have reported a cumulative loss of $9,000,000,000 and unfortunately digital assets and crypto are often used as tools to perpetrate this fraud. Of the 3,000,000,000 in fraud losses reported by Californians last year more than half of those losses were attributed to crypto related schemes.
Redner 64
Crypto assets have become a tool of choice for scammers given the speed of transactions and the lack of regulated bank intermediaries who have tools to detect fraud reverse transactions and debank criminals. For this reason, we must modernize our money laundering laws to reflect the reality that crypto assets are too often used by criminal enterprises. We must establish a clear mechanism for law enforcement agencies to work in collaboration and compliant crypto asset exchanges to return funds to victims whenever prosecutors can successfully track and identify those assets. This is why I'm bringing this measure before you today. SB twelve oh eight establishes a new process in state law for prosecutors to obtain a cease warrant for crypto assets that are likely related to criminal activity.
Redner 54
The bill sets forth a process that protects the due process rights of Americans while ensuring that overseas criminals are not allowed to keep stolen funds simply because we cannot secure a conviction. With this bill state and local prosecution prosecutors in California will be more successful in returning stolen funds to victims. This is but one piece of the greater picture in our fight against scams. Last year I led the request to the Little Hoover Commission to study the problem and provide recommendations to the legislature and the administration on how to address scams comprehensively. I look forward to the Little Hoover report being distributed soon and hope to see progress in the next couple of years as California grapples with this difficult challenge.
This bill is inspired by the study and it aligns with the commission's recommendations and I am proud to have their support on this bill. I am also grateful to Attorney General Rob Bonta and his team for their participation in the Little Hoover study and for their sponsoring this bill. With me today is Anthony Liu from the AG's office to provide support testimony and Jeremy Seymour, Deputy Attorney General, Cyber Crime Section, to answer any technical questions.
Redner 26
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Anthony Liu from the Office of Legge Affairs for Attorney General Rob Bonta, the sponsor of the bill. We wanna thank Senator Grayson for authoring SB twelve oh eight, will enhance the ability of state and local law enforcement to combat the rapidly expanding scourge of cryptocurrency scams and just as importantly, return cryptocurrency and digital financial assets to the victims of such fraud. As you heard the author testify and as described in the excellent committee analysis, transnational criminal organizations are targeting California residents with sophisticated internet scams using cryptocurrency to steal and launder the fraud proceeds.
Redner 50
Under existing law, a criminal conviction is generally required for the forfeiture of fraud proceeds. When it comes to cryptocurrency scams, however, prosecutors are limited in their ability to identify individual perpetrators, extradite them, and obtain a criminal conviction. Because these scammers are often part of transnational criminal organizations located overseas or protected by government corruption, or both. In such cases, when the perpetrators are effectively beyond the reach of state and local law enforcement, it is much more difficult to effectuate the legal seizure and return of stolen funds back to the victims of the fraud. So to modernize the law for the cryptocurrency age, SB twelve oh eight provides statutory authority to prosecutors to initiate a special proceeding of a criminal nature to seize cryptocurrency wallets and exchange accounts being used to launder fraud proceeds.
Redner 26
The bill provides a mechanism for seized digital assets to be distributed on a prorated basis up to the amount of their actual loss to compensate victims of the fraudulent scheme. At the same time, the bill provides robust due process protections, including specific criteria for obtaining a search warrant and due process for claimants to file a verified claim for the return of the seized property. In conclusion, cryptocurrency fraud is a serious threat to public safety, it's only growing worse, and victims of crypto scams are far too often unable to cover their losses and be made hold again. This bill will enable law enforcement to seize and return digital assets to victims of crypto fraud, deny cryptocurrency to perpetrators and organizations committing the fraud and help disrupt their ability to use cryptocurrency for money laundering. For these reasons, we respectfully request an iPhone.
Redner 26
I'm with me. I have Jeremy, who's here for technical questions. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Okay. We'll invite any members of the public wishing to express support for SB twelve oh eight to please come forward, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Kim
Redner 31
Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.
Redner 40
Ryan Schirmer with the California Narcotic Officers Association and the other, POAs in support.
Redner 1
Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB-twelve oh eight? Seeing no one else, we'll invite up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB-twelve oh eight.
Redner 10
Good afternoon, and good afternoon to the author and the proponents. We'd like to thank the author and the committee staff for the conversations. We haven't worked out a resolution. We're still hopeful that we can. Our objections are not to the forfeiture parts of this bill, but to the expanded definition of digital currency.
So what it does is, probably unintentionally, treats peer to peer transactions as money laundering when these transactions are being used in place of cash. So for what used to just be like a cash money transaction, would now become money laundering under that definition. In other words, before I retired, one of my clients might buy a rock of cocaine for $20 that shows how long ago it was, and give the dealer $20 in cash. Now, they might give them digital currency from a private wallet because they're unbanked, and the drug dealer would have that money in their private wallet. So there would not be through a bank.
Unfortunately, under this expansive definition of digital currency, this kind of low level transaction could be charged as money laundering. And that would mean that there would be not only the low level crime, a misdemeanor or felony, but an also a charge of money laundering, and which could lead to an additional sentence, higher bail, turn a misdemeanor into a felony. So this is the issue that we're addressing and that we're concerned about. My clients are not the Sinaloa drug cartel or the Russian mafia. They're not scamming people out of their homes, their life savings.
But this is the issue we'd like to have addressed. So, we're respectfully opposed, unless amended. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB twelve oh eight? Seeing no one come forward, I'll bring it back to the dais a motion by Vice Chair Cierto. And I'll turn it back over to Senator Close.
Redner 1
Speaker: Okay. We have a motion by Vice Chair Sierto, which is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Please
Redner 30
Yeah. Call the roll. SP twelve oh eight Grayson, motion is due passed to Appropriations. Aragine? Aye.
Aragine? Aye. Sierto? Aye. Sierto?
Aye. Caballero? Cortez? Perez? Weiner?
Redner 1
We'll keep that bill and call for absent members. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses. Okay. I see Senator Stern, who has two bills to present today.
And so, in file order, we first, we have Senate Bill twelve twenty one. And senator, whenever you're ready, you may begin.
Redner 60
Alright. Thank you, mister chair. First, I want to begin by expressing my gratitude to the committee for their work on this. You, Mr. Chair, and I want to accept the amendments presented by the chair.
I'll just go through them very briefly, for any of you following. We're going to, due to some of the concerns raised validly by the opposition, we want to clarify that for grave disabilities, that determination should not be based solely on the fact that a person has temporary access to the basic needs, their basic needs while incarcerated, and also that prosecutors cannot use expanded information access against a defendant in a subsequent proceeding. We also are explicitly going to allow for counties with Murphy's conservatees to ensure that while they're finding appropriate treatment resources and court oversight of the placement progress, that they're allowed to still be detained by those counties during the period of time between the IST determination and their placement in Department of State Hospitals. We're committed to continue the conversation regarding this information question, and not trying to sort of chill the psychiatric treatment process. We've heard that loud and clear for some of the opposition, and I recognize that.
We want to make sure that we distinguish between sort of non criminal proceedings and criminal proceedings. So, we want to make sure
Redner 60
possible subsequent uses of this information in future non criminal proceedings, where these type of records can provide pivotal context that's key to successful treatment of rehabilitation outcomes are addressed. This bill seeks to address a gap in our behavioral health and criminal justice system brought about by a decision called Inry Lurkey, which held that a Murphy Conservative could not be detained, even temporarily, in a county detention facility, pending a placement becoming available at Department of State hospitals. Statewide, there are currently about four thirty three standard Conservative's, and about 137 Murphy conservatives. Murphy conservatives are those who are charged with crimes like murder, rape, arson, and they now need immediate placement outside of a county detention facility, and yet these facilities that could manage these conservatives are severely limited, because these individuals have been found to be not just a danger to themselves, but a danger to others. While public conservatives scramble to find Murphy conservatives placements, their families, their victims, and the public struggle to understand how these individuals could simply just be sent back to the street even though they've been accused of serious and violent crimes.
