GOOD MORNING. I'D LIKE TO CALL
TO ORDER THIS MEETING OF THE
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC SAFETY. WELCOME TO OUR
HEARING. WE HAVE 43 BILLS ON
OUR AGENDA TODAY AND A NUMBER
OF BILLS ON THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. LET ME READ OFF THE
CONSENT CALENDAR AT THIS TIME.
ITEM NUMBER TWO AB 1586. RAMOS.
ITEM NUMBER THREE AB 1681.
RAMOS. ITEM NUMBER SIX. AB 501.
PAPINE. ITEM NUMBER TEN. AB
1572. ALANIS AND AB 1612 ALANIS.
ITEM 15 AB 1689 QUIRK-SILVA.
ITEM 20 AB 2502 PELLERIN. ITEM
22. AB 1912 HARDWICK. ITEM 23
AB 1913 SORIA. ITEM 39. AB 2761
PETRIE-NORRIS AND ITEM 42 AB
2684 BY NGUYEN. WE DO NOT YET
HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE WILL
OPERATE AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. AND
JUST AN ANNOUNCEMENT AS WE
BEGIN TODAY'S HEARING. ON EACH
BILL, THE AUTHOR HAS DESIGNATED
TWO PRINCIPAL WITNESSES TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL,
SO THEY WILL EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BILL. AFTER
THAT, WE WILL ALLOW MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC TO COME FORWARD AND
STATE THEIR NAME, THEIR
ORGANIZATION, OR WHAT CITY
THEY'RE FROM, AND THEIR
POSITION IN SUPPORT AND
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. WE WILL
NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE ANY
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY, BUT WE
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
AFTER THAT, WE'LL TAKE TWO
PRINCIPAL OPPOSITION WITNESSES.
THE OPPOSITION WITNESSES MUST
HAVE SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE
COMMITTEE PRIOR TO OUR HEARING.
TO BE OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AS
OPPOSITION WITNESSES. AND THEN
AFTER THAT, WE'LL OPEN UP FOR
ANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC WHO WANT TO EXPRESS
THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.
ONCE AGAIN, NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION ON THE BILL. SO
WITH THAT, WE'LL BEGIN WITH OUR
BILL PRESENTATIONS IN
CONSULTATION WITH.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S, ARAMBULA. AND
WE HAVE KIND OF AGREED ON AN
ORDER FOR THE FIRST
PRESENTATIONS. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
HAS TO GO BACK TO HIS DISTRICT,
SO WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL GO
FIRST TO HIS BILL, WHICH IS AB
2605. THANK YOU, MR. Þ.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S SORRY, IT'S A
LITTLE DIFFERENT HERE IN THE
SENATE. AND WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, YOU MAY PRESENT ON AB
2605. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
SENATORS, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT ON ASSEMBLY BILL
2605 TODAY. AND I'LL ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE
ADDING. CHAIR ER AGAIN, AS A
COAUTHOR TO THIS BILL,
CALIFORNIA'S LONG STANDING
ISSUES IN PROVIDING PUBLIC
DEFENSE TO INDIVIDUALS ACCUSED
OF CRIMES HAS A REAL COST ON
THE STATE'S POOREST AND MOST
UNDER-RESOURCED COUNTIES.
THOUGH THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
ENSHRINES THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
FOR DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION, THE STATE DOES NOT
CURRENTLY COLLECT DATA ON HOW
PUBLIC DEFENSE IS PROVIDED AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL. THIS HAS
CREATED A SYSTEM WHERE MANY
DEFENDANTS HAVE NEVER EVEN MET
THE DEFENDER, THEIR ATTORNEYS,
AND HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
TO INVESTIGATE THE ACCUSATIONS
WHICH ARE MADE AGAINST THEM. AB
2605 ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE BY
ESTABLISHING REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS ON THE NATURE OF
PUBLIC DEFENSE SERVICES
PROVIDED ACROSS THE STATE. MOST
OTHER STATES APPROPRIATE
SIGNIFICANT FUNDING FOR PUBLIC
DEFENSE SERVICES, AND
CALIFORNIA IS AN OUTLIER IN
SHIFTING THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO
THE LOCAL LEVEL. THIS BILL IS A
NECESSARY FIRST STEP IN
UNDERSTANDING THE SCOPE OF THIS
ISSUE. HERE TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT IS SCOTT BAILEY,
RETIRED FRESNO COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER. AND SIR, IF YOU CAN
PRESENT FROM THE TABLE, SORRY,
THE AUTHORS PRESENT FROM THE
PODIUM AND THE WITNESSES
PRESENT FROM THE TABLE. THANK
YOU. HAVE TWO MINUTES. GOOD
MORNING. THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
DOESN'T JUST GUARANTEE THE
RIGHT TO A SOMEONE ACCUSED OF A
CRIME FOR RICH PEOPLE. IT
APPLIES TO INDIGENT POOR PEOPLE
AS WELL. IF YOU WERE ARRESTED
IN A CALIFORNIA COUNTY, YOU
WOULD BE BROUGHT INTO A
COURTROOM AND YOU WOULD SEE
WHERE THE IN CUSTODY PEOPLE ARE
SITTING AND THE OUT OF CUSTODY
PEOPLE ARE SITTING IN A
COURTROOM WOULD LOOK LIKE A
ROOM LIKE THIS. YOU WOULD SEE A
JUDGE AND YOU COULD TELL WHO
THE LAWYERS ARE. YOU COULD TELL
THE LAWYERS ARE BUSY. AND AS
YOU'RE FACING CHARGES ON THIS
CRIME, YOUR QUESTIONS ARE, IS
THIS LAWYER GOING TO TALK TO ME?
IS THIS LAWYER GOING TO HAVE
THE TIME TO READ THE POLICE
REPORTS? IS THE LAWYER GOING TO
BE ABLE TO VISIT ME IN THE JAIL
AND AND LISTEN TO MY SIDE OF
THE STORY? THE ANSWER TO THESE
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER A
LAWYER IS ABLE TO DO THESE
THINGS IS HOW BUSY THAT LAWYER
IS. HOW MANY CASES IS THAT
LAWYER CARRYING? IF THERE ARE
TOO MANY CASES, THOSE LAWYERS
CANNOT DO THE JOB. THIS BILL IS
JUST ASKING FOR DATA SO YOU CAN
TELL IF SOMEBODY HAS TOO MANY
CASES. THEY CAN'T BE EFFICIENT.
IT'S JUST ABOUT NUMBERS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR AB 26005?
PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION ON THE BILL. GOOD
MORNING, MARGO GEORGE. ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, LIZ GUTIERREZ. ON
BEHALF OF SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, ERIC HENDERSON ON
BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUPPORT.
GOOD MORNING, JOANNE SCHEER ON
BEHALF OF FELONY MURDER
ELIMINATION PROJECT IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
SUPPORT WITNESSES? ARE YOU A
SUPPORT WITNESS? OKAY. SUSAN
BUSTAMANTE WITH CALIFORNIA
COALITION WOMEN PRISONERS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. UNLESS
THERE'S ANY OTHER SUPPORT,
WITNESSES WILL NOT TAKE UP TO
TWO OPPOSITION WITNESS. I THINK
THERE WAS ONLY ONE OPPOSITION
LETTER FROM THE FRESNO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. IS THERE
ANY OPPOSITION WITNESSES?
SEEING NO ONE. I'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE DAIS FOR ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. NO
COMMENTS. WE DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM YET, SO THANK YOU. TURN
IT BACK OVER TO THE AUTHOR TO
CLOSE, PRESENT AND RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE WHEN IT'S
APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU. OKAY. YEAH.
WHO WHO WANTS TO GO NEXT? OKAY.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST I WANT
TO I KNOW THAT THE AUTHORS HAVE
BEEN COORDINATING THE ORDER
BECAUSE WE TYPICALLY TAKE
MEASURES IN FALL ORDER, BUT
WE'RE WORKING WITH EVERYONE'S
SCHEDULES. SO WE'LL NOW PROCEED
TO THE NEXT ITEM. ITEM 13 A, B
1650 BY ASSEMBLYMEMBER COLUSA.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU AS
WELL TO MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR
GRACE AND ALLOWING ME TO
PRESENT NEXT. I'M HERE TO
PRESENT AB 1650 THIS MORNING.
THANK YOU AS WELL TO THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS, STAFF
AND MY PRINCIPAL COAUTHOR,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER LIZ ORTEGA, FOR
THEIR PARTNERSHIP AND
THOUGHTFUL WORK ON THIS BILL.
AB 1650 IS ABOUT SAFETY,
TRANSPARENCY, AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. SINCE THE
SUMMER OF 2025, AND FOR
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES BY ICE
HAVE INTENSIFIED ACROSS OUR
STATE FROM LOS ANGELES,
SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO AND SAN
FRANCISCO. THESE OPERATIONS
HAVE RAISED SERIOUS CONCERNS
ABOUT OVERSIGHT AND SAFETY. WE
HAVE SEEN GROWING CONCERN ON
THE USE OF UNMARKED RENTAL
VEHICLES AND ENFORCEMENT
OPERATIONS THAT INVOLVED
ARRESTS, DETENTION AND
TRANSPORT OF MEMBERS OF OUR
COMMUNITY. WHEN VEHICLES AND
VEHICLES USED BY GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES LACK PROPER
IDENTIFICATION, IT BECOMES
DIFFICULT FOR THE PUBLIC TO
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LEGITIMATE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND BAD ACTORS.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS INVITES
POTENTIAL ABUSES OF POWER IN
GOVERNMENT, GIVEN THE ABSENCE
OF TRANSPARENCY OR
ACCOUNTABILITY IN HOW THESE
VEHICLES ARE BEING USED. THESE
PRACTICES CREATE NOT JUST
CONFUSION, BUT FEAR, FEAR FOR
THE PUBLIC AND FEAR FOR THOSE
WHO ARE BEING ILLEGALLY FACED
WITH GOVERNMENTAL FORCE AND
VIOLENCE. AT THE SAME TIME,
RENTAL CAR COMPANIES ARE
FINDING THEMSELVES AT THE
CENTER OF THIS ISSUE. THEIR
VEHICLES ARE BEING USED IN
THESE OPERATIONS WITHOUT
NOTIFICATION OR CONSISTENT
STANDARDS FOR SAFETY AND
IDENTIFICATION. AB 1650
DELIVERS A NECESSARY AND URGENT
STEP TO SAFEGUARD OUR
COMMUNITIES AND RESTORE TRUST
IN THE LEADERS WHO ARE MEANT TO
SERVE AND PROTECT THEM. THIS
BILL ALSO ENSURES THAT ANY
PRIVATELY OWNED VEHICLE RENTED
OR LEASED TO A GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF
ENFORCEMENT IS CLEARLY
IDENTIFIABLE WITH DECALS. IT
ALSO ESTABLISHES ENFORCEMENT
MECHANISMS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY. WITH THAT,
I'M PROUD TO BE JOINED BY DIANE
ESCAMILLA, STATE POLICY
COORDINATOR WITH THE CENTRAL
AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER, ALSO
KNOWN AS GARRISON, AND MONICA
MADRID, STATE POLICY ADVOCATE
COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS, ALSO KNOWN AS CHIRLA,
WHO WILL TESTIFY TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF THIS MEASURE. AND
FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, I
HAVE NOELLE CALVILLO, ATTORNEY
AT LAW. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO
BEGIN. AND SO YOU'RE JUST HERE
FOR QUESTIONS? THAT'S CORRECT.
TWO WITNESSES. OKAY, AWESOME.
WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS DENNIS KAMIYA, POLICY
COORDINATOR WITH THE CENTRAL
AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER. WE
ARE THE LARGEST CENTRAL
AMERICAN IMMIGRANT. WE ARE THE
LARGEST CENTRAL AMERICAN NÓ.
WE'RE RIGHT. OKAY. ANYWAYS,
HERE TODAY IN SUPPORT OF ÁP
1650, A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE
CERTAIN DISCLOSURES WHEN RENTED
VEHICLES ARE BEING USED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT, BY HAVING THEM
DISPLAY A TEMPORARY DECAL
SHOWCASING THE AGENCY NAME AND
LOGO. JUNE 6TH JUNE 6TH MARKED
ONE YEAR SINCE THE IMMIGRATION
RATES BECAME MORE ROUTINE AND
VISIBLE IN OUR STATE, WITH THE
FIRST RATE KICKING OFF AT OUR
GARRISON DAY LABOR CENTER.
SINCE THEN, OUR DAY LABOR
CENTER HAS BEEN ATTACKED
SEVERAL MORE TIMES, EACH RATE
CAUSING MORE FEAR AND
SEPARATING FAMILIES. HOWEVER,
OPERATION TROJAN HORSE HAS BEEN
THE MOST VIOLENT RAID SO FAR.
THIS ATTACK TOOK PLACE ON
AUGUST 6TH, WHEN A RENTED
PENSKE CAR PULLED INTO THE HOME.
THE PARKING LOT OF HOME DEPOT,
WHERE OUR DAY LABOR CENTER IS
LOCATED, AND BORDER AGENTS IN
FULL MILITARY GEAR JUMPED OUT
IN THE BACK OF THE BOX TRUCK.
THERE WERE 16 ARRESTS MADE THAT
DAY. DEHUMANIZING TACTICS WERE
USED, SUCH AS TEAR GAS, RUBBER
BULLETS, AND VIOLENT PHYSICAL
FORCE. I HAVE SPOKEN DIRECTLY
TO IMPACTED COMMUNITY MEMBERS,
AND THEY'VE TOLD ME ABOUT THE
STRESS THAT THEIR BODY
EXPERIENCES WEEKS AFTER BECAUSE
OF THE FEAR AND IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT BELONG IN
OUR COMMUNITIES, AND THEY
SHOULD HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY
TO SELF IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AND
THE VEHICLES THAT THEY ARE
USING, EVEN IF THE VEHICLES ARE
RENTED. BY HAVING LAW
ENFORCEMENT LABEL THEIR RENTED
VEHICLES, WE CAN HELP COMMUNITY
MEMBERS BETTER PROTECT
THEMSELVES. FOR THESE REASONS,
GARRISON IS ASKING YOUR SUPPORT
FOR AB 1650. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY
NAME IS MONICA MADRID. I'M A
STATE POLICY ADVOCATE WITH THE
COALITION FOR HUMANE IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS. CHIRLA. I AM HERE TODAY
IN SUPPORT OF AB 1650 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER KOLASSA. FOR
MANY IMMIGRANT FAMILIES, SEEING
INDIVIDUALS ARRIVED IN UNMARKED
VEHICLES AND CONDUCT
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS CAN BE
CONFUSING AND FRIGHTENING.
PEOPLE ARE OFTEN LEFT WONDERING
WHO IS CARRYING OUT THE ACTION
AND WHETHER THEY'RE ACTUALLY
INTERACTING. INTERACTING WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT THAT
UNCERTAINTY CAN CREATE FEAR,
MISTRUST, AND UNNECESSARY
TENSION DURING AN ALREADY
STRESSFUL SITUATION. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN LA LAST YEAR,
COMMUNITY MEMBERS REPORTED
MULTIPLE INCIDENTS WHERE
INDIVIDUALS MARKED AND UNMARKED
SUVS APPROACHED HOMES, LEADING
RESIDENTS TO BELIEVE THEY WERE
BEING TARGETED BY UNKNOWN
ACTORS RATHER THAN LAW
ENFORCEMENT, PROMPTING SOME
FAMILIES TO AVOID ANSWERING
THEIR DOORS OR CALLING FOR HELP
OUT OF FEAR. THESE CONCERNS
HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY COMMON
OVER THE OVER THE PAST YEAR, AS
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES HAVE
EXPERIENCED HEIGHTENED
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITY, INCLUDING LARGE SCALE
OPERATIONS IN LOS ANGELES.
THROUGH THE LA RAPID RESPONSE
NETWORK, WE. WE REGULARLY HEAR
FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO ARE
UNSURE WHETHER INDIVIDUALS
CONDUCTING ENFORCEMENT OR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BECAUSE
THEY HAVE ARRIVED IN UNMARKED
OR DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY
VEHICLES. AB 1650 IS A SIMPLE
TRANSPARENCY MEASURE. THAT
MEASURE THAT HELPS ADDRESS THAT
THAT CONCERN BY REQUIRING
RENTAL VEHICLES USED BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT FOR ARRESTS,
DETENTIONS OR TRANSPORTATION OF
INDIVIDUALS TO DISPLAY
TEMPORARY IDENTIFICATION
SHOWING THE AGENCY OPERATING
THE VEHICLE. AB 1650 PROVIDES A
SIMPLE SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE THAT
COMMUNITY MEMBERS CAN IDENTIFY
THE AGENCY CONDUCTING AN
ENFORCEMENT ACTION THAT CLARIFY
THAT CLARITY CAN HELP REDUCE
CONFUSION AND FEAR, WHILE
PROMOTING GREATER
ACCOUNTABILITY AND PUBLIC TRUST.
THANK YOU, AND WE HOPE WE
REQUEST YOUR VOTE ON AB 1650.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT
FOR AB 1650? PLEASE APPROACH
THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION
ON THE BILL. WE HAVE A LONG
AGENDA SO PEOPLE CAN QUICKLY
LINE UP. IF YOU WANT TO OFFER
TESTIMONY, WE'D APPRECIATE IT.
GOOD MORNING, ERIC HENDERSON ON
BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROUD
SUPPORT. JOANNE SCHEER, FELONY
MURDER ELIMINATION PROJECT IN
SUPPORT. CWP AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH.
WE'LL NOW TAKE UP TO TWO
PRINCIPAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. GOOD MORNING, MR.
CHAIR. AND MEMBERS, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION HERE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, UNLESS
IT'S AMENDED TO EXEMPT LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM THE BILL,
THE BILL ACKNOWLEDGES. WE KNOW
WHAT IT DOES. ACKNOWLEDGES,
THOUGH, THAT ITS PROVISIONS
WOULD CREATE A SECURITY PROBLEM
THAT BURDENS LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES AND ATTEMPTS TO
ADDRESS THAT NOTION BY
EXEMPTING SEVERAL SITUATIONS
FROM THE BILL'S REACH.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ARE OTHER
SCENARIOS THAT ARE NOT EXCLUDED
THAT CREATE PROBLEMS CARS USED
BY LOCAL OFFICERS THAT ARE
ENGAGED IN PLAINCLOTHES
OPERATIONS. THE PLAINCLOTHES
EXCEPTION RIGHT NOW DOES NOT
APPLY TO ANYONE, BUT THE
ENUMERATED STATE OFFICERS
LISTED IN THE BILL. THERE ALSO
MIGHT BE A CAR DRIVEN BY THE
ELECTED SHERIFF HIMSELF OR
HERSELF. OBVIOUSLY, THE
INDICATIONS OF THIS BILL'S
FOCUS ON FEDERAL IMMIGRATION
AUTHORITIES AND THEIR PRACTICES,
WHICH WE'RE NOT DEFENDING, AND
THIS IS A NUMBER ONE OF A
NUMBER OF BILLS THAT ATTEMPTS
TO REGULATE FEDERAL PRACTICES
AND AT THE SAME TIME IMPLICATE
STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND AS WE'VE SEEN WITH BILLS
ALREADY ENACTED DURING THIS
SESSION, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR
COURTS TO ELIMINATE THOSE BILLS.
APPLICATION TO FEDERAL ENTITIES,
LEAVING THE MEASURES TO ONLY
APPLY TO STATE AND LOCAL
AGENCIES. SO AGAIN, WE GET LEFT
HOLDING THE BAG FOR SOMETHING
WE'RE NOT DOING AND FOR
PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVEN'T
CREATED. BILL DOESN'T APPLY TO
LEASED VEHICLES. I'M NOT REALLY
SURE WHY I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR
SUCH. AND THEN THE
INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS BY
LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR THE RENTAL
CAR COMPANIES ARE PROBLEMATIC
FOR US TOO. SO FOR THOSE
REASONS, WE ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
MEMBERS. RANDY PERRY ON BEHALF
OF PERAK, WE ALSO HAVE OPPOSED,
UNLESS AMENDED, FOR MANY OF THE
SAME REASONS THAT THE SHERIFFS
TALKED ABOUT. WE APPRECIATE
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
AUTHOR'S OFFICE. WE HAVE A
COUPLE MORE AMENDMENTS AND
DEFINITIONS WE'RE SEEKING, SO
WE'LL CONTINUE THAT WORK IF THE
BILL MOVES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SIR. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION TO AB 1650? SEEING
NO ONE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE,
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. VICE CHAIR, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. AND YEAH, I NEED TO
EXPLORE A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. SO
ON THE LOCAL AND STATE AGENCY
SIDE, I UNDERSTAND THIS BILL IS
REALLY, REALLY AIMED AT
IMMIGRATION AND FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY,
YOU DRAG IN LOCAL AND STATE
AGENCIES. THE OPPONENTS HAVE
HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT. I'VE
SEEN THIS IN ACTION. WHAT DO
YOU WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN A
DEPARTMENT AND THEIR. THEY HAVE
GANG TASK FORCE. THEY HAVE DRUG
TASK FORCE. THEY HAVE CHILD
SMUGGLING TASK FORCE. THEY HAVE
REGULAR SMUGGLING TASK FORCE.
THEY HAVE PROSTITUTION TASK
FORCE, ALL THESE DIFFERENT TASK
FORCES. IF THEY HAVE A LABEL ON
THEIR CAR, THEN THEY'RE
INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE IT KIND OF
GOES BACK TO IF PEOPLE KNOW
THAT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS
WATCHING THEM, THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO DO WHAT THEY'RE BEEN
DOING. SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF
AMENDMENTS, BUT I DON'T THINK
YOUR AMENDMENTS CAN COVER
EVERYTHING. SOMETIMES YOU, THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, RENT
DIFFERENT CARS SO THEY CAN
SURVEIL. AND IF THEY'RE IN IN A
NEIGHBORHOOD IN A CAR THAT
LOOKS LIKE A POLICE CAR,
THEY'RE IN DANGER. THEY CAN'T
DO THEIR JOB. AND THAT CREATES
A PUBLIC SAFETY RISK FOR ALL
THE PEOPLE THAT ARE INVOLVED IN
DOING THEIR JOB. SO HOW DO YOU
HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO COVER
EVERY INSTANCE THAT A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, A LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WOULD HAVE
WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THEIR
JOB? AND SOMETIMES THOSE
SURVEILLANCE TEAMS, THEY WIND
UP HAVING TO ARREST SOMEBODY
AND DETAIN THEM SO THEY DON'T
GET AWAY. SO HOW DO YOU HOW ARE
YOU GOING TO MANAGE THAT WITH
THIS BILL? WELL, FIRST, THANK
YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR, FOR YOUR
THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS. I REALLY
APPRECIATE IT. I KNOW YOU KNOW
HOW THOUGHTFUL YOU ARE WHEN IT
COMES TO JUST PUBLIC SAFETY
ISSUES IN GENERAL. AND THANKS
TO THE OPPOSITION. APPRECIATE
YOUR YOUR COMMENTS HERE TODAY.
YOU KNOW, I THINK FOR FOR US,
YOU KNOW, THIS BILL IS ABOUT
SECURING TRUST WITH THE
COMMUNITY. IT'S ALSO ABOUT
PROTECTING OUR ACTUAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHO ARE OUT IN THE
COMMUNITY. THIS IS ALREADY
HAPPENING NOW. PEOPLE ARE
SCARED TO DO ANYTHING. THIS
FEAR IS COMPLETELY
DESTABILIZING A LOT OF OUR
NEIGHBORHOODS, BECAUSE A LOT OF
THE UNMARKED VEHICLES THAT
APPROACH MANY OF OUR CENTERS,
ESPECIALLY DAY LABOR CENTERS
LIKE HAVE IN MY DISTRICT,
LITERALLY JUST GET SO SCARED
WHEN ANY UNMARKED VEHICLE THAT
LOOKS LIKE A GOVERNMENT OR LAW
ENFORCEMENT CAR APPROACHES THEM.
AND SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A
BILL, NOT WHETHER OR NOT
ENFORCEMENT HAPPENS, BUT HOW IT
HAPPENS. IT'S A SIMPLE BILL. IT
TELLS LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
TO PUT A DECAL OUTSIDE OF THEIR
CARS. AND FOR THE INSTANCES
THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU IDENTIFIED
WITH THESE SPECIFIC TASK FORCES,
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE
OPPOSITION ON MAKING SURE THAT,
YOU KNOW, WE INCLUDE SOME OF
THEIR CONCERNS IN THE DIFFERENT
WAYS THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED AND
THEY'VE IDENTIFIED. THEY'VE
ONLY JUST SHARED SOME OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS. SO WE'RE WORKING
THROUGH THEM AND ARE COMMITTED
TO TO MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T
COMPROMISE SOME OF THOSE
OPERATIONS. AND AT THE SAME
TIME, WHEN I'M OUT IN THE
COMMUNITY DOING SOMETHING AS
SIMPLE AS A 4TH OF JULY PARADE,
WE SLAP A MAGNET DECAL ON MY
CAR. IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK
IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
ACTUALLY IMPEDING ENFORCEMENT,
THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN
BE REMOVED. BUT THOSE ARE
ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO WORK
THROUGH. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT BOTH OUR STATE AND LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE SAFE. BY
NOT BEING CONFUSED FOR BEING
ICE, AND THAT OUR COMMUNITIES,
WHEN THESE CARS ARE IN THEIR
COMMUNITY, THEY ACTUALLY KNOW
WHO THEY ARE BECAUSE THIS IS
BECOMING SUCH A COMMON PRACTICE.
AS YOU HEARD FROM ONE OF MY
WITNESSES, OPERATION TROJAN
HORSE WAS SOMETHING THAT
HAPPENED IN LOS ANGELES WHEN
ICE RENTED A RENTAL CAR VEHICLE,
WENT TO A DAY LABORER CENTER
AND ACTED AS IF THEY WERE GOING
TO HIRE THOSE WORKERS, ONLY TO
POP OUT OF THE TRUCK. THIS IS
BEING USED IN REALLY TERRIFYING
WAYS. RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST
EXPLORING THE LOCAL PART I'M
TALKING ABOUT YOU HAVE TWO
POLICE OFFICERS THAT ARE
INVOLVED IN A GANG UNIT THING,
AND SOMETIMES THOSE ARE NOT
POLITE GANGS. WE'RE TALKING
CARTEL PEOPLE AND STUFF LIKE
THAT. YOU HAVE A MARKED CAR,
THEY'RE SITTING THERE, THEY'RE
GOING TO GET A BULLET IN THE
HEAD BEFORE THEY CAN MOVE.
THAT'S THE KIND OF STUFF THAT
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT ON THE
LOCAL LEVEL. WE HAVEN'T I
HAVEN'T ASKED ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE FEDERAL PART YET
BECAUSE THERE'S A WHOLE
DIFFERENT ISSUE WITH THE
FEDERAL THING. SO FROM THE
LOCAL LEVEL, HOW DO YOU PROTECT
THOSE OFFICERS? IF YOU'RE
TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO MARK
THEIR CAR AND PUT PUT
IDENTIFICATION ON THEIR CAR OF
WHO THEY ARE BECAUSE. THE BAD
PEOPLE WILL GET THEM, IF THAT'S
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, AND
THEN WE WON'T HAVE ANY, ANY LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE IN
NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DESPERATELY
ARE TRYING TO HAVE SOME LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE SO THAT
THEY CAN BE SAFE, SO THAT THEY
CAN WALK DOWN A STREET NOT
CONTROLLED BY A CARTEL OR A
GANG OR DRUG DEALERS OR
PROSTITUTION RINGS. SO THAT'S,
THAT'S MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT.
SO, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT
THERE'S A REALLY GOOD ANSWER
FOR THAT. SO LET'S MOVE ON TO
THE FEDERAL PART. THE SUPREMACY
CLAUSE IS PROTECTED THIS OVER
AND OVER AND OVER. AND MY
CONCERN ABOUT YOUR FEDERAL
APPROACH TO THIS IS THAT IT'S
GOING TO COST US MONEY IN COURT
TO DO SOMETHING WE ALREADY KNOW
WE CANNOT DO. YES, IT IS A
STATEMENT. IT IS A STATEMENT
THAT WE DON'T LIKE YOUR TACTICS.