We need to fill this gap, and I'm committed to working not just with the support today, but also with the opposition to plug this hole. We recognize that this isn't just a matter of a change in law, but it also has to do with resources, and so while this bill doesn't include a budget item, I am committed to continue to work, especially in the prop 36 arena, to make sure that we address some of these behavioral health gaps, and don't just put all the pressure, say, on counties or department of state hospitals to do more with less, but in fact, keep building beds and building that capacity. I want to turn now to my witnesses in support, Matt Greco with the San Diego District Attorney's Office, and I have his as Dan, but we're going to switch over to the psychiatrist today. So we'll defer to you.
Redner 3
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. And also thank you to Senator Stern for taking on this issue. I am Matthew Greco on behalf of the proud cosponsor San Diego County District Attorney, the California District Attorneys Association, and also here to register support on behalf of the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office, which is also a cosponsor.
Redner 24
I'm a thirty year prosecutor and the author of the California Criminal Mental Health Manual. I wanted to thank the this committee and the chair for taking the amendments. I believe the spirit of the amendment specifically there were a number, but there is at least one, the prohibition from using documents or information in subsequent criminal proceedings is well thought out. It needs to be limited to those criminal proceedings because the whole purpose of the prosecutor being there in this small percentage of conservatorships is the public safety piece if the prosecutor can't use the material that they're receiving during this process in the conservatorship proceedings, or to challenge the discretion of the public conservator in the conservatorship proceedings, then it's pointless. So I don't think that was the intent of the amendments as issued, and I'm hopeful that they'll just be a really quick fix, for those amendments.
Redner 3
In terms of in San Diego, a man, beat another man to death with a baseball bat, was found incompetent, could not be brought to trial because he had killed someone, was dangerous, he was placed on a public safety conservatorship, the Murphy conservatorship. He was waiting for placement in local detention for the State Department of Hospitals when Lurkey was decided. The Lurkey decision held that this defendant could not be placed even for an interim basis in the county detention facility. SB twelve twenty one provides relief. Thank you.
By law, there is no Murphy conservatorship without the open criminal case. Let me repeat that. In San Diego County there's over 1,100 conservatorships LPS. We have less than 5% are Murphy or public safety conservatives. The Murphy ceases to exist without an open case, meaning if that case were dismissed, there would be no Murphy.
Case law has reaffirmed that the priority of the Murphy conservatorship is public safety. It's not treatment. It's public safety. Murphys comprise a very small minority, an important part of the conservatorships. Because these public safety conservatorships are reserved for the most dangerous, the district attorney is directed by law to advise the court on placement and public safety.
Redner 3
For these reasons, the people would respectfully ask for your eye and your support, SB121.
Redner 61
Good afternoon, Chair Ehragin, Vice Chair Ciotto, members of the committee. Aaron Meyer, Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at University of California, San Diego, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support of Senate Bill twelve twenty one. Grave disability cannot be determined in a vacuum. A point in time assessment in a structured setting tells you very little about whether a person can survive safely in the community. So very grateful to Senator Stern for this important clarification.
This grave disability determination requires a longitudinal view, and this same approach applies to dangerousness. A person placed in administrative segregation has limited opportunity to act violently, so I think this clarification is important as well. And these violence determinations are necessary because Murphy conservatorships, as Mr. Greco said, are different. They're not just about treatment.
It's about public safety. And yet, the conservatorship investigator is not required to address public safety at all in their conservatorship determinations. So, again, another reason why this bill is very necessary. So even the California Public Guardians Association has recognized this, recommending that agencies with the public safety lens be involved in these determinations. So this bill is very aligned also with the public guardian's legislative platform.
Redner 47
We have some troubling examples of abuse of discretion, where decisions to exclude individuals for Murphy conservatorship were based on narrow interpretations of mental illness, the nature of the offense, and the violentness, including in one published case, someone being determined be someone was determined nonviolent despite dragging somebody 50 feet with a dog collar. And cost has even been used as a rationale not to pursue conservatorship of a proposed Murphy conservatee. So SB1221 introduces a necessary check. It rings an important appropriate voice into a process that's too often close to scrutiny, and aligns decision making with not only clinical reality, but also statutory intent. This is a targeted common sense fix.
Redner 1
Thank you. Are there any members of the public wishing to express support for SB121?
Redner 3
Mr. Chairman, members, Dan Fulisato, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, as a cosponsor in strong support, and I've also been asked to express the support of the Crime Victims Alliance.
Redner 1
Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for SB twelve twenty one? Seeing no one else, approach the microphone. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.
Redner 10
Okay. I want to thank the author and the committee for the amendments. We're still opposed to the bill as amended. Today my testimony is from Robert Krausz from the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office who is unable to attend. My name is Robert Krausz.
I am a Los Angeles County Public defender and the deputy in charge of the mental health branch supervising the lawyers who handle every competency and conservatorship case in Los Angeles County. SB twelve twenty one gives criminal prosecutors effective control over conservatorship investigations. It replaces clinical judgment with criminal judgment, treating any investigator decision the prosecutor disagrees with as an abuse of discretion. That is not what an abuse of discretion means. An investigator reaching a clinical determination the prosecutors dislike is not an abuse of discretion.
It is the process working as it was designed to by this legislature. The recent amendments restrict how prosecutors may use the information they gather in these proceedings. They do not ask why prosecutors are there in the first place. There is no shortage of people being placed on Murphy conservatorships in Los Angeles County. The premise that these investigations are letting dangerous people go free is not true.
Conservatorships are civil proceedings. Giving prosecutors that control effectively turns them into criminal proceedings without providing the full range of protections a criminal defendant would have. Lurkey, the case that we've been talking about, was not an overreach. It was not soft on crime. It was not activism run amok.
It was necessary because the most severely mentally ill and the criminal justice people cannot be left to languish in jails by definition that cannot treat them. Prior to Lurkey, Murphy conservatorships were stuck in the Los Angeles County Jail for months upon months waiting for placement. I had clients personally that I personally represented that had to be taken to hospitals for severe acts of self harm caused by their continued unlawful confinement in the Los Angeles County Jail, which was ill equipped to provide them with even minimal mental health care, let alone the care they deserved. For these reasons, we would ask that you oppose, twelve twenty one, and urge no vote unless further amended. Thank you.
Redner 28
Good afternoon, Chair Arguinan members. I'm Evan Fern, public policy advocate with Disability Rights California here in opposition to SB twelve twenty one. We appreciate the committee's work on proposed amendments, but they don't resolve our concerns, and we remain opposed. Disability Rights California is California's designated protection and advocacy agency. In 1975, the United States Congress created the Protection and Advocacy System following a televised investigative series by Geraldo Rivera about abuses at Willowbrook, a state run institution for people with disabilities.
To ensure this level of abuse and neglect never happen again, each state and territory now has a P and A to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Disability Rights California opposes SB twelve twenty one because it would give district attorneys unprecedented power over conservatorship proceedings, including access to highly sensitive and private medical records and reports. If people are afraid that something they disclose in a therapy session or in a conservatorship investigation could be used against them in court, they won't talk. This will impede public guardians' ability to conduct thorough investigations and could potentially undermine their recommendations. SB twelve twenty one would also grant district attorneys power to challenge placing a conservatee in a less restrictive setting.
Redner 13
District attorneys, respectfully, are not qualified to opine on the appropriateness of various treatment settings. The law already states that placement in a less restrictive setting won't be approved if it would pose a threat to public safety. Disability Rights California also opposes SB twelve twenty one because it would disproportionately impact people of color. The bill would have the greatest impact on people who are in our state's institutions and people who are currently unhoused or are at risk of becoming unhoused. People in both of these groups are disproportionately likely to be people of color.
Redner 28
Rather than continuing to cycle people through carceral systems, we must prioritize and fully fund services that break cycles and lead to stability. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote on SB1221. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. We'll invite any members of public wishing to express opposition to SB1221 to please come forward.
Redner 3
Afternoon, Mr. Chair. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in a respectful opposition, but appreciate the amendments put forth today, and I appreciate the author's diligence in working with us on this, and look forward to continuing that dialogue. Also wanted to register opposition for Mental Health America of California. Thank you.
Redner 16
George Pramthu on behalf of ACLU California Action in respect of opposition.
Redner 7
Brady Lowe on behalf of the California Behavioral Health Planning Council, respectfully oppose.
Redner 17
Molly Micah Doctoroff, on behalf of Smart Justice California, in respectful opposition, we're still reviewing the amendments and appreciate the conversations we've had with the author's office.