IT IS A STATEMENT THAT WE WISH
WE COULD DO THIS DIFFERENT. WE
HAVE A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO
IMMIGRATION. WHATEVER THAT
STATEMENT IS, IT DOESN'T GET
PASSED THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE.
AND SO WE'RE REALLY JUST, LIKE
I SAID, WE'RE JUST SPENDING
MONEY THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE
TO SEND A STATEMENT THAT'S
ALREADY BEEN MADE. SO THOSE ARE
THE PROBLEMS I HAVE WITH YOUR
BILL. AND AND I'LL GIVE THIS
BACK TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU.
WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DO
SUPPORT YOUR BILL. I HAVE AN
EYE RECOMMENDATION. WHEN WE
HAVE A QUORUM, I WILL ENTERTAIN
A MOTION, THE BILL. BUT I WOULD
ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO,
YOU KNOW, WORK WITH OPPOSITION,
PARTICULARLY AROUND THE ISSUES
AROUND HOW IT IMPACT LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND MAKING SURE
UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS AND
SITUATIONS WHERE YOU WANT TO
ENSURE THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN
OPERATE SAFELY, THAT THOSE
CONSIDERATIONS ARE BEING
THOUGHT THROUGH. AND SO, YOU
KNOW, THE NEXT STEP FOR THIS
BILL, IF IT MOVES OUT TODAY, IS
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
AND DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOUR
CONTINUED ENGAGEMENT WITH
OPPOSITION. I KNOW THAT I THINK
WE CAN LAND AND BUT I DO THINK
THIS BILL ADDRESSES AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE. AND IT DOES
GET TO TRUST TRUST BETWEEN
COMMUNITIES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SO BACK OVER TO CLOSE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH, SENATOR AND
SENATOR SATO, AS WELL FOR FOR
YOUR THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS.
REALLY APPRECIATE IT. IN CLOSE,
I DON'T KNOW IF. DID YOU WANT
TO SAY SOMETHING? YES. THANK
YOU, SENATOR MEMBER. SO JUST TO
ADDRESS THE CONCERNS, WE DON'T
GO TO WITNESSES IN CLOSING
STATEMENTS. HE WAS GOING TO
RESPOND, BUT THAT'S OKAY. I
MEAN, I'M JUST PROVIDING MY
FEEDBACK TO THE AUTHOR. IF THIS
BILL MOVES OUT TODAY, I SUPPORT
THE BILL. I HAVE AN EYE
RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. I KNOW
YOU HAVE A LONG AGENDA. I'M
ALWAYS TRYING TO BALANCE, YOU
KNOW, ADDRESSING FEDERAL
ENFORCEMENT WITH ALSO MAKING
SURE THAT WE'RE ENSURING THAT
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN BE
DONE EFFECTIVELY. SO THANK YOU,
SENATOR. THANK YOU. CHAIR, THIS
BILL WAS THOUGHTFULLY CORRECT
TO INCLUDE SOME OF THE CONCERNS
THAT YOU HAVE. I KNOW THERE'S
MORE WORK TO DO, INCLUDING
EXEMPTIONS AND HOW WE CAN
CONTINUE TO PARTNER AND WORK
WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. YOU KNOW,
WE WROTE THIS BILL WITH THEM IN
MIND. AND SO I JUST
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO PROTECT
OUR COMMUNITIES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE DON'T
HAVE A QUORUM. ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. WE HAVE A QUORUM. I
WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES FOR
JOINING US TODAY. AND ONCE
AGAIN, I HAVE AN EYE
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS BILL.
OKAY. IS. THERE'S A LOT OF
AUTHORS WHO ARE HERE, BUT THERE
WAS A CONVERSATION THAT
HAPPENED AT THE BEGINNING OF
THE HEARING TO LET THREE
AUTHORS GO FIRST, BECAUSE THEIR
SCHEDULE IMPACTS. AND SO WE'RE
GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. AND I ACTUALLY
WANT TO THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER
STEPHANIE AND BONTA, WHO BOTH
AGREED, WHO ARE NEXT UP ON THE
AGENDA. SO THANK YOU TO BOTH OF
THEM AS WELL. AND THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I'M
PROUD TODAY TO PRESENT AB 1930,
SPONSORED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL
ROB BONTA AND EQUALITY
CALIFORNIA, WHICH WILL DEFEND
HEALTH CARE, ACCESS AND ENFORCE
CALIFORNIA'S PROTECTED HEALTH
ACTIVITY LAWS FOR ALL THOSE WHO
PROVIDE AND RECEIVE CARE IN
CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA HAS LONG
BEEN A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN
ACCESS THE HEALTH CARE THEY
NEED AND LIVE AUTHENTICALLY,
SAFELY AND WITH DIGNITY. BUT
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WE'RE
SEEING A COORDINATED EFFORT TO
ROLL THAT BACK. EFFORTS TO
INTIMIDATE PATIENTS, TO TARGET
PROVIDERS, TO ATTACK ABORTION
AND GENDER AFFIRMING CARE, CARE
THAT SIMPLY ALLOWS PEOPLE TO
LIVE AS WHO THEY TRULY ARE. AND
WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THOSE EFFORTS
RIGHT HERE IN CALIFORNIA. LAST
YEAR, THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE ISSUED A SUBPOENA TO
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES
SEEKING INFORMATION THAT COULD
IDENTIFY THOUSANDS, LITERALLY
THOUSANDS OF TRANSGENDER YOUTH
RECEIVING CARE CARE THEY
RECEIVE WITH THE SUPPORT OF
THEIR FAMILIES AND OF AND WITH
THE SUPPORT OF THEIR DOCTORS.
THAT ACTION DIDN'T JUST RAISE
ALARMS, IT HAD REAL
CONSEQUENCES. IT PUT PRIVACY
AND SAFETY AT RISK, AND IT
CONTRIBUTED TO THE CLOSURE OF
THE HOSPITAL CENTER FOR TRANS
YOUTH HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT,
CUTTING OFF ACCESS TO CARE FOR
YOUNG PEOPLE WHO NEED IT MOST.
THAT'S JUST UNACCEPTABLE. NO
ONE SHOULD HAVE TO FEAR THAT
SEEKING LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE IN
CALIFORNIA COULD PUT THEIR
PRIVACY OR SAFETY AT RISK. AB
1930 WILL PROTECT PATIENTS AND
PROVIDERS BY REQUIRING BUSINESS
ENTITIES IN CALIFORNIA TO
NOTIFY THE OFFICE OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL IF
THEY INTEND TO RESPOND TO A
SUBPOENA REGARDING LEGALLY
PROTECTED HEALTH CARE ACTIVITY.
THIS BILL ALSO GIVES THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY
TO INTERVENE AND COUNSEL THE
ENTITY WHO RECEIVED THE
SUBPOENA AND TO ENFORCE THE
PROVISIONS OF THE BILL. LET'S
BE CLEAR CALIFORNIA WILL NOT
AND CANNOT BUCKLE UNDER THREATS
MEANT TO INTIMIDATE OUR
COMMUNITIES. WE ARE GOING TO
STAND FIRM ON THE SIDE OF
PATIENT PRIVACY, DIGNITY AND
ACCESS TO CARE WE NEED. WE ARE
GOING TO PROTECT OUR PROVIDERS,
AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE
THAT CALIFORNIA REMAINS A SAFE
HAVEN FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT. MY
OFFICE IS WORKING WITH THE
HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,
CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS AND OTHER
CONCERNED STAKEHOLDERS ON SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT WILL ADDRESS
THEIR CONCERNS WHILE
MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF
THIS BILL, BECAUSE WE HAVE RUN
OUT OF TIME IN THE POLICY
COMMITTEES, THOSE WILL BE
FINALIZED OVER THE RECESS, IN
CONSULTATION WITH YOUR
COMMITTEE AND WITH THE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AND WE'VE
SPOKEN TO SENATOR UMBERG ABOUT
THAT, AND WE WILL WE WILL BE
TAKING THOSE ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS DURING THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
MEMBERS, I ASK FOR A VOTE AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME WITH ME
TODAY IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
ARE ALICE KESSLER ON BEHALF OF
CAL EQUALITY CALIFORNIA, AND
TIFFANY BROKAW, DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN THE OFFICE OF
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS. ALSO, WE
HAVE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DAVID HUSKA WHO WILL BE
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. GREAT. GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING, AND YOU MAY
PROCEED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. GOOD MORNING,
ALICE KESSLER. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF EQUALITY CALIFORNIA.
WE ARE CO-SPONSOR OF THE BILL.
WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
I WANT YOU JUST FOR A SECOND TO
PUT YOUR SHOES. PUT YOURSELF IN
THE SHOES OF SOMEONE WHO
DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEIR
PERSONAL MEDICAL RECORDS ARE
BEING RELEASED TO A POTENTIALLY
HOSTILE OUTSIDE GOVERNMENT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE. THIS BILL IS ABOUT GIVING
THOSE PATIENTS NOTICE. IT'S A
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD SO THAT
BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, THEY AT
LEAST HAVE SOME NOTICE OF THAT.
IT ALSO IS GIVING THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL SOME TOOLS TO INTERVENE,
BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT PATIENTS SEEKING LAWFUL
HEALTH CARE IN CALIFORNIA AND,
AND WORRYING FOR THEIR THEIR
PRIVACY AND THEIR SAFETY. IN
THE COURSE OF DOING THAT, THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER ARTICULATED THE
CLIMATE THAT WE'RE IN OUR
COMMUNITY IS UNDER ATTACK. NO,
NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT. WE'RE
UNDER ATTACK. THAT'S PLAYING
OUT ON MULTIPLE LEVELS, PLAYING
OUT IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
THIS BILL IS ABOUT PROTECTING
LAWFUL HEALTH CARE IN
CALIFORNIA AND TAKING A STAND.
AND SO WE WE ASK THE COMMITTEE
TO SUPPORT THIS, AND WE
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN
CRAFTING GOOD POLICY HERE.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION. SO I
WOULD ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK
YOU. HI. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
TIFFANY BROKAW, DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN THE OFFICE OF
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS HERE ON
BEHALF OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB
BONTA. AND HE'D LIKE TO THANK
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BURR FOR
CARRYING THIS IMPORTANT PIECE
OF LEGISLATION. AB 1930
STRENGTHENS PROTECTIONS FOR
PATIENTS RECEIVING REPRODUCTIVE
CARE, AS WELL AS THE PROVIDERS
THAT SERVE THEM. IT REQUIRES
CERTAIN CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
ENTITIES TO NOTIFY THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
BEFORE RESPONDING TO A
SPECIFIED REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION RELATED TO ABORTION
OR GENDER AFFIRMING CARE. IT.
IT ALSO AUTHORIZES THE AG TO
INTERVENE TO PREVENT THE
IMPROPER DISCLOSURES FROM
HAPPENING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
RECENT ACTIONS BY FEDERAL AND
OUT-OF-STATE OFFICIALS HAVE
RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT ATTEMPTS
TO OBTAIN PRIVATE MEDICAL
INFORMATION OR PROSECUTE
INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE
WITHOUT STRONG SAFEGUARDS,
SUBPOENAS, INVESTIGATIONS AND
OTHER LEGAL DEMANDS MAY BE USED
TO CIRCUMVENT CALIFORNIA LAW
AND UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS OF
PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS. AB 1930
PROVIDES OUR OFFICE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVENE AND
PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING, IN
ORDER TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF
PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS. AND FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB? 1930? PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND POSITION
ON THE BILL. KIM STONE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION.
KIND OF A TWEENER, BUT VERY
GRATEFUL FOR THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS COMMUNICATIONS AND AND
WORKING WITH US. AND THANK YOU.
BYE BYE. AUBRY RODRIGUEZ
REGISTERING SUPPORT FOR
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
AND OAKLAND PRIVACY. THANK YOU.
MARTIN RADOSEVICH ON BEHALF OF
REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM FOR ALL
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. RYAN
MOORE ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UNLESS
THERE ANY OTHER SUPPORT,
WITNESSES WILL NOW TAKE UP TO
TWO PRINCIPAL OPPOSITION
WITNESSES. ROCHELLE CONNOR,
LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, CONCERNED
WOMEN FOR AMERICA AB 1930
UNDERMINES THE RIGHTS OF
VICTIMS SEEKING JUSTICE AND
RESTITUTION. IT ALLOWS THOSE
WHO HAVE CAUSED BODILY INJURY
AND HARM TO AVOID PROSECUTION.
THIS BILL IMPEDES LAW
ENFORCEMENT'S ABILITY TO
INVESTIGATE SERIOUS CRIMES
INVOLVING MINORS. THESE
IMPEDIMENTS CAN DELAY OR
OBSTRUCT JUSTICE FOR THE
VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
THIS BILL WILL CREATE A
LABYRINTH OF CONFUSING
REQUIREMENTS AND MANDATES FOR
BUSINESSES. IT INTERFERES WITH
LEGALLY ESTABLISHED PROCESSES
AND FORCES BUSINESSES TO CHOOSE
BETWEEN COMPLYING WITH
CALIFORNIA STATE STATUTE OR
OBEYING BY FEDERAL LAW. AB 1930
RAISES SIGNIFICANT
CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS. IT
LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR
POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL
LAW. 18 U.S.C. SECTION 133182
AND ARTICLE FOUR, SECTION TWO,
CLAUSE TWO OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION, WHICH STATES A
PERSON CHARGED IN ANY STATE
WITH TREASON, FELONY, OR OTHER
CRIME WHO SHALL FLEE FROM
JUSTICE AND BE FOUND IN ANOTHER
STATE, SHALL ON DEMAND OF THE
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY OF THE
STATE FROM WHICH THEY FLED, BE
DELIVERED UP TO BE REMOVED TO
THE STATE, HAVING JURISDICTION
OF THE CRIME. THE BROAD
JURISDICTIONAL REACH OF AB 1930
SEEKS TO INVALIDATE LEGAL
PROCESSES, VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION, HARBOR CRIMINALS
AND DENY JUSTICE TO THE VICTIMS
AND THEIR FAMILIES. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION TO AB 1930? GOOD
MORNING. CHRIS SCHULTZ WITH THE
CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSOCIATION.
WE CONTINUE WORKING
PRODUCTIVELY WITH THE AUTHOR
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
ON THE BILL, BUT DID JUST WANT
TO TAKE A MINUTE TO EXPLAIN THE
BURDEN. IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS
AND YOU RECEIVE A SUBPOENA OR A
REQUEST FROM ANY PARTY, NOT
JUST A GOVERNMENT PARTY, YOU
WILL NEED TO GO BACK TO THAT
PARTY AND SAY, HEY, IS THIS
ABOUT LEGALLY PROTECTED HEALTH
CARE ACTIVITY? IT TURNS EVERY
DOCUMENT REQUEST, EVERY
SUBPOENA INTO A THREE STEP
PROCESS BACK AND FORTH. THERE'S
GOING TO BE ONE BANK RECEIVES A
MILLION SUBPOENAS A YEAR. A LOT
OF THESE ARE ABOUT REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTIONS, BANKRUPTCIES,
DIVORCES. IT TURNS EVERY
DOCUMENT REQUEST INTO A BACK
AND FORTH THAT PLACES A PRETTY
BIG OBLIGATION ON ON THE
PRIVATE SECTOR IN ORDER TO TRY
TO FIND THESE SUBPOENAS THAT
ARE ACTUALLY ARE ABOUT LEGALLY
PROTECTED HEALTH CARE ACTIVITY.
WE CONTINUE WORKING
PRODUCTIVELY WITH THE AUTHOR
AND SPONSOR, BUT JUST WANT TO
FLAG THAT FOR THE RECORD. THANK
YOU. YOU'RE THE SECOND
PRINCIPAL OPPOSITION WITNESSES,
ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON
THE BILL? MATTHEW WARD, OUR
DUTY. OPPOSED. THANK YOU, THANK
YOU. SEEING NO ONE ELSE COME
FORWARD, BRING IT BACK TO THE
DAIS. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
IF NOT, WE DO NOT YET HAVE A
QUORUM. SENATOR, BACK OVER TO
CLOSE. THANK YOU AGAIN. I JUST
WANT TO THANK OUR OUR OUR
SPONSORS, EQUALITY CALIFORNIA
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA,
FOR THEIR CLOSE FOR THEIR WORK
ON THIS. AGAIN, WE WILL HAVE
SOME ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS,
WHICH WE'LL DO THROUGH
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,
WORKING CAREFULLY WITH THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE TO
MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT IS LEGALLY SOUND
AND THAT IS GOING TO PROTECT
OUR PATIENTS AND OUR PROVIDERS
HERE IN CALIFORNIA. SO WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AND I VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. THANK YOU. AND WE ARE
TAKING THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS IN OUR COMMITTEE,
WHICH APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF
THE BILL ONLY WHEN ABORTION OR
GENDER AFFIRMING HEALTH CARE
SERVICES ARE LEGALLY PROTECTED.
HEALTH CARE ACTIVITIES SECURED
BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF
CALIFORNIA. SO YES, OF COURSE I
ACCEPT THOSE. THANK YOU. YES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US.
WE'LL GO NEXT TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER
STEPHANIE AND THEN BONTA. HI.
GOOD MORNING. AND WHICH BILL
WOULD YOU LIKE TO START WITH
FOR 58 OR 11? YES, FOR. OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH AB
458. ARE THERE ANY PRINCIPAL
WITNESSES? YOU'RE WELCOME TO
JOIN US HERE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I WANT
TO START OFF BY LETTING THIS
COMMITTEE KNOW I ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. SO THANK
YOU FOR THAT. TODAY I'M
PRESENTING A B 458, THE FIREARM
PROCUREMENT ACT. A FEW YEARS
AGO, I READ A REPORT FROM THE
BRADY CAMPAIGN THAT QUITE
FRANKLY, SHOCKED ME. IT FOUND
THAT MORE THAN 90 LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA HAD PURCHASED
FIREARMS AND EQUIPMENT FROM GUN
DEALERS THAT HAD REPEATEDLY
VIOLATED FEDERAL GUN LAWS, AND
THIS INCLUDES NOT PERFORMING
BACKGROUND CHECKS, SELLING TO
STRAW PURCHASERS, NOT KEEPING
NECESSARY PAPERWORK ON FILE
THAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS
TO TRACK THOSE THAT WOULD
TRAFFIC IN GUNS. AND THESE
WEREN'T JUST TECHNICAL
PAPERWORK MISTAKES. THEY WERE
MISTAKES THAT CREATED A LOT OF
SITUATIONS THAT WERE DANGEROUS
FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. YET TAXPAYER
DOLLARS CONTINUE TO FLOW TO
THESE BAD ACTORS. WHEN I WAS
SERVING ON THE SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, I
BELIEVED WE COULD DO BETTER AND
ACTUALLY PASSED A LAW THERE
THAT MADE SURE SAN FRANCISCO'S
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WERE
PURCHASING FIREARMS ONLY FROM
RESPONSIBLE VENDORS THAT FOLLOW
FEDERAL LAW. AND BECAUSE THIS
IS A REALLY SIMPLE PRINCIPLE, I
BELIEVE TAXPAYER DOLLARS SHOULD
REWARD RESPONSIBLE BUSINESSES,
NOT THOSE WITH A HISTORY OF
BREAKING THE VERY LAWS DESIGNED
TO KEEP GUNS OUT OF THE WRONG
HANDS. A B FOUR FIVE, EIGHT
BRINGS THAT SAME COMMON SENSE
APPROACH TO THE STATE. EACH
YEAR, CALIFORNIA SPENDS
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PURCHASING
FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, AND
FIREARM ACCESSORIES FOR STATE
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. YET
TODAY, THERE IS NO STATEWIDE
FRAMEWORK TO HELP AGENCIES
EVALUATE WHETHER THE VENDORS
THEY BUY FROM HAVE A HISTORY OF
COMPLYING WITH FIREARM LAWS OR
ENGAGING IN RESPONSIBLE
BUSINESS PRACTICES. THIS BILL
DOESN'T GO AS FAR AS I WANT IT
TO, BUT IT DOES SOMETHING. IT
DIRECTS THE DEPARTMENT OF
GENERAL SERVICES, IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO
DEVELOP MODEL PROCUREMENT
GUIDELINES SO THAT STATE
AGENCIES HAVE THE TOOLS THEY
NEED TO MAKE INFORMED
PURCHASING DECISIONS. WHEN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PURCHASES
FIREARMS WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS,
WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO
ENSURE THOSE DOLLARS NEVER END
UP IN THE HANDS OF FIREARM
DEALERS WITH A HISTORY OF
BREAKING THE LAW. AND TODAY, I
AM JOINED BY JONATHAN FELDMAN
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION AND
DYLAN ELLIOTT ON BEHALF OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. GOOD MORNING. YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE
COMMITTEE. YEP. MORNING, CHAIR
MEMBERS JONATHAN FELDMAN WITH
THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF
ASSEMBLY BILL 458. WE DO
BELIEVE THAT THE STATE, COMING
UP WITH GUIDELINES AND
IDENTIFYING RESPONSIBLE VENDORS
WILL HELP THE LOCALS MAKING
THEIR DECISIONS AS WELL,
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
TAXPAYER DOLLARS SHOULD REPORT
RESPONSIBLE VENDORS, THOSE THAT
ARE MAINTAINING THE SAFE
TRANSFER OF FIREARMS, NOT JUST
TO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES,
BUT THE PUBLIC AS WELL. ILLEGAL
GUNS REMAIN A SIGNIFICANT
PUBLIC SAFETY THREAT. IN 2023,
WE RECOVERED AND TRACED MORE
THAN 56,000 FIREARMS CONNECTED
TO CRIMES IN CALIFORNIA, WHICH
DEMONSTRATES THAT THOSE
FIREARMS ARE STILL MAKING ITS
WAY IN THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS.
THE CONSEQUENCES ARE INCREDIBLY
SEVERE. WE SEE THOSE FIREARMS
USED IN HOMICIDES, DEATHS OF
OFFICERS, OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES.
WE'VE DONE SOME PROGRESS IN
THIS SPACE, BUT CLEARLY WE NEED
TO DO MORE. AND WE THINK THAT
HELPING TO IDENTIFY THOSE
RESPONSIBLE VENDORS WILL JUST
SERVE THE STATE AND OUR LOCAL
AGENCIES. AND FOR THAT REASON,
WE ARE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS, DYLAN ELLIOTT HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS. I JUST WANT TO
BEGIN BY THANKING THE AUTHOR
FOR HER LEADERSHIP ON THIS
ISSUE, GOING BACK TO HER TIME
WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
IN SAN FRANCISCO. IT'S A VERY
STRAIGHTFORWARD MEASURE,
UNDERSTANDING YOU'VE GOT A LONG
AGENDA TODAY. I DON'T NEED TO
BELABOR THE POINT HERE. I THINK
THIS IS A REALLY COMMON SENSE
EFFORT AT DOING SOMETHING
MEANINGFUL THAT COULD CHANGE
STATE LAW IN A PRODUCTIVE WAY,
CONSISTENT WITH OUR VALUES. AND
FOR THAT REASON, SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ASKS FOR
YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB 458 IF YOU CAN, PLEASE STATE
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION OR CITY
YOU'RE FROM IN POSITION.
CHRISTINA CUNDARI MOMS DEMAND
ACTION FOR GUN SENSE IN AMERICA
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU
SARAH BURGER MOMS DEMAND ACTION
FOR GUN SENSE IN AMERICA, SAN
FRANCISCO AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. CHARLES ALLEN EXPRESSING
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF EVERYTOWN
FOR GUN SAFETY. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. JULIE CHAPMAN
VOLUNTEER WITH NORCAL GUN
VIOLENCE PREVENTION IN SUPPORT.
MARY Dð WITH NORCAL GUN
VIOLENCE PREVENTION GUN
VIOLENCE SURVIVOR IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB? 458 SEEING NO ONE COME
FORWARD WILL NOT TAKE UP TO TWO
PRINCIPAL OPPOSITION WITNESSES
TO AB. 458 ARE THERE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO AB 458.
OKAY, I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE
OUTSIDE. IF YOU'RE OUTSIDE AND
WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION. AB
458 PLEASE ENTER THE HEARING
ROOM. OKAY. SEEING NO ONE COME
FORWARD, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE DAIS FOR QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. NO COMMENTS. THANK
YOU, ASSEMBLY MEMBER FOR THIS
BILL. JUST TO CLARIFY, THE
AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE MAKING
THIS COMMITTEE ARE TO
CROSS-REFERENCE EXISTING
DEFINITION IN THE IN THE STATE
LAW OF FIREARM ACCESSORY. THAT
IS CORRECT. SO THANK YOU FOR
WORKING WITH OUR COMMITTEE
STAFF, AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL, AND I'LL TURN IT
BACK OVER TO MAKE A CLOSING
STATEMENT. THANK YOU. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE WHEN IT'S TIME. OKAY.
WE'LL NOW PROCEED TO THE NEXT
BILL BY ASSEMBLY. STEFANI AB
1588. AND IF THERE ARE ANY
PRINCIPAL WITNESSES FOR AB 1588,
YOU'RE WELCOME TO JOIN US HERE
AT THIS TABLE. THANK YOU. CHAIR.
TODAY I'M PRESENTING AB 1588,
WHICH DEALS WITH THOSE
SIDESHOWS YOU HEAR SO MUCH
ABOUT ON THE STREET TAKEOVERS
THAT HAVE BEEN BLOCKING
INTERSECTIONS AND HARMING
COMMUNITY COMMUNITIES ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. THESE EVENTS DO
MORE THAN JUST DISRUPT TRAFFIC.
THEY PUT RESIDENTS, SMALL
BUSINESSES AND FIRST RESPONDERS
AT RISK, ESPECIALLY WHEN
EMERGENCY VEHICLES CANNOT GET
THROUGH. AS WE HAVE SEEN WHEN
THE BAY BRIDGE WAS COMPLETELY
SHUT DOWN A WHILE BACK, SINCE
FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR, ENHANCED
ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS IN THE EAST
BAY HAVE LED TO THE SEIZURE OF
MORE THAN 100 ILLEGAL GUNS AT
SIDESHOWS, UNDERSCORING HOW
QUICKLY THESE GATHERINGS CAN
ESCALATE FROM JUST RECKLESS
BEHAVIOR INTO SERIOUS THREATS
TO HUMAN LIFE. SIDESHOWS IN
HAYWARD JUST TWO MONTHS AGO SAW
OVER 50 CARS DESTROYING AN
INTERSECTION WITH A STOLEN CAR
VIOLENTLY SLAMMING INTO
SPECTATORS AFTER THE STOLEN CAR
CRASHED INTO A TRUCK. SWARMS OF
PEOPLE THEN BEGAN DESTROYING
THE CAR. THREE WEEKS AGO IN SAN
JOSE, MORE SPECTATORS WERE HIT
BY SPINNING CARS IN A SIDESHOW
AT THE CAPITOL SQUARE MALL.
AFTER THE SIDESHOW, THE SAN
JOSE POLICE DEPARTMENT TOLD
COMMUNITIES THEY COULDN'T
PERFORM LARGE SCALE ENFORCEMENT,
LEAVING OFFENDERS WITHOUT
ACCOUNTABILITY AND VICTIMS
WITHOUT JUSTICE. AND THAT'S
WHAT WE HEAR FROM OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT UP AND DOWN THE
STATE ABOUT TRYING TO ENFORCE
THESE ILLEGAL SIDESHOWS THAT
ARE WREAKING HAVOC IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. IT'S WHY I'M
BRINGING FORWARD AB 1588 TODAY
TO HELP CURB THESE ILLEGAL
EVENTS AND CREATE A PENALTY
STRUCTURE THAT MAKES SENSE FOR
THESE DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES.
DESPITE STEPS TAKEN BY CITIES
IN THE STATE, ENFORCEMENT HAS
NOT KEPT PACE WITH HOW THESE
EVENTS OPERATE TODAY, LEAVING
OFFICERS WITHOUT CLEAR
AUTHORITY TO INTERVENE EARLY
AND LEAVING COMMUNITIES
FRUSTRATED WHEN THE SAME
DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR CONTINUES TO
OCCUR OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AB
1588 CLOSES ENFORCEMENT GAPS BY
UPDATING STATE LAW TO REFLECT
HOW THEY OPERATE TODAY,
INCLUDING ADDING MOTORCYCLES
AND DIRT BIKES TO THE SIDESHOW
FRAMEWORK SO OFFICERS CAN TAKE
ACTION WHEN UNLICENSED VEHICLES
ARE USED TO BLOCK STREETS AND
PERFORM DANGEROUS STUNTS. THIS
BILL ALSO STRENGTHENS
ACCOUNTABILITY BY ALIGNING
PENALTIES FOR SIDESHOWS WITH
THOSE ALREADY IN PLACE FOR
SPEED CONTESTS. TOGETHER, THESE
CHANGES GIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT
THE TOOLS THEY NEED TO RESPOND
EFFECTIVELY AND TO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES. AMENDMENTS TO AB
1588 SIGNIFICANTLY NARROWED ITS
SCOPE, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN
THE REMOVAL OF SIGNIFICANT
STATEWIDE OPPOSITION GROUPS,
INCLUDING THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION, SMART
JUSTICE LAW DEFENSE, OAKLAND
PRIVACY AND THE JUSTICE TO JOBS
COALITION. HERE WITH ME TODAY
IS CARL NISHIDA WITH GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS MANAGER WITH THE SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
AND CRISTIAN NUNEZ WITH STREETS
ARE FOR EVERYONE AND GOOD
MORNING. WE EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BILL. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS. I
AM CARL NISHIDA, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS MANAGER FOR THE SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE
DEPARTMENT TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF AB 1588 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
STEPHANIE, WHICH ADDRESSES THE
GROWING PROBLEM OF ILLEGAL SIDE
SIDESHOWS AND STREET RACES
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA,
INCLUDING THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY
AREA. AS THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
SAID, THESE EVENTS ARE NOT
SIMPLY TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS. THEY
OFTEN INVOLVE COORDINATED
BLOCKAGES OF INTERSECTIONS,
ROADWAYS, FREEWAY RAMPS AND
OTHER TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE. WHILE DRIVERS
ENGAGE IN DANGEROUS STUNTS,
EXHIBITIONS OF SPEED, RECKLESS
DRIVING AND OTHER UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITY. AB 1588 MODERNIZES
CALIFORNIA'S SIDESHOW LAWS BY
PROVIDING GREATER CLARITY
REGARDING TYPES OF VEHICLES
COMMONLY INVOLVED IN THESE
EVENTS. IT UPDATES THE
DEFINITION OF A SIDESHOW TO
BETTER REFLECT HOW THESE
GATHERINGS OCCUR TODAY, AND
ALIGNS PENALTIES FOR DANGEROUS,
SIDESHOW RELATED EXHIBITION OF
SPEED OFFENSES, WITH EXISTING
PENALTIES FOR STREET RACING.
FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, THE IMPACTS OF
SIDESHOWS EXTEND WELL BEYOND
THE PARTICIPANTS. THEY DISRUPT
NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH EXCESSIVE
NOISE, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND
PROLONGED ROADWAY CLOSURES.
THEY CREATE DANGEROUS
CONDITIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS,
BYSTANDERS AND MOTORISTS AND
CAN IMPEDE EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
RESPONDING TO CALLS FOR SERVICE.
OUR OFFICERS AND COMMAND STAFF
REGULARLY HEAR FROM RESIDENTS
AND BUSINESS OWNERS CONCERNED
ABOUT THE FREQUENCY OF THESE
EVENTS AND THE RISKS THAT THEY
CREATE. OFFICERS ALSO REPORT
THAT SIDESHOWS HAVE EVOLVED IN
RECENT YEARS. WE INCREASINGLY
SEE MOTORCYCLES, DIRT BIKES,
ATVS AND OTHER OFF HIGHWAY
VEHICLES PARTICIPATING
ALONGSIDE TRADITIONAL VEHICLES,
AS WELL AS INCREASINGLY
ORGANIZED ACTIVITY COORDINATED
THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA. AB 1588
IS A MEASURE PROPOSAL THAT
PROVIDES LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH
CLEARER TOOLS TO ADDRESS
CONDUCT THAT THREATENS PUBLIC
SAFETY. ON BEHALF OF THE SAN
FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE
THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER STEFANI
FOR HER WORK ON THIS ISSUE, AND
WE RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR.
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN
NUNEZ. I'M HERE REPRESENTING
STREETS ARE FOR EVERYONE. WE
ARE A NONPROFIT BASED IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WORKING ON
ROAD SAFETY ISSUES ACROSS THE
STATE. WE ARE ALSO ONE OF THE
BILL'S SPONSORS. TO START, I'D
LIKE TO BEGIN WITH A NUMBER,
AND THAT'S 288. THAT'S THE
NUMBER OF STREET TAKEOVERS THAT
CHP WAS AWARE OF THAT OCCURRED
IN L.A. COUNTY ALONE, JUST IN
THE LAST SIX MONTHS. THAT'S AN
AVERAGE OF 1.5 PER DAY. IN
TRUTH, MOST OF THOSE MOST OF
THOSE HAPPENED BETWEEN THURSDAY
AND SATURDAY NEAR MY OWN CAMPUS.
ILLEGAL STREET TAKEOVERS ARE
TAKING PLACE. THEY TAKE PLACE
IN THE SAME INTERSECTIONS AND
ROADS THAT ME AND MY PEERS USED
TO WALK TO SCHOOL NIGHT AND DAY.
L.A. COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS REPORTED THAT
THESE TAKEOVERS COST THE COUNTY
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS A YEAR IN
INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE, AND THE
COST TO MULTIPLE AGENCIES
ACROSS THE COUNTY IS FAR HIGHER.
BUT LET'S NOT JUST LOOK AT
NUMBERS. LET'S LOOK AT HOW THIS
AFFECTS PEOPLE. STREETS ARE FOR.
EVERYONE IS CURRENTLY ENGAGED
IN A STUDY OF IMPACT OF THE
IMPACT OF STREET TAKEOVERS ON
BUSINESSES AND COMMUNITY
MEMBERS AND WHERE THEY HAPPEN.
WHILE I CAN'T GIVE YOU FINAL
DATA, I CAN SAY THAT THESE
INCIDENTS IMPACT PHYSICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND
ECONOMIC AND SOCIO ECONOMIC
FACTS FAR BEYOND THE
INTERSECTION WHERE THEY TAKE
PLACE. BUT AGAIN, LET'S NOT
JUST TALK ABOUT STATS, BUT
ABOUT PEOPLE. ONE EXAMPLE OF
THE TOLL STREET TAKEOVERS IS
RAYMOND. ON THE 19TH OF
FEBRUARY, 27 YEAR OLD RAYMOND
OLIVARES WAS CROSSING THE ROAD
IN FRONT OF HIS NEWLY PURCHASED
HOME WITH HIS HIGH SCHOOL
SWEETHEART AND NEW FIANCÉE,
MARIA RIVAS CRUZ, 27, WHEN HE
WAS HIT BY A PERSON LEAVING A
STREET TAKEOVER, DOING ALMOST
70 MILES AN HOUR. RAYMOND DIED
AT THAT SCENE AND HIS FIANCE
SUFFERED SERIOUS INJURIES BUT
SURVIVED. ON BEHALF OF RAYMOND,
MARIA AND SO MANY OTHERS WHOSE
LIVES ARE IMPACTED BY STREET
TAKEOVERS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR A VOTE ON AB 1588. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB 1588? CLIFTON WILSON ON
BEHALF OF MAYOR DANIEL LURIE,
PROUD SPONSOR OF THE BILL, AS
WELL AS THE CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO AND THE SAN
JOAQUIN COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS, ALL IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. ANDREW
ANTHONY HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS IN
SUPPORT AND THE CALIFORNIA CITY
TRANSPORTATION INITIATIVE, ALSO
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MISTER
CHAIR MEMBERS, TIM CHANG FOR
THE AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA URGING YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. I ON
BEHALF OF TRIPLE A NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. IVY FITZPATRICK ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. SERENA SCOTT, ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT FOR AB 1588? SEEING NO
ONE COME FORWARD WILL NOW TAKE
UP TO TWO PRINCIPAL OPPOSITION
WITNESSES. AB 1588. CHAIR
MEMBERS NAMES AUBRY RODRIGUEZ,
ALLEGED ADVOCATE WITH ACLU CAL
ACTION. WHILE WE COMMEND THE
AUTHOR FOR HER COMMITMENT TO
PUBLIC SAFETY AND AMENDING THIS
BILL DOWN FROM INITIAL APPROACH
PRESENTED ASSEMBLY PUBLIC
SAFETY, WE CONTINUE TO HAVE
STRONG ISSUES WITH THIS
PROPOSAL. THERE'S A STRONG
INCLINATION FROM POLICY MAKERS
TO DETER CRIME BY EXPANDING AND
INCREASING CRIMES. IN FACT,
HIGHER FINES DO NOT DETER
BEHAVIOR THAT IS SOCIAL,
IMPULSIVE OR COLLECTIVE.
INSTEAD, FINANCIAL PENALTIES OF
THIS SCALE FALL MOST HEAVILY ON
PEOPLE THAT ARE LOW INCOME.
DEEPENING CYCLES OF POVERTY AND
PUNISHMENT THAT DOES NOT DOES
NOTHING TO IMPROVE PUBLIC
SAFETY. RATHER THAN AN
EFFECTIVE CARCERAL SOLUTIONS,
CALIFORNIA SHOULD FOCUS ON
ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMUNITY
BASED PREVENTION TO ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF SIDESHOWS. OAKLAND'S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
HAS BEGUN INSTALLING BOLLARDS,
STEEL PLATES AND CURB
EXTENSIONS TO DISRUPT
INTERSECTIONS COMMONLY USED FOR
SIDESHOWS, AND NEARBY RESIDENTS
HAVE ALREADY REPORTED A
DECREASE IN ACTIVITY, ROADWAY
DESIGN, YOUTH ENGAGEMENT AND
INVESTMENT, AND COMMUNITY BASED
PROGRAMING ARE EVIDENCE BASED
STRATEGIES THAT PROMOTE SAFETY
WITHOUT EXACERBATING INEQUALITY
AND RACIAL DISPARITIES IN THE
CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM. GIVEN
THE LACK OF THIS APPROACH AND
THIS PROPOSAL, WE RESPECTFULLY
URGE A NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING
TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR AB 1588?
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. SORRY.
ERIC HENDERSON, ON BEHALF OF
THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. ELIZABETH KIM, ON BEHALF
OF INITIATE JUSTICE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. SOPHIA
NEWHOUSE BROWN ON BEHALF OF
LOCAL 148 THE CALIFORNIA OR THE
LOS ANGELES PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
UNION IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO AB 1588?
SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD,
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.
VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. AND THANK YOU
FOR THE BILL. I KNOW AS NEW
ISSUES EVOLVE, THERE'S ALWAYS A
PROCESS OF WHAT WE DO TO GO AND
TRY TO TRY TO ADDRESS THEM. I
THINK EVERYBODY IS AWARE
THERE'S SOME REALLY FUN FILMS
OUT THERE THAT KIND OF
HIGHLIGHT THIS KIND OF STUFF.
AND THEN WE HAVE A PUBLIC THAT
STARTS TO MIMIC THAT, NOT
REALIZING THAT, WELL, MAYBE
REALIZING, BUT THAT THE MOVIES
ARE ONE THING AND REAL LIFE IS
ANOTHER. AND THE REAL LIFE
CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WE'RE
DOING ARE, ARE SOMETIMES REALLY
DEVASTATING AS FAR AS THE
DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECTS AND
HOW IT AFFECTS PEOPLE THAT ARE
STRUGGLING TO AFFORD ANYTHING.
THE CARS, IF YOU LOOKED AT SOME
OF THESE STREET TAKEOVERS,
NUMBER ONE, THEY ARE NOT JUST.
PEOPLE THAT ARE POOR. IN FACT,
A LOT OF THOSE CARS ARE ARE
PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL AS FAR AS
THE COSTS FOR THE MODIFICATIONS.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT THEY'RE SHOWING OFF OUT
THERE. IF THEY CAN SPEND 20
GRAND MODIFYING THEIR VEHICLES
SO THAT THEY CAN GO DO THIS
TYPE OF ACTIVITY, CERTAINLY
THEY CAN AFFORD THE FINE.
HAVING CITIES HAVE TO PUT UP
BOLLARDS. THOSE ARE NOT CHEAP.
THOSE ARE EXPENSIVE, AND
THEY'RE ALSO DISRUPTIVE. IF
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SHUT
DOWN INTERSECTIONS EVERY
WEEKEND, BECAUSE THAT
INTERSECTION BECOMES SUBJECT TO
PEOPLE WHO CAN'T BEHAVE
THEMSELVES, THAT MEANS THE
PEOPLE THAT CAN BEHAVE
THEMSELVES ARE ALSO
INCONVENIENCED AS WELL. AND
THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE PICKING UP
THE TAB TO DO ALL THIS NONSENSE.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS HOLD THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THIS
ACCOUNTABLE. IT'S KIND OF A
NEWER AREA. LIKE I SAID, WE
HAVEN'T HAD THIS. AND IN FACT,
IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT, WE
WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE. SHE
WOULDN'T BE CARRYING THIS BILL.
SHE'D PROBABLY HAVE ADDED
ANOTHER BILL SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THAT MIGHT BE VERY HELPFUL. BUT
BUT HERE WE ARE. AND SO I
SUPPORTED THIS IN
TRANSPORTATION FOR ALL OF THOSE
REASONS. I DON'T THINK THAT
THERE ARE ANY ANY UNREASONABLE
CONSEQUENCES FROM A LEGAL
PERSPECTIVE FOR SOMEBODY WHO
CHOOSES TO ENGAGE IN THIS. BUT
I THINK FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY
STANDPOINT, WE BETTER DO
SOMETHING BECAUSE IF WE DO
NOTHING OR WE CONTINUE TO MAKE
EXCUSES FOR PEOPLE THAT DON'T
WANT TO FOLLOW THE LAW OR ACT
IN A SAFE MANNER OR DISRUPT
NEIGHBORHOODS. THEN THEN WE
WILL HAVE CHAOS OUT THERE. AND
THEN IF NO, IF THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT ISN'T GOING TO BE
ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WELL,
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO START DOING
SOMETHING. THEN THERE'S MORE
CHAOS. SO WITH THAT, GET BACK
TO THE CHAIR. THANK YOU AGAIN
FOR YOUR BILL WILL BE
SUPPORTING IT WHEN IT COMES UP.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, FOR
BRINGING THIS BILL FORWARD. I
STRONGLY SUPPORT IT. IF YOU ARE
TAKING FURTHER AMENDMENTS IN
APPROPRIATIONS, I WOULD LOVE TO
BE ADDED AS A COAUTHOR. AS A
RESIDENT OF OAKLAND, THIS IS A
SERIOUS ISSUE IN THE COMMUNITY
THAT I LIVE IN AND REPRESENT. I
KNOW IT'S AN ISSUE ACROSS THE
BAY IN SAN FRANCISCO. YES, WE
NEED TO DESIGN OUR ROADWAYS TO
REDUCE TRAFFIC VIOLENCE AND TO
IMPROVE TRAFFIC SAFETY. HOW DO
YOU DESIGN THE BAY BRIDGE TO
MITIGATE SIDE SHIFTS? I MEAN,
IT WAS IT WAS CRAZY THAT THERE
WAS A COORDINATED EFFORT TO
SHUT DOWN THE BAY BRIDGE, WHICH
HAD A HUGE DISRUPTIVE IMPACT ON
PEOPLE'S LIVES, WHO WERE TRYING
TO GET ACROSS THE BAY. AND SO
WE NEED TO SEND A STRONG
MESSAGE THAT THIS KIND OF
CONDUCT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT
IT HAS SAFETY CONSEQUENCES.
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED, AND
IT'S UNACCEPTABLE. THERE IS NO
LEGITIMATE REASON WHY PEOPLE
SHOULD ENGAGE IN A SIDESHOW. SO
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THE BILL
FORWARD. IF YOU'D LIKE TO CLOSE.
WELL, THANK YOU, CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR. YOUR WORDS ARE MUSIC TO
MY EARS. YOU SAID EVERYTHING I
WOULD SAY IN MY CLOTHES. SO
WHEN IT'S TIME, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR AN AYE VOTE. OKAY.
THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM. ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME. OKAY.
NEXT AND FALL ORDER IS.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BONTA. AND I
KNOW ASSEMBLYMAN HAS TWO BILLS.
SHOULD WE JUST PROCEED WITH THE
FIRST BILL AND FILE ORDER,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER? YES. THANK YOU.
OKAY. MAYBE 910. OKAY. WE'LL
WE'LL MOVE NOW TO ITEM 7AB9 TEN
BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA. WELL,
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I AM ONCE
AGAIN PRESENTING THE SURVIVORS
ACT BECAUSE WE MUST FIND
ANOTHER PATH TO SUPPORTING
SURVIVORS OTHER THAN
CRIMINALIZATION. ORGANIZATIONS
AND SURVIVORS THEMSELVES HAVE
EXPRESSED THE CRITICAL NEED FOR
EXPANDING LEGAL PROTECTIONS AND
RESOURCES FOR SURVIVORS OF
VIOLENCE AND EXPLOITATION. AB
910 IS FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT
LISTENING TO SURVIVORS AND
ENSURING OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM
DOES THE SAME. IT RECOGNIZES
THAT MANY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE
BEEN ARRESTED OR INCARCERATED
ARE NOT SIMPLY OFFENDERS, BUT
SURVIVORS OF PROFOUND VIOLENCE
AND EXPLOITATION. WE CANNOT
CLAIM TO VALUE PUBLIC SAFETY
WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY
CRIMINALIZING THE VERY
INDIVIDUALS WHO MOST URGENTLY
NEED PROTECTION. AB 910
ACKNOWLEDGES THE REALITIES OF
TRAUMA AND OFFERS SURVIVORS A
PATHWAY TOWARD JUSTICE AND
HEALING RATHER THAN CONTINUED
HARM. AB 910 EXPANDS LEGAL
PROTECTIONS AND RELIEF FOR
SURVIVORS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING,
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE, AND
SEXUAL VIOLENCE BY ALLOWING
SURVIVORS TO PRESENT THEIR
EXPERIENCES OF ABUSE OF ABUSE
AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE,
EXPANDING ACCESS TO RELIEF SO
SURVIVORS CAN PETITION TO
VACATE CONVICTIONS RESULTING
FROM ABUSE AND VICTIMIZATION,
THEREBY REMOVING SIGNIFICANT
BARRIERS TO HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT
AND OTHER ESSENTIAL RESOURCES.
THIS BILL PROVIDES PROCEDURAL
RELIEF. I WANT TO BE CLEAR WHEN
I SAY THIS THERE MUST BE
JUDICIAL REVIEW WHEN
PETITIONING FOR THE PETITION IS
EVALUATED ON ITS INDIVIDUAL
MERITS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A
TIE DIRECTLY TIED TO THE
SURVIVORS VICTIMIZATION.
SURVIVORS DESERVE OUR
COMPASSION, NOT FURTHER
INCARCERATION. HISTORICALLY,
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS
DISPROPORTIONATELY PENALIZED
INDIVIDUALS WHO ADOPTED
SURVIVAL STRATEGIES IN RESPONSE
TO SEVERE ABUSE AND
EXPLOITATION. THIS LEGISLATION
REPRESENTS A COMMITMENT TO
PROTECTING WOMEN, WOMEN OF
COLOR, PARTICULARLY BLACK AND
LATINA SURVIVORS, ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF THEIR
SURVIVAL STRATEGIES. CALIFORNIA
WOULDN'T BE ALONE. GEORGIA,
LOUISIANA, NEBRASKA, WYOMING,
AND NEW YORK ALLOW FOR
SURVIVORS FOR ALL OFFENSES, AND
OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA,
WISCONSIN AND WYOMING ALLOW FOR
AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR
SURVIVORS, FOR ALL OFFENSES.
MANY OF THESE LEGISLATIONS
PASSED WITH BIPARTISAN
AUTHORSHIP AND SUPPORT. A
NATIONAL SURVIVOR STUDY
CONDUCTED BY THE POLARIS
INSTITUTE SHOWED US A GRIM
REALITY 90% OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS ARE
CRIMINALIZED WHILE BEING
TRAFFICKED. THIS BILL IS
PROUDLY SUPPORTED BY SURVIVOR
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS, PUBLIC
DEFENDERS, AND TRAUMA INFORMED
LEGAL SCHOLARS AND LEADERS IN
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE. WITH ME
HERE TODAY TO TESTIFY, AND I
WANT TO THANK HER AGAIN FOR
TESTIFYING IN BOTH OUR SUSAN
BUSTAMANTE, A COURAGEOUS
SURVIVOR WHO WILL SHARE HER
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH
CRIMINALIZATION DIRECTLY LINKED
TO HER VICTIMIZATION. THANK YOU,
SUSAN, FOR COMING UP AGAIN THIS
YEAR AND SHARING YOUR STORY.
AND MANDY BOYD, STAFF ATTORNEY
AT THE IMMIGRANT LEGAL RESOURCE
CENTER. HI. GOOD MORNING.
WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN.
THANK YOU. PANEL. MY NAME IS
SUSAN BUSTAMANTE. I WAS RAISED
IN THE HISPANIC CULTURE OF WHAT
HAPPENS IN THE HOUSE, STAYS IN
THE HOUSE. AT THE AGE OF 12, MY
FATHER STARTED MOLESTING ME AND
IT CONTINUED TO THE AGE OF 18.
I FINALLY TOLD MY BROTHER ABOUT
THE ABUSE. HE SAYS, DON'T WORRY
SIS, I'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. WHEN
HE CAME BACK, HE SAID, GO HOME,
HE'LL NEVER TOUCH YOU AGAIN.
AND HE NEVER DID. AT 19 I MET
STEVEN, MY HUSBAND. WHEN WE MET,
I DIDN'T KNOW HE WAS A VIETNAM
VET OR THAT HE WAS RAISED IN A
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOUSEHOLD.
THE FIRST TIME HE HURT ME, MY
HUSBAND DRAGGED ME IN THE
BATHROOM, THREW ME AROUND. HE
KEPT ME ISOLATED FROM MY FAMILY,
AND ONLY ALLOWED ME OUT OF THE
HOUSE TWICE A YEAR FOR
CHRISTMAS AND MY BIRTHDAY. IN
THE SIX YEARS I WAS MARRIED, HE
THREATENED TO KILL MY SISTER
AND MY MOM. HE SAID THEY WOULD
HAVE ACCIDENTS. IT WAS
TORTUROUS. WHEN I WAS PREGNANT
WITH MY FIRST DAUGHTER, HE
LITERALLY DRAGGED ME THROUGH
THE HOUSE. HE WAS CONSTANTLY
HITTING ME. HE WOULD HAVE
FLASHBACKS IN VIETNAM AND I
WOULD WAKE UP WITH HIM CHOKING
ME. I HAVE PERMANENT DAMAGE IN
MY NECK, MY HEAD FROM ALL THE
BEATINGS. I BECAME PREGNANT
AGAIN IN 1980 AND HE FORCED ME
TO HAVE AN ABORTION. THAT WAS
MY TURNING POINT. I WANTED HIM
OUT OF MY LIFE, BUT HE
THREATENED TO KIDNAP MY
DAUGHTERS IF I EVER LEFT. SO I
REACHED OUT TO MY BROTHER ONCE
AGAIN AND AGAIN. HE TOLD ME,
DON'T WORRY, SIS, I'LL TAKE
CARE OF IT. THE IDEA THAT HE
WOULD KILL STEVEN NEVER
OCCURRED TO ME. LATER, HE
CALLED ME TO SAY THAT STEVEN
WAS DEAD. HE THREATENED TO CALL
THE POLICE AND SAY I PLANNED IT.
HE BLACKMAILED ME FOR STEVEN'S
INSURANCE. I WAS AFRAID OF
HAVING MY DAUGHTERS TAKEN FROM
ME, SO I GAVE IN. I WAS ONLY 24
YEARS OLD. A FEW YEARS LATER,
MY BROTHER DIED, AND SOMEONE
WHO KNEW TOLD THE DETECTIVE
THAT I KILLED STEVEN. WHEN I
WENT TO TRIAL, NOTHING WAS
ALLOWED ABOUT THE MOLESTATION,
NOTHING ABOUT THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. ANY TIME I TRIED TO
SPEAK ABOUT MY FULL LIFE
EXPERIENCE, IT WAS STRUCK FROM
THE COURT RECORD AFTER ONLY A
TWO DAY TRIAL. NO CHANCE TO
TELL MY STORY. I WAS CONVICTED
FOR MURDER. I DID NOT COMMIT
AND SENTENCED TO LIFE WITHOUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE. SO
AT 32 YEARS OLD, I HAD NEVER
BEEN IN TROUBLE. BUT I WAS
SENTENCED TO DIE IN PRISON. MY
DAUGHTERS WERE 811. I MISSED
THEIR WEDDINGS, THE BIRTH OF
THEIR CHILDREN, MY GRANDKIDS. I
LOST MY PARENTS AND MY SISTER
WHILE IN PRISON FOR THREE
DECADES. IF A B 910 EXISTED AS
LAW, THEN I WOULD HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO SHARE MY STORY. MAYBE I
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
ACCESS AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OR
GET A DIFFERENT SENTENCE. OR
EVEN IF NOT, THANK YOU. I WOULD
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK MY
WORDS, TO SHARE WHAT HAPPENED
TO ME AND WHAT HAPPENED TO MY
HUSBAND. WITH LIVING THREE
DECADES INCARCERATED, I COME
ACROSS MANY, MANY SURVIVORS OF
ABUSE AND CONTROL. AND THEY
WEREN'T LIFERS, A LOT OF THEM,
BUT THEY WERE STILL STUCK WITH
THE SENTENCE THAT THEY GOT AND
WERE FORCED TO DO. THANKFULLY,
I WAS GRANTED CLEMENCY IN 2017
AND WENT TO PAROLE BOARD AND
CAME HOME IN 2018. I'M A
SURVIVOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE,
A SURVIVOR OF CHILD MOLESTATION,
AND A SURVIVOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA PRISON SYSTEM WHO IS
HORRIFIC AND ABUSIVE AND
CONTROLLING AND VIOLENT. AND
I'M AN ADVOCATE FOR VICTIMS AND
SURVIVORS WHO SHOULD HAVE THE
CHANCE TO TELL THEIR STORIES IN
COURT. I'M HERE STRONG SUPPORT
OF THIS BILL. SB 910. THANK YOU
SO VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIRMAN AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS MADDIE BOYD. I'M AN
ATTORNEY AT THE IMMIGRANT LEGAL
RESOURCE CENTER. I'VE
REPRESENTED NON-CITIZENS IN
DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS AND
SEEING THE EXTREME CONSEQUENCES
THAT CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS CAUSE
TO IMMIGRANT SURVIVORS. THIS
LAW HELPS ALL SURVIVORS,
INCLUDING NONCITIZEN SURVIVORS,
REPAIR THE HARM CAUSED BY
UNJUST CRIMINALIZATION, WHICH
IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT DURING
THESE TIMES. SURVIVORS OFTEN
SPEND YEARS BATTLING CHARGES
THEY WERE COERCED INTO
COMMITTING. MANY HAVE NO CHANCE
TO EVEN PRESENT EVIDENCE ABOUT
THE VIOLENCE THEY ENDURED. AS
WITH MISS BUSTAMANTE HERE WITH
ME, OFTEN SURVIVORS PLEAD
GUILTY JUST TO AVOID PROLONGED
LEGAL BATTLES. AS A RESULT,
THEY ENDURE LENGTHY PRISON
SENTENCES AND ARE SEPARATED
FROM THEIR FAMILIES. AFTER
INCARCERATION, IMMIGRANT
SURVIVORS ARE SUBJECTED TO
DOUBLE PUNISHMENT IN THE FORM
OF ICE DETENTION AND
DEPORTATION. THAT'S WHY AB 910
IS SO IMPORTANT. THIS BILL
EXPANDS THE ABILITY TO PETITION
FOR VACANT OR TO RAISE AN
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN COURT TO
ALL CHARGES EXCEPT MURDER.