Redner 31
Molly Good afternoon. Molly Maloney, behalf of the California State Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians, and Public Conservators, we're respectfully opposed, and apologies that our letter did not get in in time. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Okay. I'll bring it back to the dais for any motion by Vice Chair Cierto. Do have any additional comments? Okay.
I want to thank the author for the conversations that we've had about this bill and for accepting these amendments and your commitment to continue to talk to the opposition, if this bill moves forward today. I I think these amendments are important. You know, thought the opposition had legitimate concerns that they expressed around, the provision, around, you know, not considering somebody's nonviolence when they're in a carceral setting. And, you know, I think that that's something that needs to be considered as there's an evaluation as to somebody's the violent nature of that individual, and where the proper placement is, as well as addressing this issue, and, you know, we need to refine the language a little bit more, but addressing the legitimate issue around sharing treatment records and notes and sort of confidential therapist patient and doctor patient information. We don't want to create a chilling effect for people to be evaluated or to seek, therapy.
I thought that was a legitimate concern as well. Just want to note also the amendment that was made, to also allow for the option of interim placement in a county facility. Fundamentally, issue is we do not have enough beds. We do not have enough places to put these people, and that is an issue that's outside of this committee. It's a budget conversation, but it's something we absolutely need to work on.
I want to thank the author for your work, not just on this, but on so many issues around addressing behavioral health care in California. And I'll turn over to Clis.
Redner 60
No, I appreciate your partnership on this. These are not easy issues. It may not be a huge population, but this is a very sensitive one where there are serious crimes that folks have allegedly committed, and yet serious treatment is also required. I do want to clarify just for the opposition, the critical language in the committee amendments with the concern around them not receiving say appropriate treatment services. I do want to say I've taken multiple tours of Twin Towers in LA County and been working very closely with the folks in the county system where we have the largest number of of Murphy's Conservatives in the state.
And the strides that have been made from the awful conditions that the public defenders rightly raised of self harm that have plagued this system. Starting to see some serious reforms, and the mental health assistance program that is occurring in the fifth step down facility, I think is a great case in point where you're no longer having to, even if they are in a technically carceral setting, you're still able to provide restorative care in those circumstances where you're not sitting in a cell all day, self harm rates have basically gone down to zero, the metal furniture's been removed, people aren't chained to their chairs, and these are people who have committed serious crimes, but still have a chance and still have some hope. So the provision that they shall receive treatment services in accordance with conservatorship plan, I hope you'll take a closer look at that, because that conservatorship plan is not something that's solely determined, say, by the prosecutor, right? That's determined in court with your input, and so we think that that's a not just a humane, but an appropriate fix there. And then lastly, I would just say, the notion of that chilling effect that you talked about, Mr.
Chair, I would just urge the opposition also to look very closely at this bar now on using any documents or or information obtained from the review in subsequent criminal proceedings. And so the idea is not for this to sort of hang over the head of that defendant, but as Mr. Greco pointed out, for purposes of that conservatorship case, we do think that's very relevant information and the sad truth is in a lot of these cases where you simply can't get that information in a court, treat it confidentially and appropriately, but that that person is not going to get the care they so desperately need. So just want to sort of put an extra point, but we can go through it in deeper detail, and I really extend my hand to make this a top priority for our office on the budget side of things to add more beds and capacity, too. Thank you for your consideration.
We'd respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Redner 1
The motion is to pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. Please call the roll.
Redner 30
SB121 Stern do pass as amended to Appropriations. Aragine? Aye. Aragine? Aye.
Aragine? Sarto? Aye. Caballero? Cortez?
Perez? Weiner?
Redner 60
You. Members, before I begin, want to accept the committee amendments on this bill as well, described on page bottom page five of the analysis and strike from the bill paragraph c from section one, which is no longer necessary and also we appreciate the opposition bringing this to our attention to avoid any unintended consequences. This is a bill about copper wire theft and the massive cost it's causing to our public infrastructure and the safety of our communities. Entire bridges, water systems, light systems are in the dark, and yet the way we currently assess the impact of those crimes is strictly based on the cost of that copper in and its fair market value, but not the actual cost of replacing that system. You'll hear today from some both at the municipal level and those who oversee our telecommunications and other infrastructure about the risks that are presented by this scourge of theft.
Redner 26
Last year alone in LA, Bureau Street Lighting where I live in the dark on my street, and many streets around me where I have to walk my kids at night, and just like either turn on my phone or find some other way to feel safe from cars and otherwise, we had 45,000 service requests with 40% of these directly tied to copper theft. When copper thieves strip the copper from a single street light, they get about $50 in value for the metal, but cause about $3,500 in damages, and that theft is part of the reason the city of LA has a backlog on repairs for over a year on average. That needs to change, and we feel like this bill, while it's not intended to overly create some kind of precedent that would say occur in other circumstances, in this case of critical public infrastructure that is such a crucial public safety, as well as a quality of life function, we think that the current the current way the statute works just doesn't account for the cost properly. So we're going to redefine that value as the full cost repair, replacement labor and equipment, rather than just its scrap value, and hopefully this will send a stronger signal to those in these copper wire theft rings and the dealers of this metal that the consequences of their crimes can lead to a serious jail time and fines when appropriate.
Redner 60
We have here today, let's see, Yolanda with the Broadband Association and U. S. Telecom, and I believe is it Kasia? Yeah, Kasia Hunt? Did I get that right?
Okay, with California Water Association. Respectfully ask for Ivo.
Redner 36
I think I'm going to go first. Kasia Hunt with Political Solutions. I'm here on behalf of our client, California Water Association. Chair and members, thank you for this opportunity to speak today in support of SB twelve sixty six. We represent 94 regulated drinking water utilities serving roughly 6,000,000 Californians, which is about 15% of the state.
Redner 62
Our member utilities have been increasingly impacted by the theft of critical water infrastructure, particularly fire hydrants and water meters. And this is not a minor property crime. It's a direct threat to public safety and the system reliability. When metal components are stolen from fire hydrants, those hydrants can become inoperable or delayed in use during a fire emergency. That loss of time can have serious consequences for both lives and property.
At the same time, water meter thefts create additional risks. Removing meters can result in uncontrolled water flows, significant water loss, and sudden drops in a system and a system pressure, and in some cases it can also create pathways for contamination to enter the drinking water system. These incidents have real operational and public health impacts. Utilities must respond immediately, diverting crews from planned work and cost of repairs, which far exceed the scrap value of the stolen materials. Ultimately, those costs are borne by the ratepayers.
For water utilities, preventing metal theft is about more than just protecting equipment. It's about ensuring reliable fire protection, safeguarding drinking water quality, and maintaining public trust in the essential services. We respectfully urge your support. Thank you.
Redner 63
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak in support of SB twelve sixty six, an important bill, not only for the telecommunications broadband companies, but for every California community struggling with the adverse impacts and rising repair costs of copper theft. I represent U. S.
Telecom, the Broadband Association, representing the largest to the smallest telephone and broadband companies in the state. Our members provide California communities across the state with the connectivity they need to thrive in today's world. One of the biggest hindrances to our members' ability provide Californians with the connectivity that they absolutely need and want is pervasive and increasing copper theft. I've heard I know you've heard of many of the issues of copper theft plaguing our state. Most have happened in the LA County area.
However, the real impact of these thefts, the actual cost to repairs and costs of downtime, can be absolutely more severe than many realize. With a single theft may involve only a few $100, as was mentioned by the author, worth of copper, the consequences are anything but small. Even minor theft may cause major disruptions and create repair costs ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars from municipalities and telecommunications providers. These thefts can knock out street lights, disable transit systems, and disrupt communication services critical for even dialing 911 for schools businesses and residential communities we commend Senator Stern for recognizing the seriousness of this growing problem these crimes have become a crisis in California and they continue to increase in both in severity and frequency. Just last year there was a report that was done by all of the telecommunications companies nationally.
Redner 48
It's called protecting the nation's critical communications infrastructure. And I'll just show you a really quick graph you're close enough that they found that over 15,000 incidents have happened nationwide. California makes up 6,000 of those 15,000 incidents. It's a problem and it's pervasive. Current laws, regulations and protective measures are not having a material impact on the increasing rates of these thefts.
Redner 63
Our member companies are working regularly with law enforcement, coordinating efforts with the Attorney General's Office, and deploying our own security technology and patrol teams, but this alone is not enough. We ask that you support SB1266. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Well, if any members of the public wishing to express support for this bill, to please come forward.