CURRENTLY, CALIFORNIA'S LAW
DRAWS AN ARBITRARY LINE BETWEEN
CHARGES CLASSIFIED AS VIOLENT
OR NONVIOLENT WHEN IT COMES TO
THESE REMEDIES, EXCLUDING
SURVIVORS WHO ARE CHARGED FROM
CERTAIN OFFENSES, FROM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE THEIR FULL
STORIES IN COURT, THIS
DISTINCTION IGNORES THE REALITY
THAT VICTIMS ARE TOO OFTEN
COERCED INTO COMMITTING CRIMES
UNDER DURESS, AND OFTEN THROUGH
EXTREME VIOLENCE, BY LIMITING
RELIEF TO CERTAIN CRIMES,
EXISTING LAW FAILS TO PROTECT
THESE SURVIVORS AND PUNISHES
THEM FOR THEIR OWN
VICTIMIZATION. AB 910 REMOVES
THIS ARBITRARY DISTINCTION,
ENSURING SURVIVORS HAVE A
CHANCE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM AND
TO CLEAR THEIR RECORDS OF
CONVICTIONS WHEN THEY CAN PROVE
THAT THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE THE
DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR
VICTIMIZATION. TO THOSE WHO
ARGUE THAT THESE LAWS WILL
ALLOW DANGEROUS INDIVIDUALS TO
AVOID CRIMINAL LIABILITY, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT BOTH THE
VICTOR AND THE AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE ARE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT
TO ATTAIN. SURVIVORS MUST MEET
A HIGH BURDEN OF PROOF, AND
PROSECUTORS HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO OPPOSE THE
PETITIONS IN COURT. ULTIMATELY,
IT'S UP TO THE JUDGES AND
JURIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER
SURVIVOR MEETS THE LEGAL
CRITERIA. FOR THESE REASONS, I
STRONGLY URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO
SUPPORT AB. 910 THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT
FOR AB? 910 IF YOU CAN, PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. STATE
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION AND
POSITION ON THE BILL. CORY
WALKER WITH CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE. ALSO CRIME
SURVIVORS SPEAK PROUD
CO-SPONSORS AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. DAPHNE. ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH IN
SUPPORT. MARGO GEORGE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MELANIE KIM, SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
CO-SPONSOR AND PROUD SUPPORT.
LEILA CHAPPELLE, COALITION TO
ABOLISH SLAVERY AND TRAFFICKING,
PROUD CO-SPONSOR, PROUD SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. I'LL WALK AWAY.
RILEY HARMON WITH THE IMMIGRANT
LEGAL RESOURCE CENTER IN STRONG
SUPPORT. AND ON BEHALF OF CRIME
SURVIVORS, SPEAK IN SUPPORT.
MALCOLM ROOKS ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA SAFETY AND JUSTICE
AND SUPPORT. CLIFTON WILSON ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. HØI
RODRIGUEZ WITH ACLU, CAL ACTION
AND PROUD SUPPORT. ELIZABETH
KIM ON BEHALF OF INITIATE
JUSTICE AND SUPPORT. JIM
LINDBERG, FINANCE COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. ERIC
HENDERSON ON BEHALF OF THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
AND SUPPORT. LIZ BLUM GUTIERREZ
ON BEHALF OF DEBT-FREE JUSTICE.
CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA. ALSO
REGISTERING SUPPORT ON BEHALF
OF SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU. JOANNE SCHEER,
BEHALF OF FELONY MURDER
ELIMINATION PROJECT IN PROUD
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL NOW TAKE UP TO TWO
PRINCIPAL OPPOSITION WITNESSES
TO AB 910, ONE MORE IN STRONG
SUPPORT. LARA O'CONNOR WITH
COMPASSIONATE CALIFORNIA AND
INSIDE CIRCLE IN THE NEW
HEALING HOME. THANK YOU. ONCE
AGAIN. INVITE ANY OPPOSITION
WITNESSES TO AB 910. GOOD
MORNING, HONORABLE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. CHIEF DEPUTY IP
FITZPATRICK, THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE HERE IN OPPOSITION FOR
K¾T Ã Ã, AS WELL AS MY OWN
OFFICE. WHILE WE APPRECIATE AND
SHARE THE OFFER AUTHOR'S
COMMITMENT TO SURVIVORS OF
HUMAN TRAFFICKING, WE MUST
REMAIN OPPOSED TO THIS
PARTICULAR BILL. THREE MAIN
REASONS THIS BILL, AS AMENDED,
WOULD EXPAND THE STATUTES TO
VIOLENT CRIMES. THE MOST
SERIOUS VIOLENT OFFENSES IN
CALIFORNIA. IT WOULD PROHIBIT
CRIME VICTIMS WHO WERE VICTIMS
OF THOSE CRIMES FROM COLLECTING
RESTITUTION, WHERE THE RELIEF
IS GRANTED, AND IT WOULD EXPAND
EXISTING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
TO APPLY TO THE MOST VIOLENT
CRIMES IN CALIFORNIA. AGAIN,
EXCLUDING SOME MURDERS. SO THE
CURRENT RELIEF POSITIONS,
PROVISIONS PROVIDE THAT
INDIVIDUALS ARRESTED OR
CONVICTED OF NONVIOLENT
OFFENSES WHILE THEY WERE A
VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING OR
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OR
SEXUAL VIOLENCE, CAN PETITION
THE COURT FOR RELIEF.
IMPORTANTLY, THOUGH, CURRENTLY
BOTH PROVISIONS EXCLUDE THE
MOST VIOLENT OFFENDERS. UNDER
THIS BILL, RELIEF WOULD APPLY
TO ALL VIOLENT OFFENSES WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF SOME MURDERS.
BUT FELONY MURDER WOULD STILL
BE ELIGIBLE, AS WOULD RAPE,
CHILD, MOLEST, KIDNAPING AND
OTHERS. SECOND, IF THE RELIEF
IS GRANTED UNDER THIS BILL,
QUITE CONCERNING, AB 910 WOULD
REQUIRE THAT ANY VICTIM
RESTITUTION ORDER BE VACATED,
WHICH IS FURTHER
REVICTIMIZATION FOR INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAVE ALREADY LOST SO MUCH.
AND IT REQUIRES THAT THE ARREST
OR CONVICTION BE DEEMED TO HAVE
NEVER OCCURRED. WITH ALL THOSE
RECORDS SEALED, EFFECTIVELY
WIPING THESE HIGHLY VIOLENT
CRIMES FROM THE RECORD. AND
FINALLY, THE BILL EXPANDS
EXISTING LIMITED AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSES TO APPLY TO THE MOST
VIOLENT CRIMES. THAT MEANS THE
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WOULD
APPLY, LIKE I SAID AGAIN, TO
THE MOST VIOLENT CRIMES IN OUR
SOCIETY FELONY MURDER, RAPE,
CHILD MOLEST, KIDNAPING, AND
MANY OTHERS. SO BECAUSE THIS
BILL MANDATES SUCH A DRASTIC
ACTION, EXPANDING RELIEF TO
VIOLENT OFFENDERS AND
NEGATIVELY IMPACTS VICTIMS
RIGHTS IN THE STATE, K¾T Ã
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO AB 910,
SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD TO
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS FOR
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SEEING NONE, I'LL TURN IT BACK
OVER TO THE AUTHOR TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU. I WANT TO JUST SHARE
THAT SOME FACTS THAT I THINK WE
NEED TO HOLD REALLY IN MIND.
74% OF INCARCERATED WOMEN
CONVICTED OF MURDER OR
MANSLAUGHTER EXPERIENCED
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN
THE YEAR BEFORE THEIR
INCARCERATION. APPROXIMATELY 50
TO 60% OF U.S. SEX TRAFFICKING
SURVIVORS FIRST EXPERIENCED
EXPLOITATION AS MINORS. WHAT
ABOUT THE VICTIMS IN FRONT OF
US? WHAT ABOUT THE SURVIVORS IN
FRONT OF US? AB 910 IS A SECOND
CHANCE BILL, A DIGNITY BILL.
SURVIVORS SHOULD NOT SPEND
THEIR LIVES PRAYING FOR ABUSE
THEY ENDURED, GRANTING
SURVIVORS MEANINGFUL LEGAL
RELIEF CAN BREAK CYCLES OF
VIOLENCE, OF POVERTY, ALLOWING
SURVIVORS TO ACCESS CRITICAL
RESOURCES SUCH AS HOUSING,
EMPLOYMENT AND HEALING. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
FOR JOINING US. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND TELLING
YOUR YOUR VERY POWERFUL STORY
OF YOUR COURAGE AND FOR ALL
THAT YOU'RE DOING TO HELP OTHER
VICTIMS AS WELL. SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. OKAY. WE WILL
TRANSITION TO THE NEXT BILL,
WHICH IS FILE ITEM EIGHT, A B
2624 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
THIS IS THE SIXTH TIME
PRESENTING THIS BILL IN
COMMITTEES AND POLICY
COMMITTEES, SO WE'LL JUST KEEP
THAT IN MIND. THANK YOU TO THE
COMMITTEE AND CHAIR FOR WORKING
WITH MY OFFICE ON THIS BILL. I
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS,
AND I WANT TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE FOR BEING ABLE TO
CODIFY THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE
SOUGHT TO HAVE A PART OF THIS
PROCESS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
AB 2624 THE SAFE AT WORK ACT
EXPANDS CALIFORNIA'S SAFE AT
HOME PROGRAM TO INCLUDE
IMMIGRANT SERVICE PROVIDERS,
THEIR EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS.
THIS PROGRAM ALLOWS
PARTICIPANTS TO USE A
SUBSTITUTE ADDRESS DESIGNATED
BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE,
KEEPING THEIR HOME WORK AND
SCHOOL ADDRESSES OUT OF PUBLIC
RECORDS, WHILE STILL ALLOWING
THEM TO SAFELY RECEIVE MAIL AND
LEGAL DOCUMENTS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE AND THROUGH THE STATE.
INDIVIDUALS WHO PROVIDE VITAL
IMMIGRANT SUPPORT SERVICES,
INCLUDING LEGAL AID,
HUMANITARIAN RELIEF, CASE
MANAGEMENT AND ADVOCACY ARE
FACING TARGETED HARASSMENT.
THIS IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
ADVOCATES AND WORKERS ARE
RECEIVING DEATH THREATS, BEING
TARGETED AT COURTHOUSES AND
FACING COORDINATED ONLINE
DOXING CAMPAIGNS. EVEN FACING
THIS VITRIOL AT HOME, THESE
THREATS HAVE RISEN SHARPLY IN
2025 AND ARE EXPECTED TO
CONTINUE DUE TO THE CURRENT
POLITICAL CLIMATE. AT THE SAME
TIME, PERSONAL INFORMATION IS
INCREASINGLY EASY TO ACCESS.
DATA BROKERS COLLECT AND SELL
INFORMATION FROM PUBLIC RECORDS,
AND SOCIAL MEDIA CAN ALLOW
INDIVIDUALS TO PIECE TOGETHER
IDENTIFYING DETAILS. THIS MAKES
IT EASIER FOR BAD ACTORS TO
THREATEN OR HARM THOSE WHO ARE
SIMPLY DOING THEIR JOBS.
ADVOCATES IN CALIFORNIA REPEAT
BEING DOXED OF STAFF FOR STAFF
AND VOLUNTEERS AT IMMIGRATION
LEGAL AID ORGANIZATIONS,
COORDINATED DEATH THREATS
AGAINST SURVIVORS, SERVICE
PROVIDERS, ANTI-IMMIGRANT
VIGILANTE ACTIVITY DIRECTED AT
ORGANIZATIONS BY NAME AND
ADDRESS OF THEIR EMPLOYEES AND
VOLUNTEERS. SINCE SINCE ITS
INCEPTION NEARLY 30 YEARS AGO,
THE SAFE AT HOME PROGRAM HAS
PROTECTED THOUSANDS OF VICTIMS
OF STALKING AND DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VICTIMS, ALONG WITH
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE
WORKERS. THE CONFIDENTIALITY
PROGRAM PROTECTION PROGRAM IS
SIMPLE IT PROVIDES PARTICIPANTS
WITH A SUBSTITUTE ADDRESS TO
SHIELD THEIR REAL ADDRESSES,
REQUIRES THE SECRETARY OF STATE
TO ACT AS AN INTERMEDIARY FOR
MAIL AND LEGAL SERVICE,
FORWARDING DOCUMENTS WITHIN A
SHORT TIME FRAME, KEEPING
INDIVIDUALS, PARTICIPANTS, HOME,
WORK AND SCHOOL ADDRESSES
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTED FROM
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. THIS BILL IS
VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. HERE TO
TESTIFY ARE MONICA MADRID WITH
THE COALITION FOR HUMANE
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS. MONICA IS
ALSO AN IMMIGRANT ECONOMIC
JUSTICE FELLOW WITH THE SALAS
POLICY INSTITUTE, WITH THE
WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF
CALIFORNIA. AND KAREN STOUT ON
BEHALF OF POWER CALIFORNIA
ACTION. THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE TODAY. YOU EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MONICA
MADRID. I'M A STATE POLICY
ADVOCATE WITH THE COALITION FOR
HUMANE IMMIGRANT RIGHTS, OR
CHIRLA AND IMMIGRANT ECONOMIC
JUSTICE FELLOW WITH THE SALAS
POLICY INSTITUTE AT THE WOMEN'S
FOUNDATION. I'M HERE AS A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR OF AB 2624 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BONTA. AB 2624
EXPANDS CALIFORNIA SAFE AT HOME
PROGRAM TO INCLUDE IMMIGRANT
SERVING ORGANIZATIONS AND
WORKERS WHO FACE GROWING
THREATS. BECAUSE OF THE
COMMUNITIES THAT WE SERVE. FOR
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE CHIRLA,
THESE THREATS ARE NOT
THEORETICAL. WE HAVE
EXPERIENCED INCIDENCES WHERE
INDIVIDUALS FOLLOWED STAFF INTO
OUR SACRAMENTO AND SAN
BERNARDINO OFFICES. BECAUSE OF
THE WORK WE DO SUPPORTING
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES AT OUR LA
OFFICES. INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN
FOLLOWED MULTIPLE TIMES NOW BY
STAFF INTO THE BUILDING AND
ATTEMPTED TO ACCESS OUR
RESTRICTED AREAS. OUR INTAKE
LINES HAVE RECEIVED THREATENING
MESSAGES AND INDIVIDUALS HAVE
EVEN SHOWN UP AT THE HOME OF A
FAMILY MEMBER OF OUR EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR LOOKING FOR HER. THESE
INCIDENCES ARE OCCURRING DURING
A HEIGHTENED TIME OF HOSTILITY
TOWARD IMMIGRANTS AND THE
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SERVE THEM
AS IMMIGRANT. AS IMMIGRANT.
SERVING ORGANIZATIONS CONTINUE
TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES. KNOW
YOUR RIGHTS, EDUCATION, RAPID
RESPONSE, AND HUMANITARIAN
ASSISTANCE. STAFF ARE
INCREASINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT
THEIR PERSONAL INFORMATION, AND
IT COULD BE USED TO HARASS AND
INTIMIDATE OR HARM THEM AND
THEIR FAMILIES. AB 2624
PROVIDES A PRACTICAL, PROVEN
SOLUTION BY ALLOWING ELIGIBLE
INDIVIDUALS TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE SAFE AT HOME PROGRAM. THIS
BILL HELPS PROTECT HOME ADDRESS
INFORMATION WHILE PRESERVING
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND
TRANSPARENCY. NO ONE SHOULD
HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN SERVING
THEIR COMMUNITY AND PROTECTING
THEIR FAMILY SAFETY. CALIFORNIA
HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT
CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FACE
ELEVATED RISKS BECAUSE OF THEIR
WORK, AND IMMIGRANT SERVING
ORGANIZATIONS DESERVE ACCESS TO
THESE SAME PROTECTIONS. THANK
YOU, AND WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR,
AND GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, KAREN STOUT HERE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA ACTION.
FOR PERMISSION, I'D LIKE TO
READ THE TESTIMONY OF RUSSO AND
MARTINEZ, FELLOW WITH THE SOLIS
POLICY INSTITUTE, CO-SPONSORS
OF THE BILL, AS WELL AS THE
SENIOR POLICY STRATEGIST WITH
CALIFORNIA ACTION POWER.
CALIFORNIA ACTION SERVES YOUNG
PEOPLE AND WORKING FAMILIES
WITH DEEP ROOTS IN IMMIGRANT
COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE.
AS THE DAUGHTER OF IMMIGRANTS
AND AS SOMEONE WHO WORKS
CLOSELY WITH OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS, MANY HAVE BECOME
INCREASINGLY CONCERNED WITH THE
SAFETY OF THEIR STAFF,
VOLUNTEERS, AND COMMUNITY
LEADERS. TO ECHO THE COMMENTS
OF MY FELLOW SPEAKER, THESE
CONCERNS ARE NOT HYPOTHETICAL.
IN THE PAST YEAR, POWER
CALIFORNIA ACTION BOARD MEMBERS
HAVE BEEN TARGETED AND DOXED
FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DO IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES. WE HAVE HAD
TO BECOME MORE INTENTIONAL
ABOUT PROTECTING THE PRIVACY
AND SECURITY OF OUR STAFF, OUR
YOUTH LEADERS, AND EVEN THE
STAFF OF OUR PARTNER
ORGANIZATIONS, WHICH DIVERTS
TIME, ENERGY AND RESOURCES AWAY
FROM OUR CORE WORK. AND WE
AREN'T THE ONLY ORGANIZATION
TAKING THESE PRECAUTIONARY
MEASURES. WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED
ABOUT THE MESSAGE THIS SENDS
THE NEXT GENERATION OF
IMMIGRANT IMMIGRATION ADVOCATES,
ATTORNEYS, ORGANIZERS, AND
SERVICE PROVIDERS. WE WORK
CLOSELY WITH YOUNG PEOPLE WHO
WANT TO PURSUE CAREERS IN
PUBLIC SERVICE AND COMMUNITY
ADVOCACY. WHEN THEY SEE PEOPLE
BEING HARASSED, THREATENED, OR
DOXED SIMPLY FOR HELPING
IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES ACCESS
SERVICES AND EXERCISE THEIR
RIGHTS, THESE CAREERS BEGAN TO
FEEL UNSAFE AND UNATTAINABLE.
PRIVACY IS NOT AN ABSTRACT
ISSUE FOR MANY PEOPLE. IT IS
WHAT ALLOWS THEM TO CONTINUE
SHOWING UP FOR THEIR
COMMUNITIES WITHOUT WORRYING
THAT THEY OR THEIR FAMILIES
WILL BECOME TARGETS. IT'S WHAT
ALLOWS IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES TO
FEEL SAFE, SEEKING THE
RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED. FOR
THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR. I VOTE ON AB 2624.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL INVITE ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB 2624 TO. PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ON
THE BILL. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. JESSICA HèA WITH
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
MEMBERS, CLEO BLUTHENTHAL ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR
MEMBERS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER OF THE COUNCIL ON
AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS
OF THE CALIFORNIA IMMIGRANT
POLICY CENTER IN STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MIKE. HAROLD WITH
THE WOMEN'S FOUNDATION OF
CALIFORNIA. I'M THE MENTOR TO
THIS TEAM, AND I'M ALSO HERE IN
SUPPORT WITH THE ASIAN
AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE,
JUSTICE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
IN CHILDHOOD POVERTY. UNIDOS,
U.S. MISSION ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CRACK.
AND WE ARE CHEN I VOTE THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, SANDRA, ON
BEHALF OF WESTERN CENTER ON LAW
AND POVERTY IN SUPPORT. GOOD
MORNING. ON BEHALF OF ASIAN
AMERICANS ADVANCING JUSTICE IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. IN SUPPORT.
MALCOLM ROOKS, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA. SAFETY AND JUSTICE
AND SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING.
EDITOR LITTLE ON BEHALF OF
CRIME SURVIVORS. SPEAK IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. BUENOS
DIAS. ISRAEL VILLA WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH
AND COMMUNITY JUSTICE AND
STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU. JOSH.
PROUD SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR AB 2624
COALITION TO ABOLISH SLAVERY
AND TRAFFICKING AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING NO
ONE ELSE COME FORWARD WILL NOW
TAKE UP TO TWO PRINCIPAL
OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO THE
BILL. OPPOSITION? YES. AND YOU
EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES TO
ADDRESS THE COMMITTEE. YOU HAVE
TO PRESS THE BUTTON. SORRY,
IT'S MY FIRST TIME. I LIKE THE
RECORD TO BE NOTED THAT IT DOES
SMELL LIKE FISH IN HERE. DON'T
KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, BUT
THERE'S A SMELL FUNNY IN HERE,
SO. THE STOP NICK SHIRLEY ACT,
ALSO KNOWN AS AB 2624, IS A
HORRIBLE BILL. AND IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND
WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING.
FIRST OF ALL, THE NARRATIVE
THAT THESE FRAUDSTERS WHO HAVE
STOLEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM
AMERICAN FAMILIES ARE BEING
HARASSED AND THREATENED, QUITE
THE OPPOSITE, THE PEOPLE WHO
ARE EXPOSING THE FRAUD. IF YOU
CAN, PLEASE DIRECT YOUR
TESTIMONY. YEAH. SORRY ABOUT
THAT COMMITTEE. YOU'RE SPEAKING
TO THE COMMITTEE? YES, SIR. SO
PLEASE EXERCISE SOME DECORUM IN
THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU'RE
ADDRESSING MORE RESPECTFUL. YES,
SIR. SO THE NARRATIVE THAT HAS
BEEN PRESENTED TODAY IS
EXTREMELY FALSE. PEOPLE SUCH AS
NICK SHIRLEY AND OTHER
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISTS WHO
HAVE EXPOSED THIS FRAUD,
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS STOLEN FROM
AMERICAN FAMILIES, THEY'RE THE
ONES BEING THREATENED, HARASSED
AND DOXXED. THERE ARE THESE
MAFIAS THAT WORK HAND IN HAND
WITH THESE CORRUPT NONPROFITS
AND ORGANIZATIONS, AND THEY
HAVE FOLLOWED ME HOME AS WELL.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO
PEOPLE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY
THEY'RE BEING HARASSED, MAYBE
IT'S BECAUSE THE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THEY'VE STOLEN FROM
AMERICAN FAMILIES, THEY DON'T
HAVE A GUILTY CONSCIENCE, WHICH
MEANS THEY PROBABLY DON'T HAVE
A SOUL. THIS BILL ONLY CAME
ABOUT AFTER THE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS OF FRAUD WAS EXPOSED.
THIS BILL DIDN'T COME ABOUT
BEFOREHAND. IT CAME AFTERWARDS.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE
UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGICAL
ORDER OF THINGS AND THE
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, AS WELL AS
THE, YOU KNOW, BLATANT CONFLICT
OF INTEREST THAT'S HAPPENING
BEHIND THE SCENES. WE DON'T
NEED TO GET INTO TOO MUCH
PILLOW TALK ABOUT ALL THAT.
NICK SHIRLEY IS A YOUNG
AMERICAN PATRIOT. HE'S A HERO.
HE CAME TO CALIFORNIA TO EXPOSE
THE FRAUD AND CORRUPTION, WHICH
IS JUST LIKE MINNESOTA
HAPPENING IN OUR STATE AS WELL.
AND INSTEAD OF CALIFORNIA
LEADERS THANKING HIM AND
ACTUALLY SOLVING THE PROBLEM
AND ADDRESSING THE CORRUPTION
AND FRAUD, WHICH IS AS
WIDESPREAD AS IT IS RAMPANT.
I'VE BEEN TO THE AMAZON
RAINFOREST, NEW ORLEANS. I'VE
BEEN TO EVERY SWAMP AROUND THE
BEND. THIS SACRAMENTO SWAMP
NEEDS A GOOD DRAINING. WE THE
PEOPLE EXPECT OUR CALIFORNIA
LEADERS TO BE OPEN AND HONEST.
WE DEMAND TRANSPARENCY. WE
DON'T WANT OUR LEADERS COVERING
THEIR TRACKS OR THEIR TRAILS
BECAUSE THEY BUILT A HOUSE OF
CARDS BUILT ON CORRUPTION AND
FRAUD. ATTACKING THE TRUTH IS,
IS EXTREMELY HARMFUL FOR OUR
REPUBLIC. SIR, IF YOU COULD
PLEASE WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS,
WE'D APPRECIATE IT. YES, SIR.
WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND THAT YOU
GUYS DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR
POWER TO STOP THIS BILL. IT IS
AN ATTACK ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. AND
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS, AS WELL
AS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ARE
WATCHING YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU
DO. AND I SINCERELY HOPE THAT
YOU WOULD HOLD THESE FRAUDSTERS
ACCOUNTABLE. THIS IS NOT AN
ATTACK ON AN ON IMMIGRANTS. I
LOVE PEOPLE OF ALL RACES AND
RELIGIONS. THIS IS ABOUT FRAUD
AND CORRUPTION. THIS IS NOT
ABOUT WHAT RACE OR RELIGION YOU
ARE. THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
THAT WERE STOLEN WERE STOLEN
FROM DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN
FAMILIES. DIDN'T MATTER WHAT
SIDE OF THE AISLE YOU WERE ON.
THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. HI. TARA
THORNTON, FREEDOM ANGELS. I
WASN'T PREPARED TO SPEAK TODAY,
BUT I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO AGAIN.
ALWAYS AGAINST HATE, AGAINST
ANY PEOPLE, IMMIGRANTS,
CITIZENS, WHOEVER THEY ARE. BUT
THIS BILL READS LIKE SOMETHING
ELSE. AND AND SO I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT SOME OF THE DETAILS, LIKE,
YOU KNOW, THIS BILL ATTACKS
LIKE STANDARD INVESTIGATIVE
TECHNIQUES, WHICH IS LIKE
PUBLIC VIDEOTAPING OF
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTED
FACILITIES. AND IN THE LAST
COUPLE OF YEARS, WHEN IT'S BEEN
EXPOSED, LIKE WIDESPREAD FRAUD
IN THE HOSPICE, WELFARE, HEALTH
SERVICES, EDUCATION, IT HAS
SHOCKED AMERICA BECAUSE THESE
ARE PUBLIC FUNDS. AND SO I
THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A WAY
TO GET AT PROTECTING PEOPLE,
BUT ALSO GOING AFTER THE BAD
ACTORS. WE TALKED ABOUT BAD
ACTORS, BUT THERE ARE BAD
ACTORS. THIS FRAUD HAS BEEN
EXPOSED AND IT NEEDS TO BE
PROTECTED. THE BILL GOES VERY
INTO THE INTENT TO HARM. IT
GOES OVER VERY HARSH PENALTIES
FOR INTENT TO HARM. INTENT TO
HARM WILL BE BROUGHT IS BROADLY
GOING TO BE INTERPRETED BY THE
COURTS, COULD INCLUDE GOING
AGAINST SOMEONE'S REPUTATION OR
HURTING THEIR FINANCES. WELL,
IF YOU'RE EXPOSING SOMEONE WHO
IS PERPETRATING FRAUD, THAT
STILL DOES HURT THEIR
REPUTATION AND THEIR FINANCES.
AND SO HOW DO WE GET AT THE
PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THE WHEN
THEY SAW THESE EXPOSES, THEY
WANTED TO SEE AMERICA. YOU KNOW,
OUR ELECTEDS OF EVERY PARTY
WORK TO STOP THIS. WE CAN
ALWAYS STOP HATE TOO. BUT WE'VE
GOT TO STOP THE BAD ACTORS ON
THE FRAUD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. WE'LL INVITE ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION
TO AB 2624 TO PLEASE APPROACH
THE MICROPHONE. IF YOU CAN
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION
OR WHAT CITY YOU'RE FROM, YOUR
POSITION ON THE BILL. LESLIE
SAWYER, MOUNTAIN TOP MEDIA,
INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
JORDAN BRYCE, POLITICAL
COMMENTATOR IN OPPOSITION. WITH
CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW, NAKED
TRUTH. AND I AM IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION TO AB 2624? IF THERE
IS ANYONE OUTSIDE OF THE
HEARING ROOM, WE ARE INVITING
ANY OPPOSITION WITNESSES FOR AB
2624. NO, SIR. YOU ALREADY
SPOKE. ONCE AGAIN. ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES? SEEING NO
ONE COME FORWARD, I'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE DAIS FOR QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS. THANK YOU, VICE
CHAIR. THANK YOU SIR. WELL,
LET'S JUST ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT
IN THE ROOM. WE ALL KNOW WHAT
THIS IS ABOUT. AND AND AND WHAT
GENERATED THE INTEREST IN DOING
A BILL LIKE THIS. AND EVEN
THOUGH THE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE
QUESTIONED THE. THE MANNER OF,
OF THE PRESENTATION, THE POINTS
OF THE PRESENTATION BY BOTH OF
THE OPPONENTS KIND OF GET TO
THE HEART OF THE MATTER. THIS
WAS INSTIGATED BECAUSE A PERSON
WENT OUT WHO, WHETHER YOU THINK
HE HAS PRESS CREDENTIALS OR NOT,
DISCOVERED SOME INTERESTING
GOINGS ON, BOTH IN A DIFFERENT
STATE AND THEN IN OUR STATE AS
WELL. AND, AND THAT HAS
ACTUALLY LED TO THE UNCOVERING
OF A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
FRAUD. IF WE ARE GOING TO DO
THIS BILL, WHO IS GOING TO
ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES? BECAUSE
OTHERWISE WE WOULD STILL NOT BE
ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES IF
THOSE HAD NOT BEEN UNCOVERED BY
A PERSON THAT UNDER THIS BILL
IS GOING TO BE QUASHED IN THEIR
EFFORTS TO DO WHATEVER THEIR
JOB IS, WHETHER THEY THEY FEEL
THAT THEY ARE A SELF APPOINTED
PERSON. BUT WHEN I'M LOOKING AT
THE LANGUAGE AS HARASSMENT,
WHAT CONSTITUTES HARASSMENT? IS
THAT WHAT WE GET EVERY DAY WHEN
WE WALK DOWN THE STREET AND
PEOPLE ARE SHOVING THINGS IN
OUR FACE, WE DON'T CONSIDER
THAT HARASSMENT. THAT'S PART OF
THE JOB. IF YOU ARE TAKING
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OR MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS FROM THE TAXPAYERS
IN AN EFFORT TO DO SOMETHING
THAT WE THINK, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER IT'S CHILD CARE OR OR
WHATEVER SERVICES IT IS, AND
IT'S NOT BEING DIRECTED THAT
WAY. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE
MEANS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS THAT. AND YET WE'VE
DISCOVERED THAT THOSE MEANS ARE
FAILING US. SO. THAT'S MY
CONCERN WITH THIS IS WHERE IT'S
GENERATED FROM, IT'S GENERATED
FROM. AND TRYING TO QUASH THE
ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE LED TO
SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW WELL
OUR MONEY IS BEING SPENT. AND
ABSENT THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S
GOING TO TAKE THE MANTLE
BECAUSE I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE
TIME TO GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE
ALL THESE THINGS MYSELF. SO
THESE INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS,
WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL
THEM, SEEM TO BE TOUCHING A
NERVE. AND THIS BILL IS AN
EXAMPLE OF THAT NERVE, AND
THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR BRINGING THIS BILL
FORWARD. AND I DO HAVE AN EYE
RECOMMENDATION. SO WE DO NOT
HAVE A QUORUM. SO WHEN WE
ESTABLISH A QUORUM, WILL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE BILL.
BUT I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO
MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT. THANK
YOU CHAIR, I APPRECIATE THAT.
AND FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE I
REALLY, REALLY RESPECT YOU
GREATLY, SENATOR, I WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVEN'T
FALLEN PRIVY TO MISINFORMATION
AND DISINFORMATION AND ARE NOT
ACTUALLY INDICATING ANYTHING
RELATED TO WHAT GENERATED
INTEREST, BECAUSE THAT WOULD
ASSUME THAT YOU ARE MAKING A
YOU'RE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT
WHAT GENERATED INTEREST IN THIS
BILL. AND TO BE QUITE HONEST,
THAT IS EXCUSE ME, WE DON'T
ALLOW WITNESSES TO RECORD THE
AUTHORS. IF YOU CANNOT. IF YOU
CANNOT, SHE'S ATTACKING ME AND
I DON'T NEED THAT. OKAY. I WAS
VERY POLITE. LET'S LET'S JUST
LET'S HAVE SOME DECORUM HERE.
SO, SIR, IF YOU CAN JUST
TECHNICALLY ALL THE ALL THE
WITNESSES DON'T NEED TO SIT
HERE ANYMORE BECAUSE WE'VE
HEARD YOUR TESTIMONY SO PEOPLE
CAN PLEASE TAKE THEIR SEATS AT
THIS TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE
WHAT ACTUALLY GENERATED
INTEREST IN THIS BILL WAS A
MISCHARACTERIZATION FROM THE
DAIS. WHAT GENERATED INTEREST
IN THIS BILL WAS FAR BEFORE
NICK CHIRLA ACTUALLY EVER
VIDEOED ANYTHING IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. THIS THIS BILL
WAS GENERATED. THE INTEREST
THAT WAS GENERATED FROM THIS
BILL CAME FROM IMMIGRANT
SERVICE PROVIDERS BEING
ATTACKED. IT CAME FROM PEOPLE
SHOWING UP AT THEIR HOUSES AND
HOMES AND ATTACKING THEM. THAT
IS WHAT GENERATED THE INTEREST
FOR THIS BILL MANY, MANY, MANY
MONTHS BEFORE THAT. SO THE
CHRONOLOGY THAT WAS OFFERED BY
THE OPPOSITION IS FACTUALLY
INCORRECT. YOU CAN ACTUALLY
CHECK THE RECORD ON THAT. THIS
BILL IS ABOUT ENSURING THAT
PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE
IN A 30 YEAR OLD PROGRAM IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING
IMMIGRANT SERVICE PROVIDERS TO
BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND I WANT
TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS DOES
NOTHING AT ALL TO SILENCE
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM.
PEOPLE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY
TO INVESTIGATE ORGANIZATIONS,
TO LOOK AT PUBLIC RECORDS, TO
BE ABLE TO LOOK AT NONPROFIT
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES, TO BE
ABLE TO HAVE ALL ACCOUNTABILITY
MECHANISMS AVAILABLE TO THEM,
BECAUSE ALL OF US CARE ABOUT
ENSURING THAT THE PROGRAMS AND
GRANTS THAT WE OFFER TO
EVERYBODY ARE ACTUALLY
INSTITUTED WITH GREAT FIDELITY.
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG JOURNEY.
SIX DIFFERENT COMMITTEE
HEARINGS THAT WE'VE GONE
THROUGH, MEMBERS OF MY STAFF,
PROVIDERS WHO HAVE TESTIFIED
BEFORE HERE BEING ATTACKED,
MEMBERS OF THIS LEGISLATURE
BEING ATTACKED. SO FORGIVE ME
IF I SPEAK WITH PASSION ABOUT
THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION. IT
IS TIME NOW FOR US TO BE ABLE
TO FOCUS ON WHAT THE ACTUAL
ISSUE IS. PLEASE DON'T
MISCHARACTERIZE THAT THE ACTUAL
ISSUE THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON
IS ENSURING THAT MEMBERS HAVE
THE ABILITY OF OUR COMMUNITY,
HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE
PROTECTED. WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR AYE
VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER. ONCE AGAIN, WE
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM AT THIS
TIME. SO WE'RE ENTERTAIN A
MOTION ON THE BILL WHEN WE
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. AND THANK
YOU. SO WE HAVE A NUMBER OF
AUTHORS HERE. WE DO TAKE
MEASURES IN FILE ORDER. AND I
DO SEE ASSEMBLY MEMBER RAMOS
AND HE IS ITEM NUMBER ONE. I
KNOW, MR. LACKEY. YOU'VE BEEN
WAITING VERY PATIENTLY. I SEE A
SIMILAR PATEL HERE. I THINK SHE
IS BEFORE YOU, MR. LACKEY. SO I,
I LEAVE IT TO BOTH OF YOU TO
WORK OUT AN ARRANGEMENT. IF
YOU'D LIKE TO LET ANOTHER
MEMBER GO BEFOREHAND, BUT WE'LL
GO TO SAMUEL RAMOS AT THIS TIME.
OKAY. AND WE'LL PROCEED NOW TO
FILE 1AB31 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
RAMOS. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. TODAY I'M
PRESENTING AB 31, WHICH IS
ANOTHER PART OF A LONG STANDING
EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE MISSING
AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS PERSONS
CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA. PUBLIC
LAW 280 WAS ENACTED THAT
STRIPPED SEVEN STATES OF THEIR
TRUE POLICING AUTHORITY ON
TRIBAL LANDS. CALIFORNIA IS ONE
OF THOSE STATES. AS I HAVE
HIGHLIGHTED DURING MY TIME IN
THE LEGISLATURE, OUR STATE IS
HOME TO THE MOST NATIVE
AMERICAN POPULATION AND ALASKA
NATIVES IN THE COUNTRY, YET HAS
THE FIFTH HIGHEST NUMBER OF
MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS
PERSONS CASES. THIS IS A CRISIS
THAT AFFECTS MANY TRIBAL
FAMILIES THAT HAVE HAD A LOVED
ONE GONE MISSING AND HASN'T
EVEN BEEN INVESTIGATED. JUST
LAST YEAR, WE WERE ABLE TO
ESTABLISH THE TRIBAL POLICE
PILOT PROGRAM, WHICH GRANTS
TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS,
STATE PEACE OFFICER AUTHORITY,
THROUGH A PROGRAM. HOWEVER,
THIS PROGRAM IS SET TO EXPIRE
IN 2029. ALTHOUGH THIS PROGRAM
IS A BIG STEP TOWARDS
ADDRESSING THIS CRISIS,
PARTICIPANTS MUST UNDERGO A
RIGOROUS PROCESS TO FULFILL THE
CONDITIONS OF THE PROGRAM. THIS
MEANS A TRIBE WITH LIMITED
RESOURCES TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE
MUST DECIDE BETWEEN EXTENSIVE
WORKLOAD FOR A PROGRAM THAT IS
SET TO EXPIRE, OR THEY CAN
CHOOSE TO DIVERT RESOURCES
ELSEWHERE. BEING UNABLE TO
PARTICIPATE IN THIS
GROUNDBREAKING PROGRAM WITH AN
EVER INCREASING LEVEL OF
MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS
PERSONS CASES THROUGHOUT THE
STATE, AND NOT ENOUGH LOCAL OR
STATE RESOURCES BEING ALLOCATED
TO PROTECT TRIBAL COMMUNITIES,
WE LEAVE THEM FEELING
DISREGARDED. WE MUST SHOW THE
TRIBES THAT THE STATE IS FULLY
COMMITTED AND READY TO INVEST
IN LONG TERM PROJECTS, RATHER
THAN SHORT TERM PROGRAMS. WITH
THESE CONSIDERATIONS, AB 31
WOULD DO TWO THINGS. FIRST, WE
WOULD MAKE THE TRIBAL POLICE
PROGRAM PERMANENT, ALLOWING FOR
THE NECESSARY TIMING TO ENSURE
OUR TRIBAL PARTNERS AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GET THE
PROGRAM RUNNING EFFICIENTLY AND
CAN DO THE WORK IT HAS SET OUT
TO ACHIEVE. SECONDLY, WE WOULD
ESTABLISH THE MISSING AND
MURDERED INDIGENOUS PERSONS
TASK FORCE HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THIS TASK FORCE HAS
LONG BEEN AN IDEA THAT HAS YET
TO BE FULLY REALIZED, AND TODAY
WE HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE IT
BECOME REALITY. IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THE TASK FORCE WILL
BE COORDINATED BY OUR STATE
POLICE, THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
PATROL, AND IN ACCORDANCE IN
COORDINATION WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO
ENHANCE STATEWIDE COORDINATION
INVESTIGATIONS. IMPLEMENTING
THESE POLICIES WILL BRING MUCH
NEEDED SOLUTIONS AND TOOLS TO
HELP ADDRESS THE MISSING AND
MURDERED INDIGENOUS PERSONS
CRISIS IN OUR STATE AND REALLY
HONOR CALIFORNIA'S FIRST PEOPLE
WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL TODAY IS CHAIRMAN
JOE JAMES OF THE YUROK TRIBE,
THE LARGEST TRIBE IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS JOE JAMES, CHAIRMAN OF THE
YUROK TRIBE. THANK YOU,
CHAIRMAN AND COMMITTEE FOR
ALLOWING ME HERE TO TESTIFY ON
THIS IMPORTANT MATTER. ON
BEHALF OF THE YUROK TRIBE, I
I'M HERE TODAY TO EXPRESS OUR
SUPPORT AND SPONSORSHIP FOR AB
31, THE TRIBE. THIS BILL HELPS
HELPS US TO TACKLE THE MURDERED
AND MISSING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
CRISIS HEAD ON. A. AB 31 WOULD
MAKE THE PILOT PROGRAM AS, AS
MENTIONED, MORE PERMANENT,
HIGHLIGHTING TO TRIBES THAT THE
STATE IS FULLY READY TO INVEST
LONG TERM STAND AND BY BY A
PARTNER IN ADDRESSING THIS
CRISIS. THIS BILL WOULD ALSO
ESTABLISH THE MURDERED AND
MISSING INDIGENOUS PERSONS TASK
FORCE. AS RAMOS MENTIONED.
AGAIN, IT IS THE RIGHT MESSAGE
TO SEND FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA TO TACKLE THIS
ONGOING CRISIS THAT'S NEAR AND
DEAR TO ALL OF US. FIRST
PEOPLES HERE AT HOME IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ULTIMATELY,
THIS BILL IS ABOUT EMPOWERING
TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AND
SHOWCASING TO TRIBAL NATIONS
THE STATE'S FULL COMMITMENT TO
ADDRESSING THE CRISIS WITH LONG
TERM SOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF SHORT
TERM ONES. WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
AB 31, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A YES VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT FOR AB 31? IF YOU CAN,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE
AND STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION. GOOD
MORNING. MARCOS AGUILAR,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LOS
ANGELES. I'M AN ADVISOR TO THE
GABRIELINO SHOSHONE NATION HERE
TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR AB 31.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS. CHRIS
LINDSTROM, CALIFORNIA TRIBAL
BUSINESS ALLIANCE. WE'RE IN
SUPPORT. AND ALSO WILTON
RANCHERIA IS IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, CHRIS. RAYMOND, C
HITCHCOCK, TRIBAL COUNCIL
MEMBER, WILTON RANCHERIA,
FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBE
RIGHT HERE IN SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA. I AM IN SUPPORT OF
AB 31 FOR CREATING THE MMIP AND
THE TRIBAL POLICE FUND. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR AB 31? GOOD
MORNING, DON BROWN. I AM IN
SUPPORT WILTON RANCHERIA. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB 31, WE'LL TAKE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES. ARE THERE
ANY OPPOSITION WITNESSES SEEING
NO ONE COME FORWARD, I'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE DAIS FOR ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE
COMMITTEE. STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, FOR BRINGING
THIS FORWARD, AND I'LL TURN IT
BACK OVER TO YOU TO MAKE A
CLOSING STATEMENT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR THAT, AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ONGOING SUPPORT OF
THESE ISSUES TO CALIFORNIA'S
FIRST PEOPLE. I ASK FOR YOUR
AYE VOTE WHEN THE TIME IS
APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OKAY. WE'LL NOW PROCEED
TO OUR NEXT BILL AND FILE ORDER,
AND WE'LL PROCEED TO FILING 25
AB 1959 BY SENATOR PATEL. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. GOOD MORNING
AND GOOD MORNING, MEMBERS.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT AB 1959. THIS BILL
SEEKS TO CLOSE A LOOPHOLE IN
THE LAW RELATED TO A SCHOOL
SHOOTING IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY.
YOU WILL HEAR FROM WITNESS
TESTIMONY OF THE REAL PAIN AND
IMPACT THAT WAS CAUSED BY THIS
SCHOOL SHOOTING IN 2001 AT
SANTANA HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH
ENDED THE LIVES OF TWO FELLOW
STUDENTS AND CAUSED INJURY TO
11 OTHER STUDENTS, ONE TEACHER
AND ONE CAMPUS SECURITY OFFICER.
THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS SENTENCED
TO PRISON AFTER HIS GUILTY PLEA.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF A LOOPHOLE
IN THE LAW, HE WAS ABLE TO FILE
FOR RESENTENCING IN A
JURISDICTION THAT DIDN'T EVEN
TRY HIM. EVEN AFTER BEING
DENIED PAROLE MONTHS BEFORE HIS
RESENTENCING MOTION. AB 1959
SIMPLY SEEKS TO ENSURE THAT MY
COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO FEEL
SAFE AND THAT CONVICTED
INDIVIDUALS ARE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS
UNTIL THEY ARE SUCCESSFULLY
REHABILITATED. I URGE YOUR AYE
VOTE TODAY AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. WITH ME TO TESTIFY TODAY
ARE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
NICOLE ROTH AND KRISTIN MARIE
DARE, A SURVIVOR OF THE SANTANA
SHOOTING. HI. GOOD MORNING.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS HERE. YOU MAKE SURE THE
MIC IS ON. IS THAT. YES. SHOULD
BE WORKING. OKAY. THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
THIS OPPORTUNITY. AND THANK YOU
ALSO, ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATEL,
FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL WORK ON
THIS BILL. MY NAME IS NICOLE
ROTH. I'M A DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WITH THE SAN DIEGO
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. AND ON BEHALF OF MY
OFFICE, WE ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. AB 1959
IS A NECESSARY CORRECTION TO
PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY AND
RESTORE THE TRUST THAT VICTIMS
AND COMMUNITIES HAVE IN OUR
JUSTICE SYSTEM. THIS BILL DOES
NOT ELIMINATE 1170 DE RE
SENTENCING. IT RESTORES
JUDICIAL DISCRETION WITHIN THAT
PROCESS, AND THAT IS A CRUCIAL
COMPONENT OF RESENTENCING. IT
WAS A COMPONENT THAT WAS
INITIALLY CONTEMPLATED BY THIS
LEGISLATURE WHEN THEY CREATED
PENAL CODE SECTION 1170 D. THE
INTENT WAS CLEAR THAT JUDGES
WOULD DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY AND
THEN HOLD A FULL AND THOUGHTFUL
RESENTENCING HEARING, AT WHICH
THEY WOULD CAREFULLY WEIGH
YOUTH REHABILITATION AND
REMORSE BEFORE REDUCING ANY
SENTENCE. IT WAS MEANT TO BE A
THOUGHTFUL, INDIVIDUALIZED AND
SAFE APPROACH TO RESENTENCING.
BUT TODAY THAT TWO STEP PROCESS
HAS COLLAPSED AND IN EFFECT,
ONCE A PETITIONER IS FOUND
ELIGIBLE, THAT CASE TRANSFERS
BACK TO JUVENILE COURT, WHERE
THE DETERMINATION IS MADE BASED
ON THAT PERSON'S AGE, AT THE
TIME OF THEIR COMMISSION OF THE
OFFENSE AND NOT ON
REHABILITATION, PUBLIC SAFETY
OR RISK. IF THE OFFENDER WAS
UNDER 16 AT THE TIME OF THE
OFFENSE RELEASES AUTOMATIC. A
JUDGE HAS NO OPPORTUNITY AND NO
DISCRETION TO CONSIDER. ANY
FACTORS THAT WERE INITIALLY
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED AT A
SENTENCING HEARING, AND THIS IS
EVEN IN THE MOST EXTREME CASES.
THIS IS NOT JUST A HYPOTHETICAL,
BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IN OUR
COUNTY WE SEE IN REALITY, AND I
APOLOGIZE IF YOU CAN PLEASE
WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS. YES,
ABSOLUTELY. AND THE SANTANA
HIGH SCHOOL SHOOTING CASE,
WHILE HE WAS JUST FOUND TO BE
UNSAFE FOR RELEASE, HE FACES A
MANDATORY RELEASE BECAUSE HE
WAS 15 AT THE TIME OF THE
SHOOTING. AB 1959 RESTORES WHAT
THE LEGISLATURE ALWAYS INTENDED.
THAT IS, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, A
BALANCED PROCESS AND TRUE
CONSIDERATION OF BOTH
YOUTHFULNESS AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
I URGE YOUR AYE VOTE WHEN THE
TIME IS RIGHT, TO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES AND REAFFIRM THE
INTEGRITY AND THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. HI. GOOD MORNING.
GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
I APPRECIATE BEING ABLE TO
ADDRESS YOU DURING GUN VIOLENCE
AWARENESS MONTH. MY NAME IS
KRISTEN DARE. MY HUSBAND AND I
ARE SURVIVORS OF THE SHOOTING
AT SANTA ANA HIGH SCHOOL ON
MARCH 5TH, 2001, AND WE STILL
PROUDLY CALL SANTA OUR HOME.
ALTHOUGH THE EVENTS OF THAT DAY
CONTINUE TO SHAPE OUR FAMILY
DECISIONS. WHEN OUR CHILDREN
AGED INTO THE NINTH GRADE, WE
MADE THE DIFFICULT DECISION TO
SEND THEM BOTH TO SANTA ANA'S
NEIGHBORING RIVAL HIGH SCHOOL.
UNWILLING TO SPEND SEVERAL MORE
YEARS WALKING THE CAMPUS WHERE
OUR LIVES WERE FOREVER CHANGED.
NOW I FEAR IN ALL NEW WAYS,
THINKING WHAT IT COULD MEAN TO
POTENTIALLY LOSE MY LIFE'S MOST
IMPORTANT WORK OUR CHILDREN.
THE EFFECTS OF THE SANTA ANA
SHOOTING ARE STILL CLAIMING
CASUALTIES. A CLASSMATE WHO WAS
MURDERED, RANDY GORDON, LOST
MORE THAN JUST HIS OWN FUTURE,
AS HIS MOTHER WAS FOUND LIVING
IN A HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT JUST A
FEW MILES FROM SANTA ANA, HER
LIFE DEVASTATED BY THE LOSS OF
HER SON STILL IN AND OUT OF
TEMPORARY HOUSING TO THIS DAY.
ANOTHER CLASSMATE, TOMMY MILSAP,
TOOK HIS OWN LIFE ON THE
ANNIVERSARY OF THE SHOOTING
BACK IN 2020, SPECIFICALLY
CITING THE SHOOTING IN HIS
SUICIDE LETTER. I'M HERE TODAY
TO ASK THAT JUSTICE REMAIN
BALANCED. RANDY AND BRIAN WERE
NEVER AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY
TO LIVE THE LIVES THAT WERE
TAKEN FROM THEM, AND US AS
VICTIMS, NEVER HAVE THE CHANCE
TO BE FREE FROM THE MENTAL,
EMOTIONAL, AND PHYSICAL WOUNDS
WE CARRY. PEOPLE WHO HAVE
COMMITTED THE MOST VIOLENT
CRIMES AS TEENAGERS SHOULD NOT
SO EASILY BE RELIEVED OF THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS,
AND ARE STILL DESERVING OF THE
CARRYING OUT OF THEIR ORIGINAL
SENTENCING. HOWEVER, WHEN THEY
BRING A PETITION FOR
RESENTENCING, THEIR CASES ARE
HELD IN A JUVENILE COURT. EVEN
THOUGH THESE COURTS HAVE LONG
LOST JURISDICTION OVER THESE
FOLKS, THIS CAN OFTEN RESULT IN
THEIR EARLY RELEASE THROUGH
RESENTENCING, EVEN AFTER PAROLE
BOARD HAS DEEMED THEM
UNSUITABLE. AB 15AB1959 CLOSES
THIS LOOPHOLE, RESTORES
DISCRETION TO THE COURT AND
ENSURES THESE OFFENDERS, WHO
HAVE AGED OUT OF JUVENILE
SYSTEMS, CAN THEN BE
RESENTENCED APPROPRIATELY IN
ADULT COURT. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME ON AB 1959,
AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH, AND
THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TODAY.
I'LL ASK, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB 1959? CHAIR MEMBERS? MAX
PERRY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. GOOD MORNING, SERENA SCOTT.
ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. IVY
FITZPATRICK. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT
FOR AB 1959, SEEING NO ONE COME
FORWARD, WILL NOT TAKE UP TO
TWO PRINCIPAL OPPOSITION
WITNESSES TO AB 1959.
AND YOU
EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES, MR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS MARISSA HARRIS, AND I APPEAR
BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A PROFESSOR
AND CLINIC DIRECTOR AT LOYOLA
LAW SCHOOL'S CENTER FOR
JUVENILE LAW AND POLICY. I HAVE
FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE WITH YOUTH
OFFENDER RESENTENCING, AND I'M
ALSO THE PARENT OF A YOUNG
CHILD. AND LIKE EVERYONE HERE,
I'M HORRIFIED BY THE THOUGHT OF
A SCHOOL SHOOTING. AS A PARENT,
I UNDERSTAND THE INSTINCT TO
ACT. BUT AS A LAWYER AND
PROFESSOR, I BELIEVE GOOD
POLICY REQUIRES US TO ASK HARD
QUESTIONS AND DEMAND EVIDENCE
BEFORE CHANGING THE LAW. THAT'S
WHAT I ASK YOU TO DO TODAY. WHO
WILL THIS BILL AFFECT? THE
ANSWER IS WE DON'T KNOW. AB
1959 WAS INTRODUCED IN RESPONSE
TO ONE HORRIFIC CRIME COMMITTED
BY A 15 YEAR OLD NEARLY 25
YEARS AGO, AND NOTHING I SAY
DIMINISHES THE SUFFERING OF THE
VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES. BUT
THIS BILL MIGHT NOT EVEN AFFECT
THE VERY CASE THAT INSPIRED IT.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY
INDIVIDUALS ARE ELIGIBLE TO
RETURN TO JUVENILE COURT, WHAT
OFFENSES THEY COMMITTED, OR HOW
MANY WOULD ULTIMATELY BE
TRANSFERRED BACK TO JUVENILE
COURT. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT
MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE DID NOT
COMMIT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS OR
MULTIPLE MURDERS, AND SOME ARE
SERVING SENTENCES FOR
NON-HOMICIDE OFFENSES, YET THEY
TOO WOULD BE SUBJECT TO
TRANSFER. THAT'S WHY WE DON'T
MAKE STATE POLICY BASED ON ONE
SINGLE CASE. SECOND, HOW MUCH
WILL THIS BILL COST TAXPAYERS?
AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE
BEING ASKED TO MAKE A LIFE
ALTERING DECISION AFFECTING AN
UNKNOWN POPULATION. AN UNKNOWN
FISCAL COST TRANSFER HEARINGS
ARE THE MOST RESOURCE INTENSIVE
PROCEEDINGS IN JUVENILE COURT,
AND ARE OFTEN FOLLOWED BY
LENGTHY COURT PROCEEDINGS. YET
WE HAVE NO MEANINGFUL ESTIMATE
ON HOW MUCH IT WILL COST.
FINALLY, WHAT EVIDENCE
JUSTIFIES UNDOING SB 1391? NONE
HAS BEEN PRESENTED. SIX YEARS
AGO, THIS LEGISLATURE
PROHIBITED THE TRANSFER OF 14
AND 15 YEAR OLDS BECAUSE
DECADES OF BRAIN SCIENCE AND
THE SUPREME COURT HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT CHILDREN THAT
AGE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT
FROM ADULTS AND DON'T BELONG IN
ADULT PRISONS. LEGISLATURE ALSO
RECOGNIZED STARK RACIAL
DISPARITIES IN THE TRANSFER
PROCESS, AND DATA SHOWS THAT
BLACK YOUTH ARE 30 TIMES MORE
LIKELY TO BE TRANSFERRED THAN
WHITE YOUTH. AB 1959 OFFERS NO
REASON TO BELIEVE THOSE
DISPARITIES WON'T CONTINUE. SO
WHAT HAS CHANGED? NOT THE
SCIENCE, NOT THE EVIDENCE, NOT
PUBLIC SAFETY. NO EVIDENCE HAS
SHOWN THAT KEEPING 14 AND 15
YEAR OLDS IN THE JUVENILE
SYSTEM HAS HARMED PUBLIC SAFETY.