Redner 61
Thank you very much, Chair. And members, I want to thank the author for introducing this. I'm Damon Conkin with the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.
Redner 31
Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in enthusiastic support.
Redner 40
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jonathan Ehrenbaugh on behalf of CTIA, the Trade Association for the Wireless Industry, in support.
Redner 58
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Amanda Gualdarama with Cal Broadband in support.
Redner 1
Thank you very much. Unless there are any other members of public wishing to express support for SB twelve sixty six, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill. You have two minutes to address the committee on the bill.
Redner 16
Good afternoon, chair and members. George Pramto speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action, respectful opposition to SB twelve fifty six. I agree with the sponsors that copper theft can have disruptive impacts. I also agree with the sponsors that the current system is not preventing these thefts. But the solution is not to simply double down on an approach that has proven to be ineffective.
We already criminalized copper theft by an individual or a group. Felony copper theft is punishable by up to three years in prison. And as I believe the author acknowledged at the beginning, if multiple petty thefts occur in line with one plan, these thefts can already be aggregated to a felony charge. Moreover, if any of these thefts occur in concert with others, each person is liable for the full sentence under our aiding and abetting statutes. And yet these thefts still happen because criminalization will not solve this problem.
SB twelve sixty six's increased punishments will not make victims whole. And as the federal Department of Justice has noted, these increased punishments do not deter crime. Importantly, we must also keep in mind the fiscal cost of increased incarceration. Putting someone in prison for one year cost the state $133,000 Instead of throwing millions of dollars into an ineffective carceral approach, the state should invest in something new, such as establishing uniform licensure and inspection regimes over the recycling companies making a profit off of the stolen copper. We can tamper down the illegal market driving these thefts without throwing more people in prison.
For these reasons, we urge a no vote. Thank you.
Redner 12
Good afternoon, chair and members. My name is Alex Tuckman. I'm a public defender from LA County, and I'm representing Local one hundred forty eight, which is LA County's Public Defenders Union, speaking in opposition to AB twelve sixty six. I have spent three years on the front lines as a public defender. I've represented adults in two counties in California, in Santa Clara County and LA County, and I currently represent youth in LA County.
While we understand the author's intent to address pervasive coffer thefts in Los Angeles, the answer is never further criminalization. Increased punishment will not and does not protect communities. It does not address the underlying systemic reasons behind the increases in theft. As my colleague noted, copper metal theft by an individual or group is already criminalized under existing law. Our current law sufficiently covers copper theft, and prosecutors are in no way prevented from aggregating petty thefts, which are misdemeanors, into a more serious felony charge.
SB twelve sixty six will not make victims whole nor communities safer. The bill, frankly, goes against well established research that demonstrates that increased sentences do not deter crime. A quote from the, US Department of Justice National Institute, quote, laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective, partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes. The legislator here should consult with impacted communities of scrap metal buyers to regulate that industry, and tamper down the illegal market, as my colleague stated. Further punishing individuals when the law is already sufficiently addressing copper theft is unnecessary, and will cause immense fiscal costs with frankly no benefit to community safety.
For those reasons, Local one hundred forty eight respectfully oppose SB twelve sixty six.
Redner 1
Thank you. Does anyone else wish to express opposition to SB twelve sixty six? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.
Redner 8
Glenn Bachus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in respectful opposition.
Redner 10
Mark O'George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition.
Redner 17
Micah Docteruff on behalf of Smart Justice California in respectful opposition. We appreciate the conversation with the author's office and look forward to continuing it.
Redner 1
Okay. I'll bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Sierto? Questions.
Redner 2
I thank you for your bill. This is a big deal, and it's becoming a bigger deal. And although punishment isn't a deterrent, that's not necessarily what your bill is talking about. It's appropriate valuation of the items that are stolen and you know, sometimes people do get caught and sometimes they have the assets from doing it so much that it's sitting in the bank and a proper determination on how much the damage they did was done can lead to a restitution that is appropriate for what they just did. So, I I'm not sure.
I didn't see where it it increases other than it may push it into a higher range because of how much it it is grand theft versus petty theft. But if they stole something that's grand theft, it's grand theft, period. So not sure why we're so opposed to a bill that is just appropriately putting the appropriate amount of what has been stolen and determining what that appropriate amount is as opposed to the lesser amount that is just the copper itself because that kind of damage does a whole lot. The reason people steal these things, it's not because they're trying to put bread on the table. It's because it's easier.
It's easier than getting a job. You go out and it's lucrative. They can go out and get this copper wire, take it to the scrap iron place wherever it is that they turn their copper wire in now. Usually, illegally because they have to give their licenses and things like that if they
Redner 2
legally. It's a racket just like everything else. If you don't want to get caught, if you don't want to be imprisoned, don't do the damn crime. That's how you that's how you avoid getting in trouble for this. So, so with that, I will be supporting your bill and I'll move the bill.
Redner 1
Thank you. I'll turn it back over to the author, if you'd like to close. Yeah,
Redner 60
thank you. I would just say that we're just trying to, this bill is really not about enhancing penalties, or defaulting, say to, you know, increased deterrence through carceral, the carceral system, it's really just about getting an accurate value in the system, and we've seen especially in the, not so much at the the petty theft level, but with the dealers that are out there, that there is an ability to evade the true costs of that of that shadow economy that they're profiting from, and they know that. They know the laws designed this way, and they take advantage of that, and they're making lots of money. This is not it's not so much about the individual, say, doing the petty theft on the street, but as you work your way up the system and they aggregate this this stolen copper, it becomes a broader systemic problem that's costing us. And the costs are gonna have to come from somewhere.
There's a proposal before the city of Los Angeles to increase taxes on every single homeowner and apartment and every renter in the city to pay for this. And I have a problem with that if the system isn't even valuing the theft accurately in the first place. So I really This is not designed to be some heavy handed approach, but really just restoring an accuracy in law about redefining value and what it is, and the true cost of this is much higher than the current law reflects. So hoping we'll earn your I vote here today.
Redner 1
Thank you. We have a motion, which is do pass as amended to the committee on appropriations. If we can please call the roll.
Redner 30
SB twelve sixty six Stern, motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Otto
Redner 1
We'll keep that bill on the call for absent members. I have to go vote in the Energy Committee. They're about to close the roll. So I'm going turn the gavel over to the Vice Chair.
Redner 2
Come on up. Next up, are going to hear SB thirteen thirty eight by Senator Jones. Welcome, Senator Jones. You may proceed when you're ready.
Redner 37
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and staff. Appreciate the opportunity to present SB thirteen thirty eight, the post repossession interference bill, which addresses dangerous interference with the transport of a vehicle after a lawful repossession is already complete. I want to thank the chair and the committee staff for their work on the bill, and we will be accepting the committee's amendments. Under existing law, interfering with the transport of a repossessed vehicle is already prohibited, but the penalty is currently only an infraction.
Redner 65
In situations like these, after a vehicle has already been lawfully repossessed and is in transit, individuals may follow the tow truck, block exits or roadways, box in the vehicle, jump in or on the vehicle, attempt to unhook the tow straps, otherwise attempt to stop the transport. SB thirteen thirty eight makes a narrow targeted change in increasing that penalty from an infraction to a misdemeanor. The SB thirteen thirty eight does not expand repossession authority, does not alter the breach of the peace doctrine, and does not change the point at which a repossession must cease. It simply strengthens the penalty for conduct that is already prohibited under current law. With me today is Megan Allred on behalf of the California Association of Licensed Repossers to speak in support of the bill.
Redner 33
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. My name is Megan Allred here on behalf of the California Association of Licensed Repossers, the sponsor of Senate Bill thirteen thirty eight. We want to thank the chair and committee staff for all of their thoughtful work on this bill. With the amendments, SB thirteen thirty eight becomes a precisely calibrated tool, a misdemeanor classification that gives officers the authority to de escalate dangerous situations at the scene, paired with the judicial safety valve that allows courts to reduce the charge to an infraction where the circumstances call for it.
Redner 66
We believe this strikes a beneficial balance for both consumers and licensed repossessors. Consideration. We respectfully request your I vote.