SO BEFORE YOU VOTE TO EXPAND
ONE OF THE HARSHEST MECHANISMS
IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM, I URGE
YOU TO DEMAND EVIDENCE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR NO
VOTE ON AB 1959. MY NAME IS
STEVEN CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON. MR.
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. AT 14
YEARS OLD, I COMMITTED A
HORRIBLE CRIME. I DESERVE THE
CONSEQUENCES. THE TRANSITION
FROM JUVENILE HALLS TO
AMERICA'S WORST JAIL IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY AND TO THE
MAXIMUM FACILITY, MAXIMUM
SECURITY FACILITY IN PRISONS
THAT I STAYED AT UNTIL I WAS 16,
AS FROM 16 UNTIL I WAS RELEASED.
EXCUSE ME. I DESERVED
EVERYTHING THAT CAME, IF NOT
MORE, DURING MY SENTENCE. TWO
THINGS, HOWEVER, CHANGED THE
LAW AND MYSELF. THE LAW CHANGED
FROM PROPOSITION 21, WHICH
OPENED THE DOORS TO WAREHOUSED
JUVENILES TO PROP 57 AND SB
1391, WHERE CALIFORNIA
RECOGNIZED THAT SCIENCE HAS
SHOWN THAT 14 AND 15 YEAR OLDS
ARE NOT READY FOR ADULT SYSTEMS,
AND THEY ARE CAPABLE OF
SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. AND I CAN
PROVE THAT WITH NO SAU
EDUCATION, I OBTAINED MY A.A.
DEGREE, DEVELOPED EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE, OTHERS IN PRISON,
AND ULTIMATELY I ANALYZED MY
BODY OF WORK, GOOD AND BAD, AND
I INTERNALIZED IT NOT TO
UNDERSTAND, BUT TO KNOW THAT I
WAS CHANGING FOR THE PEOPLE
THAT I HAD HURT. MY ACTIONS
WERE NOTICED. MR. VARGAS AND
EDUCATOR WHO WORKED INSIDE OF
CDCR. HE WROTE AN OBSERVATION
ABOUT ME. HE DESCRIBED ME AS
PATIENT AND KIND TERMS THAT
WERE NEVER DESCRIBED ABOUT ME.
AT 14. THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS WERE
THE REASON SB 1391 ALLOWED ME
TO STAND HERE IN FRONT OF YOU
TODAY, INSTEAD OF SITTING IN A
CELL. TODAY, I'M BEING TRAINED
AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND
TECHNOLOGY. I HAVE A HOME AND A
FAMILY. I LIVE A LIFE I NEVER
THOUGHT I COULD, BUT IT'S THAT
FEAR THAT MR. SUN. STEVEN
JOHNSON AT 37 WOULD PROTECT HIM.
AND FACTS, BUT SIX YEARS AGO,
Y'ALL CREATED A BILL THAT
ALLOWED ME TO BE HERE TODAY.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO SAY
IF I SHOULD BE HERE, BUT MISS
JUDGE AMY CARTER TOOK A GAMBLE
ON ME BECAUSE Y'ALL GOT IT
RIGHT. AND SHE'S PROUD OF THAT.
I ASKED Y'ALL TO PLEASE VOTE
BECAUSE YOU COULD BE STOPPING
ANOTHER CHILD LIKE ME, WHO
DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS GOING
THROUGH SOMETHING EMOTIONAL AND
JUST HAD TO FIGURE IT OUT.
THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE IF I
WENT TOO LONG. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE
ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION TO AB 1959? JIM
LINDBERG ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA, WE
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MELANIE
KIM, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE IN OPPOSITION.
RODRIGUEZ WITH ACLU, CAL ACTION
AND STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO AB 1959,
HIÆN NGUYEN WITH LEGAL SERVICES.
WITH PRISONERS. WITH CHILDREN
IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. OKAY.
UNLESS THERE ANYONE ELSE
WISHING EXPRESS OPPOSITION. AB
1959. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
DAIS FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. RON. SENATOR AB 1959
BY A SUMMER PATEL OKAY, SEEING
NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. WE DO
NOT YET HAVE A QUORUM AS WELL.
I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER YOU TO
MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WOULD LIKE TO
JUST BRING BACK TO THE MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT THIS IS
A SIMPLE BILL TO CLOSE, A
LOOPHOLE TO RESTORE JUDICIAL
DISCRETION IN OUR RESENTENCING
CASES, WHEN WE HAVE SITUATIONS
WHERE PAROLE IS DENIED, AND
THEN THERE'S AN AUTOMATIC TURN
TO RELEASE. THIS IS A CLEAR
LOOPHOLE FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS
TRYING TO ENSURE THAT THEY
RESTORE THEIR SAFETY AS VICTIMS
IN THE COMMUNITY. THESE CRIMES
ARE HORRIFIC WHEN THEY'RE MASS
SHOOTINGS, AND WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE THAT OUR COMMUNITIES CAN
FEEL SAFE, OUR COMMUNITY
MEMBERS CAN FEEL SAFE IN THEIR
COMMUNITIES. SO AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME, I WOULD ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. RESPECTFULLY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US
TODAY. CONTINUING AND FILE
ORDER, MR. LAKEY, WE WILL GET
TO YOU. OTHER AUTHORS KEEP
COMING IN WHO ARE AHEAD OF YOU
IN FILE ORDER. WE'RE GOING TO
GO TO FILE ITEM 32, A B 2235 BY
SENATOR PACHECO. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY, YOU MAY PRESENT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND
SENATORS, TODAY I AM HERE TO
PRESENT AB 2235, THE JUDICIAL
HOME SECURITY ACT. I'D LIKE TO
START BY THANKING THE COMMITTEE,
AND I WILL BE ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. VIOLENCE
AND THREATS AGAINST JUDGES HAVE
RISEN SHARPLY, WITH THOUSANDS
OF INCIDENTS REPORTED IN RECENT
YEARS AND A SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE SINCE 2015. AS A
RESULT, MANY JUDGES AND THEIR
FAMILIES FEAR FOR THEIR SAFETY.
AT THE SAME TIME, JUDGES HOME
ADDRESSES REMAIN EASILY
ACCESSIBLE THROUGH PUBLIC
RECORDS AND ONLINE DATABASES,
CREATING A DIRECT PATHWAY FOR
BAD ACTORS TO LOCATE THEM IN
THEIR FAMILIES. EXISTING
PRIVACY PROTECTIONS IN
CALIFORNIA ARE INSUFFICIENT TO
PROTECT. TO PREVENT THE
WIDESPREAD DISSEMINATION OF
THIS SENSITIVE INFORMATION,
PARTICULARLY WHEN IT ORIGINATES
FROM GOVERNMENT SOURCES. THIS
GAP LEAVES JUDGES EXPOSED TO
TARGETED HARASSMENT,
INTIMIDATION AND POTENTIAL
VIOLENCE AT THEIR HOMES. AB
2235 ALLOWS JUDGES TO USE AN
ALTERNATE ALTERNATE MAILING
ADDRESS IN PUBLIC RECORDS,
WHILE PRESERVING LEGITIMATE
ACCESS FOR BUSINESS, LEGAL AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES. THIS
APPROACH STRIKES A CAREFUL
BALANCE BETWEEN TRANSPARENCY
AND SAFETY, ENSURING PUBLIC
RECORDS REMAIN FUNCTIONAL
WITHOUT COMPROMISING PERSONAL
SECURITY. GIVEN ESCALATING
THREATS AND VULNERABILITIES, AB
2235 IS A NECESSARY STEP TO
PROTECT THE JUDICIARY AND
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM. AND WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT IS
CLIFF COSTA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION.
GREAT. GOOD MORNING. GOOD
MORNING, MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
CLIFF COSTA TODAY ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES
ASSOCIATION, I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE AND THE
COMMITTEE CONSULTANT FOR
WORKING WITH US ON THIS
LANGUAGE. THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES
ASSOCIATION HAS BEEN WORKING ON
FOR OVER 25 YEARS. ABOUT 25
PLUS YEARS AGO, THE CALIFORNIA
JUDGES ASSOCIATION PARTICIPATED
ON AN ATTORNEY GENERAL TASK
FORCE THAT WAS LOOKING AT
VULNERABILITIES OUT THERE FOR
ELECTED OFFICIALS, INCLUDING
JUDGES. AT THAT TIME, WE WERE
ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH A NUMBER OF
THINGS COMING OUT OF THAT TASK
FORCE, EXCEPT FOR PROPERTY
RECORDS. SINCE THEN, TECHNOLOGY
AND THE WORK OF ASSEMBLYWOMAN
AND THE JUDGES ASSOCIATION HAVE
BEEN REALLY FOCUSED ON TRYING
TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT
CRACKING THIS NUT ON PROPERTY
RECORDS. WE BELIEVE AB 2235 IS
THAT ATTEMPT. IT IS MODELED
AFTER THE SAFE AT HOME PROGRAM,
BUT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BECAUSE
IT IS FOCUSED ON JUDGES AND
TRYING TO PROTECT THEIR HOME
ADDRESSES WITHOUT THEM HAVING
TO FLEE. THAT IS THE
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE SAFE AT HOME PROGRAM. WE
HAVE BEEN AND CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH STAKEHOLDERS, BOTH LOCAL
GOVERNMENT STAKEHOLDERS, THE
ASSESSORS AND RECORDERS, AS
WELL AS THE REAL ESTATE
INDUSTRY, AS WELL AS THE DATA
BROKERS AND OTHERS WHO NEED
ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION.
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR AYE VOTE AND I'M
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT
FOR AB TWO, TWO, THREE, FIVE?
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL
SUPPORT WITNESSES FOR AB 2235?
OKAY. SEEING NO ONE COME
FORWARD WILL NOT TAKE UP TO TWO
PRINCIPAL OPPOSITION WITNESSES
TO AB TWO, TWO THREE, FIVE. ARE
THERE ANY OPPOSITION WITNESSES?
SEEING NO ONE CAN AFFORD TO
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS FOR
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
SEEING NO MEMBERS WISHING TO
SPEAK, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL FORWARD. IT'S VERY
IMPORTANT. I HAVE AN AYE
RECOMMENDATION TO CLOSE. THANK
YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THIS
BILL. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR VOTE WHEN APPROPRIATE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
OKAY. MR. LACKEY, WE'RE GOING
TO GO TO YOU NOW. FOR ITEM 34,
AB 2304, AND THEN WE'LL GO TO
MR. GIBSON AFTER. SO WE ARE NOW
GOING TO PROCEED TO FILE ITEM
34 AB 2304. THERE ANY PRINCIPAL
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT? IF YOU
CAN, PLEASE JOIN US HERE. AND
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, YOU MAY PRESENT ON. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE
IT, MR. CHAIR. AND NOW WE
ACTUALLY HAVE MEMBERS. SO IT'S
GOOD TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE MORE
THAN ONE HERE. THIS BILL, AB
2304, IS KNOWN AS GABRIEL'S LAW,
AND IT CLARIFIES THAT WHEN A
CHILD REQUIRES IMMEDIATE
EMERGENCY CARE IN AN EMERGENCY
SITUATION, THE SOCIAL WORKERS
MUST HAVE A CHILD SEEN BY THE
APPROPRIATE MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS. THIS BILL
ADDITIONALLY CLARIFIES WITH
EXISTING LAW THAT SOCIAL
WORKERS MUST BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR FALSIFYING
REPORTS. AS YOU MAY KNOW, SINCE
I BECAME A LEGISLATOR, I'VE
BEEN TRYING TO PASS LEGISLATION
REVOLVING AROUND THIS HORRIFIC
CHILD ABUSE CASE OF GABRIEL
FERNANDEZ. HE WAS AN EIGHT YEAR
OLD BOY WHO WAS TORTURED AND
KILLED BY HIS OWN MOTHER AND
HER BOYFRIEND. IN HIS CASE, THE
SOCIAL WORKERS INVOLVED FAILED
TO TAKE THE NECESSARY
PRECAUTIONS NEEDED TO PROTECT
THEM, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE
CALLED OUT TO SEE HIM MULTIPLE
TIMES FOR VARIOUS INJURIES. HIS
BODY CHART WAS ONLY UPDATED
ONCE WITH A BRUISE ON HIS
BOTTOM, PREVENTING ANY FURTHER
INVESTIGATION FROM BEING SEEN
BY A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
ADDITIONALLY, VARIOUS SOCIAL
WORKERS THAT HE WAS ASSIGNED
BACKDATED AND FALSIFIED RECORDS
WHEN HIS CASE WAS CLOSED A
MONTH BEFORE HE WAS KILLED, ONE
SOCIAL WORKER CHANGED THE DATE
TO BE MARCH INSTEAD OF APRIL.
IN ORDER TO NOT BE HELD
RESPONSIBLE FOR VISITS TO THE
FAMILY. IN HIS FINAL MONTH, THE
FOUR SOCIAL WORKERS IN
GABRIEL'S CASE WERE CHARGED
WITH ONE COUNT OF CHILD ABUSE
AND ONE COUNT OF FALSIFYING
PUBLIC RECORDS. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY, ALL CHARGES WERE
DISMISSED. IN 2020. THE DEATH
OF GABRIEL FERNANDEZ HAS SERVED
AS A WAKE UP CALL TO FOCUS OUR
COLLECTIVE CONSCIENCE ON THE
SYSTEMATIC FAILURE TO PROTECT
INNOCENT CHILDREN. THIS TRAGEDY
REVEALED THAT THERE ARE MANY
CRACKS WITHIN THE CHILD WELFARE
SYSTEM THAT MALIGN THE
INTERESTS OF THESE CHILDREN.
THIS BILL, AB 2304, MAKES A
NECESSARY CHANGE AND CLARIFIES
IN CURRENT LAW TO HELP PREVENT
ANY MORE CASES LIKE GABRIEL.
THIS BILL REQUIRES THAT IF A
CHILD APPEARS TO BE IN NEED OF
IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY CARE, THAT
THE SOCIAL WORKER CALL TO THE
CASE AND MUST HAVE THE CHILD
EVALUATED FURTHER. ADDITIONALLY,
AB 2304 CLARIFIES THAT SOCIAL
WORKERS WHO WILLFULLY AND
KNOWINGLY STEAL, REMOVE, HIDE,
DESTROY, DAMAGE, DEFACE OR
CHANGE OR FALSIFY RECORDS WILL
BE CHARGED WITH THESE OFFENSES.
SENATORS, THIS IS MY 12TH AND
FINAL YEAR AS AN ASSEMBLY
MEMBER. IT'S ALSO THE SEVENTH
YEAR I'VE TRIED RUNNING
LEGISLATION TO CORRECT THIS
HORRIFIC WRONG. IT MEANS A LOT
TO ME AND THOSE WITH ME THAT
HAVE MADE AN EIGHT HOUR JOURNEY
UP TO SACRAMENTO FOR ALL THESE
YEARS, ATTEMPTING TO PREVENT
THIS TYPE OF HEARTACHE THAT
THEY'VE EXPERIENCED. I HAVE
WITH ME TODAY GABRIEL ZANDT,
EMILY CARRANZA, AND AND DAN
FELIZARDO WITH THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO TESTIFY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS EMILY CARRANZA, AND I'M I AM
HERE TODAY IN MEMORY OF GABRIEL
FERNANDEZ, ANTHONY AVALOS, AND
NOAH CUATRO. A QUESTION WAS
ASKED, WHY IS GABRIEL'S LAW
NECESSARY? THE ANSWER IS CLEAR.
GABRIEL'S LAW IS NECESSARY
BECAUSE CHILDREN CANNOT PROTECT
THEMSELVES WHEN A CHILD IS
BEING ABUSED, NEGLECTED OR
SUFFERING IN SILENCE, THEY RELY
ON ADULTS AND THE SYSTEMS
DESIGNED TO PROTECT THEM TO
STEP IN BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.
SADLY, CALIFORNIA HAS WITNESSED
THE DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES
WHEN THOSE PROTECTIONS FAIL.
GABRIEL FERNANDEZ WAS ONLY
EIGHT YEARS OLD WHEN HE WAS
TORTURED AND MURDERED. DESPITE
NUMEROUS REPORTS OF ABUSE.
ANTHONY AVALOS WAS TEN YEARS
OLD WHEN HE DIED AFTER ENDURING
HORRIFIC ABUSE AND REPEATED
WARNING SIGNS THAT SHOULD HAVE
TRIGGERED STRONGER INTERVENTION.
NOAH WAS JUST FOUR YEARS OLD
WHEN HIS YOUNG LIFE WAS CUT
SHORT AFTER CONCERNS ABOUT HIS
SAFETY HAD BEEN RAISED. THESE
CHILDREN HAD NAMES, THEY HAD
DREAMS, THEY HAD FUTURES. MOST
IMPORTANTLY, THEY DESERVED TO
BE PROTECTED. GABRIEL'S LAW IS
NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LESSONS
LEARNED FROM THESE TRAGEDIES
MUST LEAD TO ACTION. IT IS
ABOUT STRENGTHENING
ACCOUNTABILITY, IMPROVING
COMMUNICATION, ENSURING
THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS, AND
MAKING CHILD SAFETY THE HIGHEST
PRIORITY. IT IS ABOUT
PREVENTING WARNING SIGNS FROM
BEING OVERLOOKED AND ENSURING
THAT CRIES FOR HELP ARE MET
WITH IMMEDIATE ACTION. THIS
LEGISLATION IS NOT ABOUT
POLITICS, IT IS ABOUT
PROTECTING CHILDREN. IT IS
ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT THE
STORIES OF GABRIEL, ANTHONY AND
NOAH BECOME CATALYSTS FOR
CHANGE, RATHER THAN JUST
HEADLINES THAT FADE WITH TIME.
WE CANNOT BRING THESE BOYS BACK,
BUT WE CAN HONOR THEIR LIVES BY
BUILDING A STRONGER CHILD
WELFARE SYSTEM THAT RESPONDS
QUICKLY, ACTS DECISIVELY, AND
PUTS CHILDREN FIRST. I ASK YOU
TO SUPPORT GABRIEL'S LAW SO
THAT FUTURE CHILDREN HAVE THE
PROTECTION THAT GABRIEL,
ANTHONY AND NOAH DESERVED BUT
NEVER RECEIVED. THEIR VOICES
WERE SILENCED, BUT OURS DO NOT
HAVE TO BE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME, YOUR COMPASSION, AND YOUR
COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING
CALIFORNIA'S CHILDREN. LET THE
LEGACY OF GABRIEL FERNANDEZ,
ANTHONY AVALOS, AND NOAH CUATRO
BE ONE OF THE LASTING CHANGE
AND STRONGER PROTECTIONS FOR
EVERY CHILD IN OUR STATE. THANK
YOU SO VERY MUCH, AND THANK YOU
FOR JOINING US THIS MORNING.
THANK YOU SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I'M NOT
GOING TO REPEAT WHAT HAS
ALREADY BEEN SAID, EXCEPT TO
THE FACT THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS, WHEN WE ARE
INVESTIGATING THESE CASES, WE
HEAR OVER AND OVER AGAIN, IF
ONLY THIS CHILD HAD BEEN SEEN
BY A MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL, THAT
MAYBE SOMETHING WOULD HAVE BEEN
DONE. AND WE DON'T WIND UP WITH
THESE HORRIFIC CASES THAT ARE
JUST TRAGEDIES. THIS BILL WILL
HELP ENSURE THAT BY REQUIRING
THAT THE CHILDREN ARE TAKEN TO
MEDICAL CARE, NOT MERELY
AUTHORIZING THAT THEY ARE TAKEN
FOR MEDICAL CARE. THIS BILL
ALSO CLARIFIES THE GOVERNMENT
CODE IN THE PROSECUTION OF
GABRIEL FERNANDEZ. WE DID
CHARGE THE SOCIAL WORKERS WITH
DESTROYING EVIDENCE. THE COURT
OF APPEAL DID NOT FIND THAT THE
THE INDIVIDUALS DIDN'T DESTROY
THE EVIDENCE. THEY FOUND THAT
THEY WERE CHARGED UNDER THE
WRONG CODE SECTION. AND BY THE
TIME THAT HAD BEEN DISCOVERED,
IT WAS TOO LATE TO REFILE
CHARGES. SO WE'RE AMEND
GOVERNMENT CODE 6201 TO CLARIFY
FOR DA'S IN THE FUTURE THAT IF
YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE TRAGIC
CASES AND THE SOCIAL WORKER IS
NOT A COURT OFFICER, THEY CAN
BE CHARGED UNDER GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 621, NOT 6200. THE
AT LEAST IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
I'M SURE IT'S PROBABLY THE SAME
IN OTHER COUNTIES. WE HAVE
SOCIAL WORKERS. SOME ARE
CONSIDERED COURT OFFICERS AND
WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CHARGE
UNDER SECTION 6200, BUT THE
VAST MAJORITY ARE NOT
CONSIDERED COURT OFFICERS AND
THEREFORE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED
UNDER THAT CODE SECTION. THIS
BILL JUST SIMPLY CLARIFIES WHAT
THE PROPER CODE SECTIONS ARE
FOR ANY FUTURE CASE THAT ARISES.
WE ASK FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING
TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR AB 2304?
SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD,
WE'LL TAKE UP TO TWO PRINCIPAL
OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO AB 2304.
YES. HI, MICHAEL. HEFTY, I AM A
ATTORNEY WITH LOS ANGELES
DEPENDENCY LAWYERS. WE DO
OPPOSE THIS BILL ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE
FELONY PROSECUTION FOR SOCIAL
WORKERS WHO HAVE COMMITTED
THESE ACTS. WE CERTAINLY VIEW
THE BILL AS FURTHERING A NOBLE
GOAL SPECIFICALLY TO PROTECT
CHILDREN BY IMPOSING PENALTIES
AND SPECIFYING PENALTIES FOR
SOCIAL WORKERS THAT ARE ALLEGED
TO HAVE FALSIFIED RECORDS, AS
IT WERE, HERE. WE DO THINK THAT
THE GOAL OF THIS BILL IS QUITE
AN IMPORTANT ONE, BUT THE
ACTUAL EFFECT OF THE BILL CAN
BE PARTICULARLY MINIMAL, WHERE
THE BILL DOES NOT ACTUALLY
AMEND THE CODE SECTION IN A WAY
THAT WOULD ALLOW PROSECUTION
SPECIFICALLY FOR THE FELONY. WE
DO BELIEVE THAT THE FELONY
CONVICTION SHOULD BE THE
APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT FOR
PARTICULARLY SOCIAL WORKERS IN
THIS CASE, WHO COMMITTED THESE
ACTS. THE 6201 SECTION, HOWEVER,
DOES ALLOW FOR MISDEMEANOR
CONVICTIONS, AND THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT ALTHOUGH THE
FELONY OR EXCUSE ME, ALTHOUGH
THE ACTS MAY BE CHARGED AS A
FELONY, THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE
THE DISCRETION NECESSARILY NOT
TO IMPOSE A FELONY TERM. THE
BILL SHOULD HAVE NECESSARILY
AMENDED 6200, WHICH WAS THE
ORIGINAL CODE SECTION THAT THE
PROSECUTORS ATTEMPTED TO USE TO
CHARGE A SOCIAL WORKERS IN THIS
CASE, OR ALTERNATIVELY, THE
BILL SHOULD AIM TO ALTER
GOVERNMENT CODE 24,000 TO
SPECIFICALLY LIST COUNTY CHILD
WELFARE SOCIAL WORKERS AS
OFFICERS TO PERMIT THAT, EXCUSE
ME, CORRESPONDING FELONY
CONVICTION. WE ARE ASKING THAT
IF THIS COMMITTEE DOES CONSIDER
THE BILL, THAT THE COMMITTEE
ALTER THE BILL TO SPECIFICALLY
AMEND 6200 TO INCLUDE SOCIAL
WORKERS AS OFFICERS OR
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 24,000
TO DO THE SAME TO REQUIRE
FELONY CONVICTION FOR THESE
TYPES OF ACTS, ESPECIALLY IN
CASES WHERE CHILD DEATH IS
CONCERNED. BUT EVEN IN ALL
CASES, FALSIFYING OF AN
OFFICIAL RECORD RELATED TO
CHILD WELFARE SHOULD BE PURSUED
UNDER FELONY CONVICTION THROUGH
SECTION 6200. THANK YOU. YES.
THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION TO AB 2304? IF SO,
PLEASE APPROACH THE MICROPHONE.
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION ON THE BILL.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE COME FORWARD
OR BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS. VICE CHAIR YEAH, I
JUST WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING THIS AND HAVING
SUCH AND PERSEVERING ON THIS
ISSUE FOR SO LONG. YOU KNOW,
THIS ISN'T THE USUAL CASE WHERE
PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
PUNISHMENT. AND AS YOU KNOW,
THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE PAID
TO DO A JOB. AND WHEN YOU'RE
FALSIFYING INFORMATION, WHEN
YOU'RE BACKDATING AND DOING
THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW,
YOU'RE DOING IT, YOU KNOW
YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
AND IF YOU KNOW WHAT THE
CONSEQUENCES ARE AND YOU DID IT
AND YOU DO IT ANYWAY, THEN YOU
GET TO SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES.
AND, YOU KNOW, IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, THERE WERE A
LOT OF A LOT OF ISSUES THAT
FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS ALONG
THE WAY. AND, AND IT RESULTED
IN A HORRIFIC DEATH OF THIS
YOUNG, YOUNG MAN. HE WAS OUT IN
LANCASTER, I BELIEVE. RIGHT?
YEAH. THAT'S AN AREA THAT I
USED TO COVER. IN FACT, IT
HAPPENED IN THE DISTRICT I USED
TO COVER. SO IT'S SAD WHEN WHEN
THAT HAPPENS AND, AND SOMEHOW
OUR SAFETY NET FAILS. AND WHEN
IT FAILS, WE NEED TO ADDRESS
THAT. AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR BILL
IS TRYING TO DO. AND I
APPRECIATE IT. SO ANYWAY, WHEN
TIME COMES, I'LL BE SUPPORTING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL TURN
IT BACK OVER TO YOU, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER, TO MAKE A CLOSING
STATEMENT. YEAH, I'LL JUST TELL
YOU, THIS PROBLEM IS REAL. AND
CURRENTLY THIS IS NOT JUST A
ONE OFF. FORTUNATELY, THE
DRAMATIC NATURE OF THE WAY THAT
THIS CHILD WAS TORTURED WAS
VERY DRAMATIC AND SOMEWHAT
UNIQUE. HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT
CHILDREN ARE BEING KILLED BY
THEIR PARENTS IS ALMOST
UNTHINKABLE. BUT IT HAS
HAPPENED AT LEAST FIVE TIMES
SINCE I'VE BEEN IN OFFICE. FIVE
TIMES, IN FACT, IS WE CURRENTLY
HAVE A CASE THAT'S BEING HEARD
BY A FRIEND OF MINE WHERE THE
CHILD HAS NO ADVOCATES IN THIS
COURT TRIAL, EXCEPT MY FRIEND
THAT'S LISTENING TO THE
HORRIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES
SURROUNDING THESE CHILDREN WHO
NEED ADVOCATES. AND WHEN WE
HAVE STAFF, PEOPLE AND PEOPLE
RESPOND THAT SHOW IRRESPONSIBLE
BEHAVIOR, WE NEED TO ADDRESS
THAT IN THE WAY THAT IT
DESERVES TO BE ADDRESSED. AND
THAT'S ALL THIS BILL DOES. AND
SO I HOPE WHEN IT COMES TIME
THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER THAT AND
ACT IN THEIR BEHALF. GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU
ALL FOR JOINING US TODAY. WE
DON'T HAVE A QUORUM. SO
ENTERTAIN A MOTION WHEN WE
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. THANK YOU
SIR. THANK YOU. OKAY.
PROCEEDING IN FILE ORDER. I SEE
A SIMILAR ADDRESS HERE. SO
WE'LL GO NOW TO ITEM NINE AB
1539. AND WHENEVER YOU'RE READY,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, YOU MAY
PRESENT ON AB 1539. THANK YOU
SO MUCH, MR. CHAIR. WE'RE HERE
FOR AB 1539 TO PROTECT OUR
DEMOCRACY ACT. AND JUST TO
PRESERVE YOUR TIME, I KNOW YOU
HAVE A LONG DAY. I'M GOING TO
TIGHTEN UP MY COMMENTS, BUT THE
GIST IS THAT THIS BILL WOULD
STRENGTHEN CRITICAL
CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARDS BY
MAKING IT A CRIME UNDER PENALTY
OF PERJURY, TO PLACE A
CANDIDATE FOR VICE PRESIDENT OR
PRESIDENT ON THE BALLOT WHO IS
INELIGIBLE DUE TO
CONSTITUTIONAL TERM LIMITS.
MANY FOLKS ASKED, WHY WOULD WE
NEED SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHEN
WE ALREADY HAVE A CONSTITUTION?
AND CONSTITUTIONAL TERM LIMITS
ARE DICTATED BY THE 22ND
AMENDMENT. BUT WHAT WE KNOW IS
THAT WE HAVE A PRESIDENT IN
OFFICE WHO IS TRYING TO PUSH ON
EVERY LEGAL MECHANISM WE HAVE,
AND WHO HAS SAID THEY DESIRE TO
REWRITE THE RULES, ARE SELLING
MERCH TO REWRITE THE RULES, AND
HAS QUITE THE BASE IN A
FOLLOWING. WHO IS INTERESTED IN
REWRITING THE RULES TO ALLOW
THEM TO STAY IN A THIRD TERM?
THE BILL WOULD SIMPLY ADD THIS
PENALTY OF PERJURY AND AN EXTRA
LAYER OF DEFENSE TO PROTECT OUR
ELECTIONS, WHICH WE FEEL IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT WITH US
TODAY TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT, AS
GENESIS GONZALEZ, ALLEGED,
DIRECTOR OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
LENNY KOUNALAKIS, WHO WE ALL
KNOW SERVED AS AMBASSADOR WHEN
ORBAN CAME TO RISE AND HAS A
VERY UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE ON WHY
DEMOCRACY NEEDS STRENGTHENING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING. I THINK
SO, THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS GENESIS
GONZALEZ, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
FOR CALIFORNIA LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR ELENI KOUNALAKIS.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS PROUD TO
SPONSOR AB 1539 AND WANTS TO
COMMEND THE AUTHOR FOR
INTRODUCING THIS MEASURE. THE
BILL IS DEEPLY PERSONAL TO THE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. AS U.S.
AMBASSADOR TO HUNGARY, SHE
WITNESSED FIRSTHAND THE RISE OF
VIKTOR ORBAN, A LEADER WHO
SYSTEMATICALLY DISMANTLED A
BURGEONING DEMOCRACY BY
IGNORING CUSTOMS NORMS,
JUDICIAL ORDERS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRAINTS. SHE
HAS SEEN THAT SAME PATTERN HERE
AT HOME. WHEN LEADERS OPENLY
DISREGARD THE SAFEGUARDS THAT
PROTECT OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT, DEMOCRACY ITSELF
BECOMES VULNERABLE. AB 1539
ADDRESSES THAT VULNERABILITY.
IT SIMPLY REQUIRES A
REPRESENTATIVE OF A POLITICAL
PARTY TO CERTIFY, UNDER PENALTY
OF PERJURY, THAT THEIR
PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE
PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEES MEET THE
CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 22ND
AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. THESE ARE NOT
ABSTRACT RULES. THEY ARE
SAFEGUARDS PUT IN PLACE TO
PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY FROM THE
CONCENTRATION OF POWER AND TO
ENSURE THAT NO ONE, NO MATTER
HOW POWERFUL, STANDS ABOVE THE
CONSTITUTION FOR GENERATIONS,
TERM LIMITS AND ELIGIBILITY
REQUIREMENTS HAVE PRESERVED THE
STABILITY AND PEACEFUL TRANSFER
OF POWER THAT DEFINES AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY. BUT WHEN THOSE
BOUNDARIES ARE OPENLY
QUESTIONED, IT CREATES
UNCERTAINTY AND ERODES PUBLIC
TRUST IN THE VERY FOUNDATION OF
OUR DEMOCRACY. IN AB 1539 DOES
NOT CHANGE WHO CAN RUN FOR
OFFICE. IT SIMPLY REINFORCES
THE RULES WE ALREADY HAVE AND
ENSURES THE INTEGRITY OF
CALIFORNIA'S BALLOT. THE
PEACEFUL SUCCESSION OF POWER
HAS BEEN A CORNERSTONE OF OUR
NATIONAL IDENTITY. FOR NEARLY
250 YEARS. WE CAN NO LONGER
ASSUME IT WILL BE RESPECTED
WITHOUT VIGILANCE. THIS BILL IS
ABOUT DRAWING A FIRM LINE AND
REAFFIRMING THAT OUR
CONSTITUTION STILL MATTERS. WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
SUPPORT FOR AB 1539. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
WE'LL NOW INVITE ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB 1539 TO PLEASE COME FORWARD
AND STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION OR CITY YOU'RE
FROM AND POSITION ON THE BILL.
WE HAVE THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER SUPPORT WITNESSES FOR
AB 1539, SEEING NO ONE COME
FORWARD? ARE THERE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO AB 1539?
SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD,
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS FOR
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. I HAVE AN EYE
RECOMMENDATION. I'LL TURN IT
OVER TO CLOSE. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A
VOTE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. JUST
GIVE ME ONE SECOND AS WE
TRANSITION. I HAVE TO GO
PRESENT BILLS IN THE CAPITAL.
SO I'M GOING TO HAND THE GAVEL
OVER THE VICE CHAIR. AND IT
LOOKS LIKE NEXT IN FILE ORDER
IS FOR ITEM 14 AB 1664 BY
JACKSON. YES. ALL RIGHT.
WELCOME, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
JACKSON, YOU HAVE A B. 16641664.
YOU MAY BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
OKAY. WELL, I THOUGHT I WAS
GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE TESTIFY,
BUT THEY MIGHT BE SOMEWHERE
LOST IN THE HALLWAY. THIS IS AB
1664, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A
LOCAL AGENCY, POLITICAL,
SUBDIVISION OR ELECTIONS
OFFICIAL TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO
THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL. NO LATER THAN
ONE DAY, AFTER BECOMING AWARE
OF ANY WARRANT, SUBPOENA OR
ACTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT
INVESTIGATION PERTAINING TO ANY
ELECTION RECORDS OR VOTING
SYSTEMS UNDER THEIR CUSTODY.
THANK THE LORD WITH ME TODAY TO
TESTIFY AS DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL TIFFANY BROKAW AND FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL MALCOLM
BRAUTIGAM HERE TO TESTIFY. ALL
RIGHT. WELL, MUCH TO THE RELIEF
OF THE AUTHOR, YOU ARE HERE. SO
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. SO IF YOU
COULD DO THAT AND STICK TO THAT
TIMELINE, I APPRECIATE IT. WE
HAVE A LOT OF BILLS TO HEAR
TODAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL DO. AND
THANK YOU. NO ONE'S EVER SAID
THAT. GOOD MORNING, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. TIFFANY BROKAW, DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL HERE ON BEHALF
OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA.
AND WE'D LIKE TO THANK ASSEMBLY
MEMBER JACKSON FOR CARRYING
THIS IMPORTANT BILL. AB 1664 IS
DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE TOOLS
AVAILABLE TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO PROMPTLY MITIGATE
ANY DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH
IMPROPER SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF
ELECTION MATERIALS. THE THREAT
OF INTERFERENCE IN CALIFORNIA'S
ELECTORAL SYSTEM IS INCREASING,
HEIGHTENING THIS THREAT. LOCAL
AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
HAVE SOUGHT TO SEARCH AND SEIZE
ELECTION MATERIALS NATIONWIDE.
AB 1664 ADDRESSES THIS THREAT
BY REQUIRING NOTICE TO THE
SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL WITHIN ONE DAY,
AFTER LOCAL AGENCY, POLITICAL,
SUBDIVISION OR ELECTIONS
OFFICIAL BECOMES AWARE OF ANY
WARRANT, SUBPOENA OR ACTIVE LAW
ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION
INVESTIGATION PERTAINING TO ANY
ELECTIONS OR VOTING SYSTEM
UNDER THEIR CUSTODY OR CONTROL.
THIS ENSURES THAT THE STATE CAN
ACT QUICKLY TO MITIGATE ANY
DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE
LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS,
PROTECT CRITICAL ELECTION
MATERIALS, AND UPHOLD THE RULE
OF LAW. AB 1664 ALSO
ESTABLISHES A NEW CHANNEL FOR
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
INTERVENE IN ANY RELATED
LITIGATION, OR OTHERWISE SEEK
ANY APPROPRIATE RELIEF BY THE
COURTS. IT IS IMPERATIVE WE
CONTINUE EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN
ELECTION INTEGRITY AND VOTER
CONFIDENCE, AND FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND YOU'RE JUST HERE FOR
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. OKAY,
GREAT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN
THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME
UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND
EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT FOR THIS
BILL? GOOD MORNING, GLENN
BACCHUS FOR ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THEN
ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE A
PRIMARY WITNESS IN OPPOSITION
COME UP, HAVE A SEAT. EACH GOT
TWO MINUTES. WHO WOULD LIKE TO
GO FIRST? MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION GIVES
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUPERVISORIAL SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY OVER SHERIFFS AND
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, BUT NOT
SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE
JUDICIARY. AND IF PURSUANT TO
THIS BILL, THE AG WERE
EFFECTIVELY ASKING THE COURT TO
NULLIFY A MAGISTRATE'S
DISCRETIONARY PROBABLE CAUSE
DETERMINATION, ABSENT DIRECT
STATE INTEREST, THE AG WOULD
WOULD BE EXPANDING SUPERVISORY
AUTHORITY INTO JUDICIAL REVIEW
POWER THAT THE CONSTITUTION
DOES NOT GRANT. I'M A LITTLE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE USE OF THE
WORD THREAT THAT WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT HERE. THIS IS SITUATIONS
IN WHICH A PEACE OFFICER GOES
THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS,
SEEKS A SEARCH WARRANT OR SOME
OTHER COURT ORDER TO UNDERTAKE
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL AND
STATUTORY INVESTIGATIVE DUTIES.
THERE'S CASE LAW TO SUPPORT THE
ANALYSIS REGARDING SEPARATION
OF POWERS, SPECIFICALLY AS IT
RELATES TO THE ISSUANCE OF A
SEARCH WARRANT. AS A JUDICIAL
ACT OF A MAGISTRATE, PROSECUTOR
CANNOT BE VESTED WITH AUTHORITY
TO FORECLOSE THE EXERCISE OF
JUDICIAL POWER, AND DOING SO
VIOLATES THE DOCTRINE OF
SEPARATION OF POWERS SET FORTH
IN ARTICLE THREE, SECTION ONE
OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION,
AND SIMILARLY, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CANNOT DICTATE TO
COURTS A LEGAL RESULT WITHOUT
VIOLATING SEPARATION OF POWERS,
BECAUSE THIS BILL INTRODUCES
THE POTENTIAL FOR POLITICAL
INTERFERENCE INTO A PROCESS
ALREADY OVERSEEN BY JUDGES AND
PEACE OFFICERS, AND TO THE
EXTENT THE BILL INAPPROPRIATELY
AND LIKELY CONSTITUTIONALLY
IMPERMISSIBLY, INVITES THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INTERVENE
IN A PROCESS IN A MANNER THAT
RUNS AFOUL OF SEPARATION OF
POWERS, WE'RE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSED TO THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS JULIA DILLONLIAM,
LIEUTENANT WITH THE RIVERSIDE
SHERIFF'S OFFICE. I'D LIKE TO
ECHO THE CONCERNS OF MY
COLLEAGUE FROM THE STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION, BUT I
WANTED TO FOCUS ON CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS, PARTICULARLY AB
1664 ALLOWS EXECUTIVE BRANCH
OFFICIALS TO INTERFERE IN
ACTIVE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS
AFTER NEUTRAL MAGISTRATE HAS
ALREADY DETERMINED PROBABLE
CAUSE AND AUTHORIZED
INVESTIGATIVE ACTION. THE BILL
RAISES SIGNIFICANT SEPARATION
OF POWER CONCERNS AND PROVIDES
NO SAFEGUARDS FOR
INVESTIGATIONS INVOLVING
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS,
WHISTLEBLOWERS, COOPERATING
WITNESSES OR OTHER TIME
SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIVE LEADS.
EXISTING JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
ALREADY PROTECTS ELECTION
MATERIALS WHILE PRESERVING THE
INTEGRITY OF CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIONS. AS STATED, THE
BILL CONTAINS NO SAFEGUARDS FOR
THESE INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES
THAT WE USE AND DELAYS CREATED
BY MANDATORY NOTIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS AND POTENTIAL
INVESTIGATIONS CAN JEOPARDIZE
TI¾N TIME SENSITIVE LEADS,
COMPROMISE INVESTIGATIVE
STRATEGIES, AND INCREASE THE
RISK THAT EVIDENCE IS ALTERED,
DESTROYED, OR OTHERWISE
RENDERED UNAVAILABLE. EXISTING
LAW ALREADY PROVIDES
SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTIONS FOR
THESE ELECTION MATERIALS, AND
WE ARE ALREADY STEWARDS OF OF A
EVIDENCE COLLECTION. THIS IS
WHAT WE DO ON A DAY TO DAY
BASIS. WE ARE EXPERTS AT THIS.
THERE IS THE ALLEGATION THAT WE
ARE GOING TO ALTER OR CHANGE
THE ELECTION. VOTES ARE
UNSUBSTANTIATED BECAUSE THIS IS
WHAT WE DO ON A DAILY, DAILY
BASIS. WE PROTECT EVIDENCE AND
WE PROTECT THE CHAIN OF COMMAND
OR CHAIN OF CUSTODY RATHER FOR
EVIDENCE MATERIALS. FOR THESE
REASONS, THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SHERIFF'S OFFICE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST A NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL TAKE ANY
OTHER OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL.
YOU CAN COME UP, STATE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION AND THAT YOU
OPPOSE THE BILL. NOW, WE'RE
GOING TO BRING IT BACK TO THE
DAIS FOR MY COLLEAGUES AND ME.
SO I'M ACUTELY AWARE OF WHAT
WHAT GENERATED THIS BILL. AND,
YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT THAT OVER OVER TIME BECAME,
YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF LOST. LOST
WHAT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED THERE?
THERE WAS NO ELECTION
INTERFERENCE GOING TO BE
HAPPENING. THERE IS A GROUP
THAT POINTED OUT WHAT THEY
THOUGHT WAS A DISCRETION IN HOW
MANY VOTES WERE COUNTED IN THE
COUNTY VERSUS HOW MUCH HOW MANY
VOTES WERE COUNTED. THE
SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE, IT
WOULD SEEM TO A REASONABLE,
NORMAL PERSON LIKE ME THAT THE
WAY TO FIGURE THAT OUT IS TO
COUNT THE DOGGONE VOTES. AND IF
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE, THERE'S A
DIFFERENCE. IF THERE'S NOT,
THERE'S NOT. AND THE GAME'S
OVER. THAT INVESTIGATIVE
AUTHORITY LIES WITH THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT. AND AS AS WAS
STATED BY THE OPPONENTS HERE,
THESE REMEDIES THAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DRUM UP IN AN EFFORT
TO CAUSE SOME, YOU KNOW,
INTERFERE WITH AN INVESTIGATION
BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW.
THE ANSWER IS, IS, IS, YOU KNOW,
KIND OF A WASTE OF THE PUBLIC'S
TIME. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN
SOLVED IN A WEEK. AND INSTEAD,
HERE WE ARE WITH LEGISLATION
THAT'S GOING TO DO SOMETHING
THAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE
DIFFICULT TO FIGURE OUT WHEN
PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT
SOMETHING, WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR
NOT. AND THAT'S NOT JUST
ELECTIONS. THAT'S ALL SORTS OF
STUFF. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS
POINTED OUT ON THE FLOOR THE
OTHER DAY BY ONE OF MY
COLLEAGUES THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS
CONSTITUTED ELECTION
INTERFERENCE. WELL, NO, BECAUSE
THE ELECTION ALREADY HAPPENED.
IT WAS ALREADY CERTIFIED. THE
PEOPLE THAT WON THE ELECTION
ARE ALREADY IN PLACE. THERE WAS
NO INTERFERENCE. IT'S JUST IF
THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE
BALLOTS AND HOW MANY THERE WERE
NOT WHO VOTED FOR WHAT, THEY
WEREN'T COUNTING BALLOTS.
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO VOTE.
THEY'RE JUST GOING TO COUNT THE
OUTSIDE OF THE ENVELOPES. HOW
MANY BALLOTS THERE WERE. THAT'S
IT. AND IT WAS TURNED INTO THIS.
SO ANYWAY, NOT A BIG FAN OF OF
THIS, THIS PROCESS AND, AND THE
EFFORTS TO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER
TO A QUESTION THAT SOME PEOPLE
HAD OUT IN THE PUBLIC THERE
DESERVE TO KNOW THE ANSWERS TO
THE QUESTIONS. AND THAT'S OUR
JOB. WE GET PAID TO INVESTIGATE
THINGS, NOT US, BUT THE POLICE
GET PAID. YOU KNOW, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL GETS PAID TO
INVESTIGATE THINGS, NOT TRY TO
BLOCK ANSWERS FROM BEING
DISCOVERED. AND SO WITH THAT, I
THINK YOU PROBABLY KNOW WHERE
I'M GOING TO STAND ON YOUR BILL,
SIR. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND CLOSE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. VICE
CHAIR. I THINK THAT I THINK AT
THE END OF THE DAY, WE ALREADY
KNEW WHAT THE RESULTS WERE
BECAUSE THE SECRETARY OF STATE
CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS NO
IRREGULARITIES. THE CHIEF
ELECTIONS OFFICER OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY SAID THAT THERE WERE NO
IRREGULARITIES. IT WAS JUST A
MISINTERPRETATION FROM AN
OUTSIDE GROUP OF, OF, OF THE
DATA THAT THEY SAW. THE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT, AND
THEY ALSO FOUND THAT THERE WERE
NO IRREGULARITIES. I THINK AT
THE END OF THE DAY, THIS BILL
DOESN'T STOP THINGS FROM
HAPPENING. WHAT IT DOES IS IT
MAKES SURE THAT ALL THE
EVIDENCE IS CONSIDERED BEFORE
SOMEONE, BEFORE A SHERIFF
DECIDES TO CONFISCATE BALLOTS,
TAKE IT OUT OF THE FACILITY IN
WHICH THEY ARE MEANT TO BE
PROTECTED IN, AND MAKING SURE
THAT ALL OF THE RELEVANT
PARTIES THAT'S MEANT TO SECURE
OUR DEMOCRACY IS ABLE TO LOOK
AT WHAT THE EVIDENCE MAY BE SO
A JUDGE CAN RULE ON IT. AND SO
IN NO WAY IS THIS MEANT TO STOP
PEOPLE FROM KNOWING THINGS. I
THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY,
THIS HELPS TO ENSURE THAT
THERE'S ANOTHER CHECK AND
BALANCE, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH
THAT THERE MAY BE IN THIS CASE,
THE SHERIFF IS A POLITICAL, AN
ELECTED OFFICIAL, AND ALL
ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE SUBJECT
TO HUMAN HUMAN THINGS. AND IN
THIS CASE. THE SHERIFF WENT
DOWN A RABBIT HOLE. AND WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T
HAPPEN AGAIN, OR AT LEAST THAT
THERE'S ANOTHER CHECK AND
BALANCE FROM THIS HAPPENING
AGAIN. SO WITH THAT, AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME, I I'LL ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE NOT
ESTABLISHED A QUORUM AND WE
DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER MEMBERS
HERE. SO. BUT WE ARE GOING TO
KEEP ROLLING AND AND WE'LL TAKE
IT UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEN THE
TIME COMES. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME
JUSTICE HERE. WE HAVE MEMBERS
THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE FOR
A LONG TIME. WE'RE TRYING TO DO
FILE ORDER, BUT ALSO TAKING
INTO CONSIDERATION THAT SOME
MEMBERS ARE ON A TIME
COMMITMENT. THAT'S WHY THEY
CAME EARLY. MR. DIXON, YOU WERE
YOU'VE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG
TIME. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE HER.
AND THEN I THINK, MR. GONZALEZ,
YOU'LL BE NEXT. WHERE'S HER
BILL? THANK YOU, SENATOR.
APPRECIATE IT. GOOD MORNING,
VICE CHAIR AND COLLEAGUES. HANG
ON, I JUST NEED WHAT IS IT
AGAIN? ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS AB
2261. THANK YOU. SORRY. NO
THAT'S OKAY. AB 2261 IS CORRECT.
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE STAFF
FOR THEIR HELP IN WORKING TO
REFINE THE BILL. I AM PLEASED
TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. AB 2261 IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD BILL THAT
CLARIFIES AND RESTORES JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY TO ISSUE CRIMINAL
PROTECTIVE ORDERS TO A VICTIM'S
FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.
IN 2018, AS PART OF BROADER
REFORMS, THIS CODE SECTION WAS
AMENDED TO LIMIT PROTECTIVE
ORDERS TO THE VICTIM OF THE
CRIME, WHICH APPELLATE COURTS
HAVE SINCE INTERPRETED TO MEAN
ONLY THE SPECIFIC VICTIM OF THE
COURT FOR WHICH THE DEFENDANT
WAS CONVICTED. AB 2261 TODAY
CORRECTS THIS AND ENSURES
COURTS CAN ISSUE PROTECTIVE
ORDERS CONSISTENT WITH VICTIM
SAFETY AND THE REALITIES OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ABUSE
AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING. BY
CLEARLY DEFINING WHO MAY BE
PROTECTED AND REQUIRING
COMPETENT EVIDENCE, THE BILL
ENSURES DUE PROCESS WHILE
ALLOWING COURTS TO RESPOND
APPROPRIATELY TO DEMONSTRATED
RISK. AB 2261 IS SPONSORED BY
THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION AND THE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THE BILL
RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS, THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION AND LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE. WITH ME TODAY, I HAVE
IVY B FITZPATRICK FROM THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU, THANK
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE TODAY. AND YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. GOOD MORNING AGAIN,
HONORABLE CHAIR. YOU SEEM TO
HAVE LOST THE REST OF YOUR
MEMBERS. IVY FITZPATRICK,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY CHIEF DEPUTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY HERE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DA'S
OFFICE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF AB
2261. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE
COMMITTEE AS WELL FOR THE
RECENT AMENDMENTS. THREE
PRIMARY POINTS ABOUT THIS BILL,
AB 2261, IS RESPONSIVE TO WHAT
COURTS HAVE SPECIFICALLY HELD.
ARE THE LIMITATIONS IN THE
CURRENT LANGUAGE. PRIOR TO 2018
TRIAL, COURT JUDGES HAD
DISCRETION TO ISSUE PROTECTIVE
ORDERS FOR NOT ONLY NAMED
VICTIMS, BUT THEIR FAMILY AND
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. IF THEY
DETERMINED THAT A PROTECTIVE
ORDER WAS NECESSARY. IN 2018,
THAT LANGUAGE WAS UNFORTUNATELY
NARROWED, WITH NO SUGGESTION IN
THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD THAT
THIS WAS INTENTIONAL. IN FACT,
THE 2018 AMENDMENTS TO 136.2
WERE OTHERWISE WRITTEN TO
FURTHER BROADEN THE SCOPE OF
THE LAW, NOT NARROW IT. RECENT
COURT DECISIONS HAVE MADE CLEAR
THAT A LEGISLATIVE FIX IS
REQUIRED TO RETURN THIS
DISCRETION BACK TO THE TRIAL
COURT. AB 2261 IS NARROWLY
TAILORED, MAKES LIMITED
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CURRENT
LAW. IT ONLY APPLIES TO CRIMES
OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, HUMAN TRAFFICKING OR
GANG RELATED CRIMES. IT ONLY
APPLIES TO RELATED FAMILY AND
HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS PARENTS,
CHILDREN, SIBLINGS, SPOUSES AND
GRANDPARENTS. AND IT'S NOT A
MANDATE. RATHER, IT GIVES THE
DISCRETION BACK TO THE COURT,
WHO ARE BEST SITUATED TO
DETERMINE IF THE RISK TO THE
VICTIM AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS
ARE THERE SO THEY CAN ISSUE A
CPO APPROPRIATELY. FINALLY, AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE BILL IS
DESIGNED TO ADDRESS THOSE MOST
AT RISK, WHICH ARE THE MEMBERS
OF THE VICTIMS FAMILIES. IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE A
JUDGE FINDS THAT THOSE FAMILY
MEMBERS NEED PROTECTION, NO
MOTHER SHOULD HAVE TO FEAR FOR
HER OWN SAFETY WHILE SHE'S
SUPPORTING A DAUGHTER WHO'S A
VICTIM OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, NO
SPOUSE SHOULD HAVE TO WORRY
THAT THEY WILL BECOME A TARGET
OF AN ABUSER SIMPLY BECAUSE
THEY'RE STANDING BY THEIR
PARTNER AND WITHOUT THE
PROTECTION PROVIDED IN THIS
BILL, INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
CLOSELY CONNECTED TO OUR
VICTIMS AND OFTEN EQUALLY
VULNERABLE AS THE VICTIM
THEMSELVES, MAY BE LEFT WITHOUT
A REMEDY DUE TO THE TECHNICAL
LIMITATIONS IN THE CURRENT
STATUTE, AB 2261 ENSURES THAT
COURTS CAN RESPOND TO THE
REALITIES OF THESE CASES AND
PROTECT THOSE AT RISK. AND SO
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER
PRINCIPAL WITNESSES? NO. ME TOO.
COME ON UP. NAME. ORGANIZATION.
MAX PERRY, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION. SUPPORT. MR. CHAIR,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION.
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. AT THIS
TIME, WE'LL TAKE UP TO TWO
PRINCIPAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, GOING
ONCE, TWICE. SOLD. OKAY. COME
ON UP IF YOU'RE A. ME, TOO.
JUST EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. YOU MAY. AUBREY
RODRIGUEZ WITH ACLU, CAL ACTION
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
SOPHIA NEWHOUSE BROWN, LOS
ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S UNION LOCAL 148 IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ANYBODY
ELSE? IF NOT, I'LL BRING IT
BACK TO THE DAIS FOR QUESTIONS.
COMMENTS? OKAY. WELL, I
APPRECIATE YOUR BILL. WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT PROTECTIVE ORDERS
HERE. YES. WHICH MEANS WE'RE
TRYING TO PROTECT PEOPLE WHEN
THEY ARE IN DANGER. AND THE
JUDGE IS THERE TO DECIDE THAT.
I THINK YOU'RE CLOSING A BIT OF
A LOOPHOLE HERE THAT PEOPLE ARE
THAT THEY I HOPE THEY DIDN'T
MEAN TO LEAVE OUT. BUT WITH
THAT, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU,
MR. CHAIR. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
THE COMMITTEE AS I VOTE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND
AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, WE'LL
ESTABLISH A QUORUM AND WE'LL GO
AND VOTE ON THESE THINGS. SO AT
THIS TIME, THE NEXT STEP, WE
HAVE 1607. WE HAVE A B 1607 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER GONZALEZ. YOU
MAY BEGIN WHEN YOU'RE READY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I KNOW
MR. COHEN HAS BEEN WAITING, SO
I'LL READ THIS QUICKLY. CHAIR
MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
UNDER FEDERAL LAW, EVERY
PATIENT THAT WALKS THROUGH THE
DOORS. AN EMERGENCY ROOM MUST
BE TREATED REGARDLESS OF
ABILITY TO PAY. OVER THE PAST
DECADE, EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS
ACROSS CALIFORNIA HAVE RECEIVED
ALMOST 15 MILLION VISITS
ANNUALLY. APPROXIMATELY 1 IN 5
OF THOSE PATIENTS WERE
UNINSURED. WITHOUT THIS SUPPORT,
HOSPITALS WILL BE FORCED TO
STRETCH CARE WITHIN THEIR
ALREADY DWINDLING NUMBERS OF
PHYSICIANS, WHICH MEANS LONGER
WAITING TIMES AND GREATER COST
OF CARE. MILLIONS OF
CALIFORNIANS DEPEND ON THIS. ÁP
1607. SIMPLY ASK FOR MORE TIME.
MORE TIME FOR THE MØT MÁS FUND
TO EXIST, AND ALLOWS THE
TIMELINE FOR EMERGENCY MEDICINE
TO CONTINUE. BECAUSE SOMEONE.