Redner 2
Thank you very much for that prompt and concise report. At this time, we'll take other people that are in favor of this measure and come up to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and that you are in favor of the bill. Now, we'll take opposition witnesses at this time. So, for a primary opposition witness, are you just gonna do it from there or you just
Redner 10
proceed. A thank you to the committee for and the author for the amendment. We appreciate it. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we do not think that repossession agents should get special treatment. One might say that we also should then have special treatment for bank officers who foreclose on a house or any number of people who are just doing their job.
If there's actual vandalism or battery or damage, there are already laws that protect that. Thank you very much.
Redner 2
All right. Thank you very much. If there's anybody else who would like to come up to the microphone and express their opposition.
Redner 16
George Brampton on behalf of ACLU California Action, the opposition. Thank you.
Redner 17
Micah Docteroff on behalf of Smart Justice California. We are opposed. We're reviewing the amendments. Thank you.
Redner 8
Glenn Bachus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition, have not seen the amendments. We'll evaluate when we do. Thank you.
Redner 2
Alright, the clarifying the amendments. I'll bring it back to the dice here. Clarifying the amendment. One is to make the offense of interference with a repossession agent a woblette. Correct?
A woblette. Punishable by up to sixty days in jail, dollars 400 finder, both of a misdemeanor. And it defines interfere to mean physically impede. I've had the opportunity in my career to go on a couple of beatings issued to people who are just trying to do their job. These are very confrontational issues sometimes out in
Redner 2
field and they're not in a controlled environment like an office and there are usually no other people around to help them. So I think this is an appropriate step in the right direction to enable people to do their job without getting hurt. Mister Weiner, would you like to comment on the bill?
Redner 64
I in terms of someone getting beaten when they're doing a repossession, I believe that would still be a crime.
Redner 2
Yeah, but it's usually it's too late by then, not that they've gotten beaten up.
Redner 2
This makes before they get beaten up a crime when they're interfering with the operation.
Redner 67
Right, but that tends to be to the beating. That tends to be one incident. So, there wouldn't be a prosecution So, in if they interfere and then they punch first in the face, that would be an assault, and depending on what it is, potentially a felony.
Redner 65
Absolutely. I would love to close. It's SB thirteen thirty eight is a narrow update to existing law. It does not expand reposition. It simply strengthens the penalty for dangerous post repositioning interference that is already prohibited under current law.
I ask for your I vote.
Redner 2
Okay. So we'll bring it back here. Let's see. Do we have a motion? If not, we'll wait until we do have more members here.
Yes, sir.
Redner 64
we can put it up for, a vote. I'm not supporting it, but I will, as a courtesy,
Redner 2
Thank you. We have a motion as a courtesy, by, Senator Weiner. Go ahead and call roll.
Redner 30
SB thirteen thirty eight Jones, motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Arguin, Seyarto
Redner 2
That bill remain on call. Thank you very much for your presentation and we're going into recess because I have to go vote with some other committees. Yeah.
Redner 2
All right, yeah, we're going to go ahead and recess until we get more presenters and then we'll be finishing the committee hearing afterwards.
Redner 1
Okay, the Senate Public Safety Committee will reconvene in thirty seconds.
Redner 1
The senate standing committee on public safety is back in session. We'll proceed now to SB thirteen sixty five by Senator Allen.
Redner 67
Thank you, mister chair, and and congratulations on surviving. What's ridiculous day for all of us. So members, as you know, the Palisades and Altadena fires destroyed thousands of homes and displaced tens of thousands of people in the in the Southland. And to this day, many are still living in temporary housing as they managed to. They're trying to manage their rebuild process.
So existing California law provides price gouging protection in disaster areas, including prohibitions on raising rental rates more than 10% above the prices charged immediately prior to the emergency. But during attempts by the city attorney to enforce price gouging protections in Los Angeles, some loopholes became apparent. First of all, existing price gouging law defines rental lease terms to have a maximum lease of twelve months, but some rentals have been listed for longer than twelve months to circumvent post disaster rental protections. Existing law provides price gouging protections for short term rentals leased in daily rates at the time of the disaster declaration, but does not provide rent protection if the property is converted to daily rates after the disaster. Additionally, the fires have highlighted the lack of robust enforcement of existing protections against anti competitive business practices under the Cartwright Act, which is currently only enforceable by the Attorney General and District Attorneys.
There's already evidence of these practices impacting fire survivors in the LA area. A Redfin review of lot sales in the fire zones found that approximately 40% of fire impacted lots that sell in the Pacific Palisades and Altadena and Malibu fire impacted areas have been purchased by real estate developers. So homeowners have reported that investors are making lowball offers that some desperate victims feel forced to accept. The bill would expand Kartrite enforcement authority to cities with populations over 750,000. So we're talking four cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and San Jose.
Redner 69
It does not change the scope of the Car Right Act. It just gives car enforcement authority in these cases to these four city attorneys. The bill also requires the city attorneys to report to both the AG and the district attorney explaining any proposed prosecution under the court right. You know, also allows for the attorney general to take full charge of any investigation or prosecution if he or she wants to do that. The bill enhances existing protections for disaster victims and consumers by closing lease length and day rate rental gouging loopholes and through some expanded authority to protect from having a competitive business practices.
Redner 67
And with me here today we have two experts from the LA City Attorney's Office, Assistant City Attorney Kevin James and also Deputy Attorney Alexandra Arish, who are both here from our L. A. City Attorney. Alexandra is actually the expert on price gouging in the region. And with that, I turn to my witnesses.
Redner 2
Thank you very much. Each of you have two minutes. If we could adhere to that, that'd be great. And whichever one wants to begin you may begin. Thank you.
Redner 45
On 01/07/2025 following the outbreak of the devastating Palisades and Eaton fires Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency. This declaration triggered the provisions of California Penal Code Section three ninety six, which prohibits price gouging for various goods and services. With respect to housing, the law generally prohibits increasing rents by more than 10% above the amount charged before the emergency. The Palisades and Eaton Fires would ultimately destroy about 12,000 homes and thousands of people would be displaced. The practice of price gouging of housing rental prices exacerbated the hardships for affected residents.
The LA City Attorney's Office investigated more than 1,000 price gouging complaints and coordinated with other government partners. Through our work, our office found that the text of Section three ninety six in specific situations either did not provide clarity or resulted in an outcome that was unfair to a renter. This bill sets forth proposals for closing three loopholes. First, the bill revises the definition of housing to eliminate the exception for leases of longer than a year. In fact, Governor Newsom signed an executive order in February 2025 temporarily removing this exception.
Redner 58
Second, the bill imposes restrictions for monthly rentals that are converted to daily rates. Currently, the law only provides a calculation for when a short term rental is converted into a monthly lease, but not when a monthly rental becomes available only as a daily rental. This results in owners making properties available only on a short term basis because they are not subject to a cap. Third, this bill limits the exception of using costs for repairs or additions beyond normal maintenance to increase rental rates beyond the 10% cap for only housing that, prior to the emergency, was used or intended to be used as rental housing, rather than allowing owners to offset expenses incurred for their own benefit. Section three ninety six is and will continue to be a law that is in effect only temporarily in times of emergency.
Redner 45
As we think about the Californians who just over one year ago suddenly lost or could not return to their homes, we encourage this committee to vote aye on this bill.
Redner 27
Thank you. Within two days of the Southern California wildfires that have been referenced, two things began to occur. One, institutional real estate investors swooped in like vultures and began making lowball, all cash offers to the homeowners in the area that had just lost their homes. In the wake of such a natural disaster, families often face immense pressure to sell. The destabilization creates a large window of vulnerability that companies with opaque and confusing ownership structures looking to take advantage of the disaster can easily step into.
Redner 68
Numerous media reports confirm that this disaster acquisition by Wall Street and private equity is not unique to us. According to federal data, institutional investors went from owning fewer than 1,000 single family homes before 2011 to 450,000 by 2022 and estimated to be over 600,000 today. Our fire victims have asked what we can do to protect their communities. After significant research, our work with Senator Allen determined that expanding the enforcement provisions of the Cartwright Act with SB thirteen sixty five to just the four city attorneys with populations over 750,000 would add resources to protect our vulnerable residents from these predatory and collusive schemes. Our current jurisdiction under the Unfair Practices Act is insufficient because it only covers specific bad acts attempting to drive out a market rival, but these predators are working with their rivals.
It takes Cartwright Act authority to break up a conspiracy and this collusion. And our existing jurisdiction under the unfair competition law is insufficient because it only allows for injunctive relief and occasional restitution. But the Cartwright Act allows for treble damages and attorney's fees. That is a real deterrent for these bad actors. Mere injunctive relief is not.
We ask for an I vote.
Redner 2
Thank you very much. At this time, anybody who would like to testify in favor of the bill, you can come up. You give your name, the organization you represent, and your support for the bill.
Redner 60
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Labor Federation in support.
Redner 2
Thank you very much. Anybody else? If there is none, we will take any opposition witnesses. You may come up, have a seat. And each of you will have the same two minutes that was given to the support group.
Redner 19
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Deborah Carlton with the California Apartment Association. First, let me state that the California Apartment Association strongly opposes price gouging. In fact, we took out a full page ad in the L.
Redner 69
A. Times after the fires in LA to educate rental property owners and businesses in the area. But let me talk about the Kartrite Act first. We believe it unnecessarily extends the Kartrite Act to specific city attorneys to enforce a set of complicated laws, more properly handled by our Attorney General. Just a few weeks ago, the Attorney General put out a press release reiterating how important antitrust enforcement is for his office right now.
In that press release, Mr. Bonta emphasized how specialized the field of law is, and we wholeheartedly agree. As for the rationale that the Cartwright Act can be used to stop lawful offers to buy housing, we strongly and respectfully disagree. This makes the assumption that property owners are not smart enough to evaluate an offer or act in their own special and interest. It would also believe we believe unconstitutional to interfere with the offers that can be made today, whether you want to call them speculators, they can be made today, and we strongly disagree with the expansion for this rationale, and we request your no vote.
Thank you.
Redner 10
Good afternoon. And members, Skyler Wanakot with the California Business Properties Association. We often have tenants who ask prior to emergency declarations for a lease longer than a year. They do so to lock in rent increases over time. And it's important to remind you that the rent increases are capped over the life of the emergency, which is capped at 10%, which can last for years.
Redner 70
So a five year declaration means rents capped at 2% per year. These tenants and owners who have entered into these long term leases where the tenants have not been affected by the emergency should not have their leases changed as a result of this bill. And for those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote.
Redner 2
Very good. Thank you very much. And at this time, anybody in opposition may come up to the microphone, state your name, organization, and that you oppose.
Redner 2
Okay, Thank you. Anybody else? If not, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions? Motion?
Okay, we have a motion by Senator Caballero. Would you like to close?
Redner 67
Just appreciate the discussion. Know, but look, yeah, we're going be engaging in further discussion with the opposition. Obviously, we're trying to get at a very serious phenomenon here, And all we're doing is just extending this enforcement power to just a few city attorneys who represent a lot of people. So I think it's reasonable, but I'm very much committed to talking with with everybody involved. And with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Redner 30
SB thirteen sixty five Allen, motion is due passed to appropriations. Arto. No. Say Arto no. Caballero.
Redner 2
Next up, we have Senator Caballero. Would you like to? Do we have any other senators? Senator Caballero, you have SB eleven fifty six. Is that our last?
Redner 45
Thank you, mister vice chair. Today, I'm here to present SB eleven fifty which will remove the ability of a driver convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol to buy alcohol and potentially re offend, and will increase the safety of our roads. It's become clear that the current strategy to prevent injury and death caused by inebriated drivers has not worked. The Department of Motor Vehicles reported that in 2021, over 17,000 people in California were convicted or pled guilty to a second conviction, a second conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol. Currently, the penalties for repeat DUI offenses fails to act as a deterrence.
Redner 71
Under existing law, individuals are punished after the violation occurs. With prevention in mind, SB eleven fifty six will require a sentencing judge to prohibit a person convicted of multiple DUIs from purchasing alcohol and determine the length of the prohibition given the circumstances of the case. This includes factors such as personal injury or death, damage to property, and prior criminal history. We've all seen the negative consequences of failed deterrence and the carnage that results. SB1156 is an opportunity to increase public safety and make it difficult for repeat offenders to get access to alcohol and drive drunk again.
Redner 2
Thank you. And do you have any primary witnesses? No. Okay. At this time, we'll go to the audience.
Anybody who wishes to come up and speak in favor of the bill may do so. State your name, organization.
Redner 40
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ryan Sherman with California Narcotic Officers and Riverside Sheriff Association in support.
Redner 2
Thank you very much. Anybody else? If there is none, we will bring up anybody who wishes to testify in opposition to the bill. I don't see anybody scrambling to the mic. Anybody wanna come up and just be a me too on this on the opposition?
If not, we will bring it back to the diocese to have comments from me. And me. Here's here's my quick comment. I'm supporting your bill. I I kind of I I I don't know how effective it's going to be in that some people just revert to whatever they did in high school to get their their their alcohol.
Have somebody else buy it for them. But we are sending a message. And that message showed okay by me. With that, you may close.
Redner 71
Thank you and I appreciate that comment. We're working on all angles and respectfully ask for your I vote.
Redner 2
Very good. And we're probably going to have to wait for a second until we get more members.
Redner 2
So at this time we're going to go into recess until we have our last presenter get here to hear the last bill. Okay. The Senate Public Safety will convene in thirty reconvene in thirty seconds. Yep. Okay.
You ready? Alright. We are on our last bill, I believe, right? This is SB nine thirty eight by Senator Menjivar being presented by Senator Perez and did you consult with her about accepting amendments?
Redner 2
Okay, thank you. All right. If you would like to begin, you may present the bill. Good
Redner 46
afternoon. There we go. Good afternoon, Chair and members. I'm presenting SB nine thirty eight, the Community Trust Act, on behalf of Senator Manjivar, who is accepting the committee amendments. It is the duty of the state of California to ensure that our law enforcement officers are held to the highest standards, training and qualifications.
Most law enforcement agencies have built long standing trust with the communities in which they serve, and this bill seeks to protect that trust. SB nine thirty eight clearly states that state and local law enforcement agencies shall not employ as a peace officer any individual who on or after 01/20/2025 assisted in any civil immigration enforcement activity. These individuals may only apply after a minimum ten year cooling off period from the date of separation in assisting the Federal Immigration Agency. There have been instances noting these agents' blatant disregard for life in the notable cases where these individuals assisting in immigration enforcement have fatally shot at the community and boasted about it. This topic was discussed in the recent bicameral United States Senate hearing where text messages amongst ICE agents were released referring to the shooting of Miramar Martinez.
One agent texted about firing five rounds and her having seven holes on her body, and further stated, Put that in your book, boys, to which another responded, Oh, well, it is what it is. We should be wary of this type of thinking when applicants apply to our state and local law enforcement agencies. In closing, I ask that my colleagues work to protect the trust that we have worked so hard to rebuild and ensure that we do not have these individuals that have no regard for the rule of law in our law enforcement. Testifying in support of the bill are Diana Askamia, Policy Coordinator with Cattison, and Margo George, Co Chair of the California Public Defenders Association Legislative Committee.
Redner 2
All right. Thank you very much for testifying today. You each have two minutes, if you will stick to that, because I don't want to have to interrupt you.
Redner 29
Got it. Oh, okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Dennis Camilla.
Redner 56
I'm the policy coordinator with the Central American Research Center, the largest Central American immigrant rights coordinate organization in the country. Here today as a sponsor and in strong support of SB nine thirty eight, a bill that makes it an important step towards rebuilding the public's trust in California's laws and enforcement agencies. Under this administration, federal law enforcement agencies have gone rogue and have harmed immigrant and Latino communities by racially profiling them, and oftentimes utilizing chemical weapons on community members who are legally observing these horrific actions from ICE and others. Public safety is most effective when it s rooted in trust and legitimacy however, community members have significant concerns about ICE agents potentially working in their communities as local police officers because we know that these federal agents have not been vetted and their actions show for it. In a recent investigation reported by the Associated Press, they found that many new hires had troubling backgrounds, including significant use of force at other law enforcement agencies or had been vetted or had been allowed to begin enforcement actions without being fully vetted.
Redner 29
There's also been multiple instances where ICE has been deceitful, causing generational fear and mistrust in the community. More specifically, in my neighborhood, immigration enforcement agents have tried different tactics to trick community members with the intention to detain the most people. When ICE first showed up in my community, they came on in unmarked cars with tinted windows. In a different incident, the Carrese and Day Labor Center was targeted by ICE agents driving up and jumping out of rented U Hauls in full military gear. They're there to terrorize our day laborers and street vendors.
The actions of ICE and their agents assisting them are causing great mistrust between community members and all law enforcement. Just like me, community members cannot tell ice from law enforcement, so it's important that you support us with your eye vote for SB nine thirty eight so that we can repair and rebuild community trust.
Redner 10
Embargo, George. Many California public defender offices have immigration attorneys and experts who consult with line deputy public defenders and investigator investigators excuse me, and organizations as part of our holistic defense of our clients. In these capacities, and also as community members, we have frequently witnessed the pervasive abuse, disregard for the rule of law, and systemic dehumanization that have characterized the practices of ICE and the border patrol in recent years. SB nine thirty eight is not punitive. It is protective.
It recognizes that individuals who have participated in or enabled unlawful enforcement and custodial practices where cruelty and racial discrimination were not only tolerated or incentivized should not occupy roles of public trust in California. Peace officers wield extraordinary authority and influence. State and local law enforcement already undergo a rigorous process to ensure that the candidates who serve our community meet minimum standards. Under SB two, which passed in 2021, there's a mechanism to investigate and review allegations of serious misconduct such as dishonesty, abuse of power, criminal behavior, and bias, to name a few. There have been clear indications that ICE agents have engaged in serious misconduct.
We've all seen the pictures on our social media feeds or on our TV screens.
Redner 10
Certainly. We respectfully request your support to keep the community trust and law enforcement intact and urge your vote in favor of SB nine thirty eight.
Redner 2
Thank you. All right. At this time, anybody who wishes to speak in support or come up to the microphone and express their support for the bill may do so at this time. If there are nobody coming up, then if there is nobody coming up. At this time, if there are some opposition witnesses who would like testify as primary witnesses in opposition, come on up to do so.
Welcome. You have the same two minutes.
Redner 40
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association, Riverside Sheriff's Association, and a number of other law enforcement groups throughout the state in respectful opposition to the bill, which would disqualify a person from being a peace officer if they're employed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We find it odd that there's no requirement of any type of showing of wrongdoing or any improper conduct by the person who is seeking to become a peace officer. We think that's troubling, that just mere employment for a federal agency could disqualify a person without any showing like that.
Redner 7
We're very concerned that, you know, people who have served honorably, ethically, and morally in past employment, and to quote another language and some other bills related to this topic, not intended or not infected by the culture of racism and brutality that currently defines The United States Custom Immigration And Customs Enforcement. We don't agree with being excluded or having potential cops excluded from this, again, without a showing of improper conduct. And I think, you know, we've all seen the horrors on TV about a lot of really bad things going on in our state and across the country when it comes to, you know, some of these folks that might have not been properly screened or trained. And we think that, you know, the legal system as it is should, you know, enforce our current laws when there is misconduct, but excluding people who have done nothing wrong, who are just trying to serve our communities, and we're all trying to be able to recruit officers more, this just was one more thing to make it a little bit more difficult. So respectfully, must pose the bill.
Redner 2
Thank you. Again, thank you very much. Now, at this time, we'll take the Me Toos. Come on up and express your opposition. Good
Redner 59
afternoon, Chairmembers. Usha Mutzler, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. In opposition, we are aware of the amendments. We are, reviewing them, but at this time, we are opposed. Thank you.
Redner 1
Thank you. Those are me twos in opposition, Mr. Vescher? Yeah. Okay, thank you.
We'll bring back the dais for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero.
Redner 71
Senator, I know this isn't your bill, so I won't ask any questions in regards to kind of where you see it going in the future, but appreciate the author taking the amendments. I think they were really important, and I also would agree with the comments that were made by Officer Sherman. Is that officer or okay, Mr. Sherman. At some point we have to tie it to behavior, and so that being said, I'm going to support it today.
It's moving in the right direction. I appreciate, as I said, the amendments that were taken, and it
Redner 71
just need to figure out if it's going to withstand constitutional muster, that's got to be something more than, you know, you used to live in New York City, and we don't care for them, and so you can't come to California, that kind of thing. So, as I said, with that, I'm going to support the bill today.
Redner 41
Just real quick. I'm supporting the bill really without any major reservation just because of what we've been going through. However, when I step back and look at it more from my legal background and more on the employment law side, I'm not sure that there isn't constitutional issues at some point, you know, in terms of alienating employment opportunities for folks. And then, of course, whenever we legislate, we're casting this broad net, and we have good actors and bad actors, and we don't capture all of that. But we're being treated that way too.
There's this net being cast at us and toward us that's obviously extraordinarily impactful in a negative way. And because of that, of course, I'm supporting the bill. So but I wanted to acknowledge that, downstream, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some issues that are presented legally at some point. Thank you.
Redner 2
Thank you very much. And I realize also you are not the author of the bill, so we get it. And I also get that people have a certain amount of angst that is aimed at ICE and our federal immigration authorities. But there's a lot of employees that work for ICE that are not anywhere near the type of incidents that you may see on TV. Remember, the TV only focuses on those type of those incidents.
There's a lot of people out there that if they want to change careers or come to live in California with their family and have done absolutely nothing wrong other than be associated with one of our federal agencies, We have screening abilities in police departments. They can do background checks. They can determine whether somebody is suitable for a job or not. But what happens when we have qualified minorities from these agencies that want to come over and be police officers and and raise their families here? What do we tell them?
No. Because we didn't like who you work for even though you didn't do anything wrong. We can't prove you did anything wrong. We're not going to allow you to come to California and work. That is an absurd concept.
And whatever your angst is with ICE, this is not the vehicle to lash out at them with. This is unconstitutional. So, I will not be joining my colleagues in supporting this. You know, I like I said, this is just not the vehicle. It's unconstitutional and and and frankly, it's it's unfair to so many people that are good people that are working for an agency.
They're just doing their job. The way they're being instructed to and but in some cases, yes, there are there are problems. But but you cannot throw that blanket over everybody no more than you can throw a blanket over the entire legislature when when one of us gets a DUI or something like that. And so with that, I would just advise, you know, if our colleagues are going to pass us along, all it's going to do is be more of an issue later as far as on the floor, a big floor debate. But can't understand why anybody would allow this to go through knowing that it is pigeonholing people that have no reason for us to be pigeonholing them and and keeping them from employment.
It's ridiculous.
Redner 1
I wanna thank senator Mangiora for bringing this bill forward and for taking the amendment. I did have a concern. I think committee staff raised this in the analysis around the broad nature of the definition of assisting immigration enforcement. The goal is to establish prohibition for people who are sworn officers who are engaged, actively engaged in immigration enforcement, not someone who works in an office, somebody who's actively, you know, arresting people and engaged in the deportation process. And so the amendment limits the operative disqualification provision to persons employed as a sworn law enforcement officer by a federal agency engaged in immigration enforcement who personally assisted with immigration enforcement.
So I think it narrows the scope rightfully to what the goal of this bill was. And with that, Senator Perez, if you'd like to close on behalf of the author.
Redner 46
I appreciate you just reiterating the amendments and respectfully request your I
Redner 1
Okay. Thank you. I want to turn a motion on, the bill. Moved by Senator Caballero. And the motion is Do pass as amended to Appropriations.
SB nine thirty
Redner 30
nine thirty eight, Mengevar. Motion is to pass as amended to Appropriations. Aye. Taking aye. Serrato?
No. Serrato, no. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Cortese? Cortesi, I. Perez?
Redner 1
We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. I think that completes all of our bill presentations, correct? Yes, sir. And so I'll entertain a motion first on the consent calendar. So moved.
Consist of SB ten eighteen Grove, SB eleven ninety Grove, and SB fourteen twenty seven, the committee omnibus bill. Moved by Vice Chair Sierto. If you could please call the roll.
Redner 30
Aragine? Aye. Aragine? Aye. Sierto?
Aye. Caviero? Aye. Caviero? Cortese?
Aye. Cortese? Aye. Perez? Aye.
Perez? Weiner? Consent. Consent? Aye.
Redner 1
Weiner? Aye. Concept calendar is approved. Let's start from the top. First on file item one, SB fourteen forty six by the, Public Safety Committee, the elder parole bill.
SB fourteen forty six,
Redner 30
the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Aragine? Aye. Aragine, aye. Sarto?
Redner 1
Okay. Sorry. Let's, let's take a step back. SB fourteen forty six, the committee Bill Ninse motion. Moved by Senator Cortez.
Okay. Now we can proceed
Redner 30
Sorry. Motion was due passed as amended to appropriations. Aragain? Cabello, aye. Cortese?
Redner 1
Okay. That bills out on a vote of six to zero. File item two SB nine zero six was pulled by the author. File item three SB twelve seventy eight. Does that need a motion?
Yes, it does. Is there a motion for SB twelve seventy eight Nilo?
Redner 30
Adeguin not voting. Sarto? Aye. Sarto, aye. Caballero?
Caballero, aye. Cortese? No. Cortese, no. Perez?
Redner 1
Okay. Moving now to file item four, SB eight seventy four by Weber Pearson. That needs a motion. Move by Senator Caballero.
Redner 1
Let's write it down. It's three to three. Okay. So on file number four SB eight seventy four of Weber Pearson, the motions by Caballero. Please call the roll.
SB eight seventy four, Weber Pearson. Motion by Caballero.
Redner 30
Caballero? Yeah. You as amended to appropriations? Aye. Aye.
Serrato? Aye. Serrato? Aye. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero? Cortese? Aye. Cortese?
Perez, Aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye.
Redner 1
Okay. That bill's on a vote of six to zero. File item five, SB twelve ten by Doctor. Weber Pearson. That needs a motion.
SB 12 or twelve ten? Moved by Senator Caballero.
Redner 30
Motion is due pass to appropriations. Adeguin? Aye. Adeguin, aye. Seiarto?
No. Seiarto, no. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez?
Redner 1
aye. Okay. That bills out on a vote of five to one. Let's proceed now to file item six SB nine twenty six by Senator Strickland. That needs a motion.
Redner 30
Motion is due, pass as amended to appropriations. Adegine? Aye. Adegine? Aye.
Sierto? Aye. Sierto? Aye. Caballero?
Caballero? Aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese?
Aye. Perez? Aye. Perez, Aye. Weiner, Aye.
Weiner,
Redner 1
aye. Okay. SB nine twenty six is out on a vote of six to zero. Proceed now to What's this? We
Redner 30
Yeah. Okay. SB nine thirty eight Menjivar, current vote is four to one. Weiner? Aye.
Weiner, aye.
Redner 1
Okay. SB nine thirty eight is on a vote of five to one. Okay. We'll now proceed to file item nine, SB ten nineteen by Center Grove. That a motion.
That needs a motion.
Redner 30
Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Cavallero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye.
Perez, Perez, aye. Weiner?
Redner 1
That bill is out on a vote of six to zero. We'll now proceed to file number 11 SB twelve seventeen by Senator Grove. So moved. Moved by Vice Chair Sarto.
Redner 30
Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Aragine? Aye. Aragine, aye. Sierto?
Aye. Sierto, aye. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Cortese?
Redner 1
aye. Okay. SB twelve seventeen is out on a vote of six to zero. We'll now proceed to file item 12 SB thirteen seventy three by Senator Grove.
Redner 1
There we there was a motion, and we did already call the roll, so let's, lift call on that.
Redner 30
Motion is due, pass to appropriations. Current vote is two-zero. Caballero?
Redner 1
Okay. That bills out on a vote of five-zero. Let's proceed now to, Item SB1022 by Senator Volodyris. Motion is
Redner 30
due passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye.
Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez?
Redner 1
That bill is on a vote of six to zero. We'll now proceed to file item 14 SB thirteen ninety five by Senator Volodyaris.
Redner 30
Motion is due passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye.
Cortese? Aye. Cortese aye. Perez? Aye.
Perez, aye. Weiner? Aye. Weiner aye.
Redner 1
Okay. SB thirteen ninety five is out on a vote of six to zero. Will now proceed to file item 15 SB eleven eleven by Senator Ashby. Does that need a motion? No, it does not.
Okay. So let's slip the call on that.
Redner 30
Motion is due pass to the floor. Current vote is four to zero. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Weiner? Aye. Weiner, aye.
Redner 1
Okay. SB eleven eleven is out on a vote of six to zero. We'll now proceed to file item 16, SB twelve oh three by Senator Smolu Cuevas, and we'll lift the call on that.
Redner 30
Motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is two to one. Caballero? Cortese?
Redner 1
Okay. SB two zero three is out in a vote of five to one. We'll now proceed
Redner 1
Four to one. Sorry. I apologize. I'm relying on or can be assistance math here. Four to one.
That'll be good. Once again, SB two zero three is out in a vote of four to one. We'll proceed now to file them 17, SB twelve oh eight. We'll lift the call on that.
Redner 30
Motion is due, pass to appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Cortese?
Redner 1
Okay. SB twelve oh eight is out, and a vote of six to zero. We'll proceed now to file item 18 SB twelve twenty one by Senator Stern.
Redner 30
Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye.
Cortese? Perez?
Redner 1
Okay. SB twelve twenty one is out and a vote of five to zero. We'll now proceed to file item 19 SB1216 by Senator Stern. We'll lift the call on that.
Redner 30
Motion is due to pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. Caballero? Aye. Caballero aye.
Cortese? Aye. Cortese aye. Perez?
Redner 1
Okay. SB1266 is out in a vote of six-zero. We'll now proceed to file item 20 SB1338 as amended by Senator Jones.
Redner 30
To pass as amended to appropriations, current vote is one to one. Aragine? Aye. Aragine? Aye.
Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye.
Cortese, aye. Perez? Aye.
Redner 1
Perez, aye. Okay. That bill is out on a vote of five to one. We'll now proceed to file item 21 SB thirteen fifty four by Senator Archuleta. That needs a motion.
Moved. Moved by Senator Cortezi. Thank you.
Redner 1
The motion is to pass as amended. Yes. He accepted the amendment to strike the criminal penalty.
Redner 30
Right. Thank you. Due pass as amended to appropriations. Aragine? Aye.
Aragine, aye. Sarto? No. Sarto, no. Caballero?
Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye.
Perez? Aye. Perez, aye. Weiner? Aye.
Weiner, aye.
Redner 1
Okay. SB thirteen fifty four is out in a vote of five to one. We'll now proceed to SB thirteen sixty five by Senator Allen.
Redner 30
The motion is due passed to appropriations. Current vote is one to one. Aragine? Aye. Aragine, aye.
Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Perez? Aye.
Perez, aye. Weiner?
Redner 1
Okay. SB thirteen sixty five is out in a vote of five to one. We'll now proceed to SB thirteen seventy nine by Senator Cervantes. Motion. SB needs thirteen seventy five seventy nine?
Moved by Senator Weiner. Thank you.
Redner 30
Motion is due, pass as amended to appropriations. Audrigine? Aye. Audrigine, aye. Seiarto?
No. Seiarto, no. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye.
Cortese?
Redner 1
Okay. SB thirteen seventy nine is out on a vote of five to one. We'll now move to file 24 SB ten ninety five by Senator Perez. And that needs a motion. SB ten ninety five?
Moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you. As amended. Yes.
Redner 30
Do you pass as amended to appropriations? Aye. Aye. Seiarto? No.
Seiarto, no. Caballero? Aye. Caballero, aye. Cortese?
Aye. Aye. Perez? Aye. Weiner?
Aye. Weiner, aye.
Redner 1
Okay. SB ten ninety five is out and voted five to one, and we'll now proceed to file item 25 SB eleven fifty six by Senator Caballero. That needs a motion.
Redner 30
A motion is due passed to governmental organization. Aye. Aye. Serrato? Aye.
Caballero? Aye. Cavallaro? Caballero? Aye.
Cortez? Aye. Perez? Perez? Weiner, aye.
Redner 1
Okay. SB1156 is out in a vote of six to zero. That's it. And five twenty six SB fourteen twenty seven was on the consent calendar. Mhmm.
So I believe that completes our agenda for today's hearing. Thank you, colleagues, for being here for your service. With that, the senate standing committee on public safety is now adjourned. To I gabbled out too soon. Before we adjourn, Vice Chair Sierto would like to make a motion for reconsideration of SB twelve seventy eight.
Redner 1
Without objection, motion granted. Seeing no other business before the committee, we are now adjourned.
Stellen Sie eine Frage zu diesem Video – ich analysiere das Transkript, um Ihnen zu antworten.