BECAUSE WHEN SOMEONE DIES,
SOMEONE. THE LAST THING ON
ANYONE'S MIND SHOULD BE WHETHER
THE SYSTEM CAN AFFORD TO SAVE
THEIR LIFE. THIS MORNING,
PRIMARY WITNESSES IN SUPPORT TO
HIGHLIGHT THE IMPACT OF THIS
BILL IS TIM MADDEN ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS AND JOHN
POLAND, REGIONAL EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF SIERRA SACRAMENTO
VALLEY, MD AGENCY. TAKE IT AWAY.
AWESOME. THANK YOU. EACH
GENTLEMAN OR EACH OF YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES, PLEASE. THANK YOU,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. TIM MADDEN,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE
OF EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, WERE
ONE OF THE CO-SPONSORS OF AB
1607. SINCE 1987, THE STATE HAS
AUTHORIZED COUNTIES TO
ESTABLISH THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES FUND. THIS IS THE SOLE
SOURCE OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS TREATING
UNINSURED PATIENTS, AS WELL AS
PROVIDING FUNDING FOR HOSPITALS
AND LOCAL EMS AGENCIES. THE
FUNDS RESULT IN MORE PHYSICIANS
WORKING IN THE EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT. WITHOUT AB 1607,
LESS MONEY MEANS EVERY PATIENT
WALKING IN WAITS TO SEE FEWER
DOCTORS THAT ARE WORKING. IF
THIS BILL DOES NOT PASS, WAIT
TIMES WILL INCREASE AND PATIENT
OUTCOMES WILL WORSEN. THE
ALREADY FRAGILE EMERGENCY CARE
SYSTEM HAS NO FINANCIAL
BANDWIDTH TO ABSORB THIS CUT.
MEDI-CAL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE
MOST COMPLEX AND ACUTE PATIENT
IS ONLY $108. THE FUND
REIMBURSES EVEN LESS FOR
PATIENTS WITH NO INSURANCE.
THIS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IF AB
1607 IS NOT PASSED, IT WILL BE
ANOTHER CUT TO THE ALREADY
FRAGILE FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY
CARE SAFETY NET FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. FOR THESE REASONS,
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. HELLO,
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
JOHN PULLEN, CALIFORNIA
LICENSED PARAMEDIC AND DIRECTOR
OF THE SIERRA SACRAMENTO VALLEY
EMS AGENCY. I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA,
REPRESENTING ALL 34 LOCAL EMS
AGENCIES SERVING 58 CALIFORNIA
COUNTIES. WE APPRECIATE
ASSEMBLYMEMBER GONZALEZ FOR HIS
WORK ON THIS IMPORTANT BILL.
THE LEGISLATURE PREVIOUSLY
DETERMINED THAT EMS PROVIDERS,
PHYSICIANS, SURGEONS, AND
HOSPITALS AS PART OF A
REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE TO ALL
PATIENTS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR
ABILITY TO PAY FOR HIGHER COSTS
FOR THESE SERVICES, BUT OFTEN
RECEIVE PARTIAL OR NO PAYMENT
FROM PATIENTS. AS A RESULT, A
SERIES OF LAWS WERE ENACTED TO
PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR
PATIENTS WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO
PAY FOR THEIR MEDICAL CARE.
CALIFORNIA LAW AUTHORIZES
COUNTIES TO ESTABLISH A EMS
FUND TO REIMBURSE PHYSICIANS,
SURGEONS AND HOSPITALS FOR THE
COST OF UNCOMPENSATED EMERGENCY
CARE AND TO SUPPORT OTHER
ESSENTIAL EMS FUNCTIONS. IT
ALSO AUTHORIZES COUNTIES TO
ESTABLISH A FUND AS PART OF
THEIR EMS FUND TO IMPROVE
PEDIATRIC TRAUMA AND EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES IN THE COUNTY.
THE EMS FUND AND FUND ARE
FINANCED THROUGH REVENUES
GENERATED FROM ASSESSMENTS ON
FINES AND FORFEITURES FOR
CRIMINAL OFFENSES AND MOTOR
VEHICLE VIOLATIONS. THE
ORIGINAL AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
FUND ASSESSMENT WAS LAST
EXTENDED THROUGH JANUARY 1ST OF
2027. EMS IS AN ESSENTIAL
COMPONENT OF CALIFORNIA'S
HEALTH CARE SAFETY NET. THE
LOSS OF THIS FUNDING WILL
NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ABILITY
OF PRE-HOSPITAL AND HOSPITAL
PROVIDERS TO DELIVER THE LEVEL
OF EMS CARE THAT ALL
CALIFORNIANS EXPECT AND DESERVE.
AT A TIME WHEN EMS PROVIDERS
ARE BEING FORCED TO REDUCE OR
CEASE PROVIDING CRITICAL
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, AND
HOSPITALS ARE AT INCREASED RISK
OF CLOSING, IT IS VITAL THAT
CURRENT EMS FUNDING SOURCES BE
MAINTAINED. AS SUCH, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT OF AB 1607. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY AT
THIS TIME. ANYBODY WHO WISHES
TO EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT FOR
THE BILL MAY COME UP TO THE
MICROPHONE AND DO SO. NAME,
ORGANIZATION AND YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.
OLIVIA HERRERA, INTERN AT STONE
ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. JOSH GALLAGHER, ON BEHALF
OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTIES OF SANTA CLARA,
RIVERSIDE AND VENTURA IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. FRANCO.
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND THE FIRE
DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. CLIFTON
WILSON, ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE COUNTIES
OF NAPA AND KERN, BOTH IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CHLOE KING
WITH POLITICAL SOLUTIONS ON
BEHALF OF THREE CLIENTS, THE
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, THE
CHILDREN'S SPECIALTY CARE
COALITION AND THE AMERICAN
ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS. IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. BETSY ARMSTRONG ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY HEALTH
EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTING LOCAL HEALTH
DEPARTMENTS AND URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. CAT OF THE
HEALTH OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. JOHN
MCHALE ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS OF YOLO COUNTY
AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, HERE
IN SUPPORT. JONATHAN CLAY ON
BEHALF OF THE COUNTY OF SAN
DIEGO IN SUPPORT. DANIEL
BRADLEY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES AND SUPPORT. KEVIN
GUZMAN WITH THE CALIFORNIA
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT.
MR. CHAIR, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION IN. SUPPORT,
VANESSA FLORES ON BEHALF OF
ALAMEDA COUNTY IN SUPPORT. OKAY.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL TAKE UP TO
TWO PRINCIPAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION. YOU MAY. MY
COMMENTS ARE GOING TO BE VERY
BRIEF. ERIC HENDERSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION, I WANT TO START
WITH APPRECIATION FOR ASSEMBLY
MEMBER GONZALEZ, FOR YOUR WORK,
AND ALSO FOR YOUR STAFF FOR
MEETING WITH US. AND I KNOW
THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR
CONCERNS WITH THE FEE. AND
SECONDLY, WE ALSO FULLY SUPPORT
ACCESS TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES. UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN
WE TALK ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE
MOST LIKELY TO USE THE EMS FUND,
PEOPLE WHO CAN'T AFFORD THEIR
MEDICAL CARE, WE'RE ALSO
TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE
ASSESSED THIS CRIMINAL FEE. SO
WE JUST REALLY WANT TO
ENCOURAGE THE LEGISLATURE TO
FIND A MORE STABLE SOURCE OF
FUNDING FOR THIS. SO GIVEN THE
RECENT COP DECISION FROM THE
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, THIS
FUND IS GOING TO DWINDLE AND
THERE WILL NEED TO BE A MORE
LONG TERM, DURABLE SOLUTION.
AND WITH THAT, WE RESPECTFULLY
OPPOSE. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TIME. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER
PRINCIPAL WITNESSES? NO. IF YOU
JUST WISH TO EXPRESS YOUR
CONCERN, COME ON UP AND TAKE
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ECHOING
MY COLLEAGUE'S COMMENTS HERE,
LIZ GUTIERREZ HERE ON BEHALF OF
DEBT FREE JUSTICE CALIFORNIA
AND OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
POSITION. THANK YOU. IVY
RODRIGUEZ WITH ACLU CAL ACTION
AND STRONG OPPOSITION. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME I'LL
BRING IT BACK. OH, NO. OKAY. I
AM THE ONLY PERSON AGAIN, SO
I'LL BE SUPPORTING YOUR BILL
TODAY. WE DO NEED TO CONTINUE
TO FIND THESE TYPES OF WAYS TO
HOLD PEOPLE THAT ARE. INVOLVED
IN THE SYSTEM, THAT SOME ARE IN
LARGE PART, CREATING SOME OF
THE PROBLEMS FINANCIALLY
ACCOUNTABLE. AND THIS IS WHILE
IT'S NOT THAT MUCH, IT CAN ADD
UP. AND, AND THEREFORE, I THINK
I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO HELP
LET PEOPLE PARTICIPATE IN IT.
AND IF THEY CAN'T, THEY WON'T.
THAT'S WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO.
YOU CAN'T SQUEEZE BLOOD OUT OF
A TURNIP, SO THERE WILL BE NO
PAYMENT IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.
SO ANYWAY, THAT I'LL LET YOU
CLOSE. I'LL TAKE THAT AS THE
CLOSE. SO WITH THAT, MR. CHAIR,
I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE GET
ENOUGH PEOPLE UP HERE, WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND VOTE AT THIS TIME.
MISS PELLERIN, YOU'VE BEEN
WAITING FOR A LONG TIME. IT'S
NOT IN ORDER OF. YOU KNOW WHAT?
WE'VE BEEN MIXING IT UP BECAUSE
THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT HAVE
COME IN A LONG TIME AGO AND.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, WE WON'T HEAR
YOUR BILL THEN. SORRY. JUST
TAKE IT. I'VE GOT MY WITNESSES
WAITING AND APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO GOOD
MORNING, CHAIR AND CHAIR AND
MEMBER. YOU'RE ONE AND THE SAME.
I APPROACH THIS BILL FIRST. I'M
PRESENTING A B 1902. I APPROACH
THIS BILL FIRST AND FOREMOST AS
A MOTHER AND AS A MEMBER OF THE
SANTA CRUZ COMMUNITY. IN 2015,
OUR COMMUNITY WAS SHAKEN TO ITS
CORE BY THE BRUTAL RAPE AND
MURDER OF EIGHT YEAR OLD
MADISON MADDY MIDDLETON BY HER
NEIGHBOR, ADRIAN GONZALEZ, WHO
WAS JUST THREE MONTHS SHY OF
TURNING 16. THIS WAS NOT JUST A
HEADLINE. IT WAS A CHILD, A
FAMILY, A COMMUNITY FOREVER
CHANGED DUE TO SEVERAL CHANGES
IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
GONZALEZ'S CASE WAS ULTIMATELY
ADJUDICATED IN JUVENILE COURT
IN 2021. AT 21 YEARS OLD, HE
WAS COMMITTED TO A SECURED
YOUTH TREATMENT FACILITY IN
SONOMA COUNTY. THREE YEARS
LATER, IN 2024, HE WAS BACK IN
COURT THIS TIME BECAUSE THE
SANTA CRUZ DISTRICT ATTORNEY
BELIEVED GONZALEZ STILL POSED A
DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY AND
PETITION FOR AN EXTENSION
DETENTION HEARING. THIS MARKED
THE FIRST WELFARE AND
INSTITUTIONS CODE, SECTION 876,
HEARING OF ITS KIND ANYWHERE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SANTA
CRUZ COUNTY BECAME THE TEST
CASE AT THE INTERSECTION OF A
SYSTEM IN TRANSITION AND A CASE
THAT PUSHED ITS LIMITS. THESE
HEARINGS ARE MEANT FOR THE
RAREST OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN,
DESPITE EVERY EFFORT,
REHABILITATION HAS NOT BEEN
ACHIEVED. AFTER THE HEARING, I
MET WITH JURORS WHO MADE THE
DIFFICULT DECISION THAT
GONZALEZ WAS NOT SAFE TO BE
RELEASED. I SPOKE WITH THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
ABOUT THE CHALLENGES THEY FACED,
AND I HEARD FROM COMMUNITY
MEMBERS WHOSE GRIEF AND TRAUMA
WERE BROUGHT BACK TO THE
SURFACE ALL OVER AGAIN. FOR THE
PAST YEAR, I'VE WORKED TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS CASE
REVEALED ABOUT THE GAPS IN OUR
SYSTEM, THE LIMITS OF
REHABILITATION, AND OUR
RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES WHILE HONORING THE
VALUES OF OUR JUVENILE JUSTICE
SYSTEM. THE CULMINATION OF THIS
YEAR LONG EFFORT IS THE BILL
BEFORE YOU, AB 1902, WHICH
MAKES SEVERAL IMPORTANT
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DETENTION
EXTENSION HEARING PROCESS.
FIRST, THE BILL CLARIFIES
JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY. SANTA
CRUZ COUNTY IDENTIFIED THAT
AMBIGUITY IN THE EXISTING
PROCESS, WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN
GONZALEZ BEING RELEASED, WHICH
COULD HAVE RESULTED IN GONZALEZ
BEING RELEASED INTO THE
COMMUNITY WHILE THE HEARING WAS
UNDER CONSIDERATION OR EVEN
DURING THE HEARING ITSELF.
SECOND, THE BILL ALLOWS EITHER
PARTY TO PETITION FOR
CONTINUANCE. THIRD, IT PERMITS
HEARSAY TESTIMONY, BUT ONLY
DURING THE PROBABLE CAUSE
HEARING. AND FOURTH, IT
PROVIDES CLARITY ON THE SHARING
OF EVIDENCE BETWEEN THE
PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE.
FIFTH, THE BILL EXTENDS THE
MAXIMUM TERM FOR DETENTION
EXTENSION TO FOUR YEARS. IT
ALSO REQUIRES COURTS TO
CONSIDER BOTH THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AT TRIAL AND THE
CLINICAL ASSESSMENT, AND TO
CLEARLY EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR
THE LENGTH OF TIME ORDERED.
JOINING ME TODAY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT ARE LAUREN APTER, THE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
WITH SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, AND
LAURA JORDAN, A SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY COMMUNITY MEMBER. BUT
MOST IMPORTANTLY, MADDIE'S
MOTHER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
COMING UP TODAY AND TESTIFYING.
EACH OF YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU. VICE
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. MIKE, I
THINK YOU JUST NEED TO BE
CLOSER TO YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME
NOW? BETTER. THAT'S BETTER. I
WILL MOVE MUCH CLOSER. THANK
YOU. VICE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
LAUREN APTER, ASSISTANT
DISTRICT ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF
THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SPONSOR OF
THIS BILL. I WOULD LIKE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HERE WITH US
TODAY ARE MADDIE MIDDLETON'S
MOTHER, LAURA JORDAN, OUR
ELECTED D.A. JEFF ROSELLE, AND
OUR CHIEF DEPUTY, TARA GEORGE,
WHO COMPLETED THE FIRST WICK
876 DETENTION EXTENSION TRIAL
IN 2025, WHEN SB 1391 WAS
SIGNED INTO LAW, THEN GOVERNOR
BROWN'S PROMISE TO VICTIMS WAS
THAT THIS DETENTION EXTENSION
PROCESS WOULD PERMIT, AND I
QUOTE, EXTENDED INCARCERATION.
IF A YOUTH IS DEEMED TRULY
DANGEROUS. IN CONDUCTING THE
HEARING OF ADRIAN GONZALEZ,
MADDIE'S NOW 26 YEAR OLD RAPIST
AND MURDERER. OUR COMMUNITY
LEARNED THAT CHANGES MUST BE
MADE TO KEEP THIS PROMISE.
WHILE THIS BILL APPLIES TO,
APPROPRIATELY, A VERY SMALL
SUBSET OF A. NOW ADULT
OFFENDERS, THE PUBLIC SAFETY
AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS ARE HUGE.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, WE HAVE
HEARINGS EVERY TWO YEARS.
WHETHER OR NOT ADRIAN'S
TREATMENT HAS PROGRESSED. WE
ARE ALREADY BACK IN COURT
ACTIVELY LITIGATING THE SECOND
DETENTION EXTENSION HEARING.
THE FOCUS IS ON LITIGATION AND
NOT REHABILITATION. MISS JORDAN,
MORE ELOQUENTLY THAN I CAN,
WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE TWO YEAR
CYCLE IS DEEPLY RETRAUMATIZING
FOR VICTIMS, THEIR SURVIVING
FAMILIES. IT ALSO
RETRAUMATIZING OFFICERS WHO
HAVE TO RELIVE THE WORST
MOMENTS OF THEIR CAREERS.
JURORS WHO HAVE TO SERVE AND
THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THIS
IS NOT A COMMON SENSE APPROACH
TO JUSTICE, TO TREATMENT, OR
THE USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES. WE
HAVE ADDRESSED MANY OF THE
OPPOSITION'S CONCERNS,
INCLUDING REQUIRING THAT A
COURT STATE ON THE RECORD,
BASED ON A CLINICAL ASSESSMENT
AND TRIAL EVIDENCE, WHY A
CERTAIN LENGTH OF DETENTION IS
APPROPRIATE. WE ALSO MAKE
CRITICAL PROCEDURAL
IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING
ENSURING JURISDICTION,
STREAMLINING PROBABLE CAUSE
HEARINGS, WHICH ARE REALLY JUST
A GUT CHECK SO THAT PEOPLE
DON'T HAVE TO TESTIFY AGAIN AND
AGAIN AND AGAIN. AND APPLYING
OUR STATE'S VERY SENSIBLE,
RECIPROCAL CRIMINAL DISCOVERY
RULES. WE HOPE SANTA CRUZ
EXPERIENCE CAN LEAD TO A BETTER
PROCESS FOR VICTIMS AND FOR
JUSTICE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WITNESS. THANK YOU FOR
COMING TODAY. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
LAURA JORDAN AND I AM THE
MOTHER OF MADISON MIDDLETON.
MADISON WAS EIGHT YEARS OLD
WHEN HER LIFE WAS BRUTALLY
TAKEN AWAY BY ADRIAN GONZALEZ
IN 2015. SHE WAS LURED,
STRANGLED, RAPED, TORTURED AND
MURDERED IN A MANNER THAT WAS
VICIOUS AND CALCULATED. MADISON
WAS A SPITFIRE AND FILLED OUR
LIVES WITH HUMOR AND LIGHT. HER
LAST MOMENTS WERE INSTEAD
FILLED WITH PAIN AND TERROR.
SINCE THAT DAY, MY LIFE AND MY
FAMILY'S LIVES HAVE BEEN A
LIVING HELL. IN 2017, AFTER A
GRUELING NINE WEEK TRANSFER
HEARING, THE JUDGE STATED THAT
THE CRIME WAS THE MOST HEINOUS
HE HAD SEEN AND RULED THAT
GONZALEZ WOULD BE TRIED AS AN
ADULT. BUT THAT SMALL VICTORY
WAS RIPPED AWAY IN 2018. FROM
THAT POINT ON, WE'VE BEEN STUCK
IN A NEVER ENDING CYCLE OF
HEARINGS. IN 2021, GONZALEZ WAS
FINALLY SENT TO DJJ JUST AS IT
WAS BEING DISMANTLED. THEN, AS
HE APPROACHED 25, WE WERE
PULLED BACK INTO COURT TO
DETERMINE IF HE WOULD BE
RELEASED IN 2025. WE CONCLUDED
AN EIGHT MONTH TRIAL PROCESS. I
HAD TO LISTEN TO MY DAUGHTER'S
SADISTIC KILLER DESCRIBE HER
CRUEL DEATH WHEN HE TOOK THE
STAND FOR EIGHT LONG DAYS. HE
HAS NEVER EXPRESSED REMORSE NOR
APOLOGIZED. HIS CRIME WAS A
CALCULATED, PREDATORY ACT, NOT
THE MISTAKE OF A CHILD. AND THE
TRAUMA CONTINUES BECAUSE UNDER
CURRENT LAW, EVERY TWO YEARS HE
HAS THE CHANCE OF RELEASE.
PREPARATIONS FOR TRIAL BEGIN
MONTHS IN ADVANCE. THERE IS NO
REAL BREAK TO PUT THIS INTO
PERSPECTIVE. THE SANTA CRUZ DE
Ã CONCLUDED THE FIRST
EXTENSION HEARING IN 2025,
BELIEVING GONZALEZ IS STILL
DANGEROUS PROBATION HAS
PETITIONED ANOTHER HEARING. THE
D.A. IS CURRENTLY PREPARING FOR
ANOTHER TRIAL, AS AM I. FOR THE
REST OF MY LIFE, I WILL BE
FORCED TO RELIVE MY DAUGHTER'S
MURDER, TO DEFEND WHAT HAPPENED
TO HER, AND TO BEG THE SYSTEM
TO PROTECT OTHER CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES. EVERY COURT
APPEARANCE, EVERY HEARING, AND
EVERY TRIAL BRINGS MORE PAIN.
YET I CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR
MADDIE. I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO
HOLD A JOB FOR A DECADE. I'VE
INSTEAD SPENT MONTHS AT A TIME
MENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY
PREPARING FOR TRIALS. MADISON'S
DAD COULDN'T COPE WITH THE
GRIEF SELF-MEDICATED AND LOST
HIS LIFE. BOTH OF MADDIE'S
GRANDFATHERS PASSED AWAY BEFORE
SEEING JUSTICE FOR MADISON. WE
HAVE NO RESOLUTION. INSTEAD, WE
ARE FORCED TO RETURN AGAIN AND
AGAIN TO COURT TO CONTINUE TO
FIGHT FOR JUSTICE. WE SHOULD
NOT HAVE TO RELIVE THIS
NIGHTMARE EVERY TWO YEARS. NO
PARENT SHOULD. NO COMMUNITY
SHOULD. MY DAUGHTER MATTERED.
MADISON MATTERS AND THE LAW
SHOULD REFLECT THAT. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOU FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE ON AB 1902. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR COURAGE IN SHARING
THIS GOD AWFUL EPISODE IN YOUR
LIFE THAT CONTINUES ON. ALL
RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL
TAKE OTHER ME TWOS IN IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL. YOU CAN
COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE,
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION.
MY NAME IS JEFF ROSELLE AND I
AM THE SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND WE
SUPPORT AND SPONSOR THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MAX PERRY, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION, ALSO IN SUPPORT.
RANDY PERRY ON BEHALF OF PORAC
AND SUPPORT. ELENA, COMMUNITY
MEMBER AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT
AB 1902. PLEASE PASS. SHAWNA
SPAULDING, COMMUNITY MEMBER AND
STRONG SUPPORT. DANIEL SANCHEZ,
ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF
PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA. PLEASED TO SUPPORT,
IF AMENDED, THANK YOU. IVY
FITZPATRICK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION, THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SUPPORT.
OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL TAKE
THE TWO PRINCIPAL WITNESSES IN
OPPOSITION IF WE HAVE ANY. COME
ON UP. HAVE A SEAT. EACH. HAVE
TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU,
VICE CHAIR. I AM RACHEL ENGEL,
SUPERVISING ASSISTANT PUBLIC
DEFENDER IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY,
WHERE I HAVE MORE THAN 20 YEARS
EXPERIENCE, INCLUDING
LITIGATING A WICK 1800 TRIAL,
WHICH IS THE PREDECESSOR FOR
LAW, FOR WHICH SECTION 876 IS
BASED ON. I ALSO CURRENTLY
SUPERVISE OUR DIVISION HANDLING
CONSERVATORSHIPS AND OTHER
ADULT CIVIL COMMITMENTS. I
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR'S APRIL
AMENDMENTS. HOWEVER, BECAUSE
JUNE AMENDMENTS REVERSE COURSE
ON SOME ELEMENTS AND OTHER
ISSUES REMAIN, I ASK THIS
COMMITTEE TO NOT PERMIT THE
BILL TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT
ADDRESSING THESE CONCERNS. WE
MUST START WITH THE RECOGNITION
THAT THIS IS ABOUT TREATMENT,
NOT PUNISHMENT. IMPORTANTLY, IT
IS EXACTLY FOR THE SAFETY OF
THE COMMUNITY THAT ADEQUATE AND
CONSISTENT TREATMENT IS GIVEN
AS NEEDED FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS.
THIS BILL WOULD DOUBLE EXISTING
LAWS COMMITMENT PERIOD TO FOUR
YEARS. ALTHOUGH IT'S ONLY BEEN
USED ONCE SINCE ENACTED IN 2020.
SECTION 876 IS BASED ON A LAW
THAT HAS HAD A TWO YEAR
COMMITMENT PERIOD FOR AT LEAST
45 YEARS. SIGNIFICANTLY, EVERY
OTHER ANALOGOUS ADULT CIVIL
COMMITMENT LAW COVERING
INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DEEMED
DANGEROUS REQUIRES REVIEW AT 1
OR 2 YEAR INTERVALS. REGULAR
REVIEW ENSURES COMMITMENT IS
TREATMENT ORIENTED AND FOCUSED
ON CURRENT CLINICAL
PRESENTATION. A SECOND CONCERN
IS THAT THIS BILL WOULD NOT
EXCLUDE JAIL OR PRISON AS A
PLACEMENT, OR SPECIFY THAT
PLACEMENT MUST BE FOR TREATMENT.
NO ADULT CIVIL COMMITMENT LAW
PERMITS COMMITMENT TO JAIL.
JAIL SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE THE
LONG TERM INTENSIVE TREATMENT
THAT INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL
ILLNESS NEED. I ENCOURAGE THIS
COMMITTEE TO ASK, ON WHAT
GROUND SHOULD THE STATE PASS A
LAW THAT IS HARSHER FOR YOUNG
PEOPLE IN THE JUVENILE SYSTEM
THAN ANY SIMILAR LAW FOR ADULTS?
THE CONSTITUTION ONLY PERMITS
CIVIL COMMITMENT WHERE
CONFINEMENT IS NON-PUNITIVE AND
TREATMENT ORIENTED. AB 1902 IS
FOR YOUR COMMITMENT WITHOUT
PERIODIC REVIEW, POTENTIALLY IN
A COUNTY JAIL OR OTHER
CUSTODIAL SETTING WILL BE
DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH FROM
AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSE.
ALL RIGHT. NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, VICE
CHAIR. IS THIS ON? THANK YOU.
OKAY. GOOD MORNING, VICE CHAIR.
MY NAME IS JESSICA AND I'M A
DEPUTY ALTERNATE PUBLIC
DEFENDER IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION, I HAVE 15 YEARS OF
COURTROOM EXPERIENCE
REPRESENTING YOUTH AND YOUNG
ADULTS IN CRIMINAL AND
DELINQUENCY MATTERS. AND I'M
HERE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO
OPPOSE AB 1902. THE BILL
PRESERVES THE TERM OTHER
PROBLEM AS A QUALIFYING
STANDARD FOR CIVIL COMMITMENT.
CIVIL COMMITMENT IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE
ONLY WHERE THE BASIS OF
CONFINEMENT IS A TREATABLE
CLINICAL CONDITION. IN 15 YEARS,
I'VE SEEN YOUTH ARE OFTEN
DESCRIBED IN BROAD, SUBJECTIVE
TERMS. FOR EXAMPLE, ANTISOCIAL
PEER ASSOCIATION OR GANG
AFFILIATION. THOSE DESCRIPTIONS
ARE NOT CLINICAL DIAGNOSES AND
THERE IS NO CIVIL COMMITMENT
TREATMENT FOR THEM. YET UNDER
THIS BILL, THOSE KINDS OF
LABELS CAN BECOME THE BASIS FOR
YEARS OF ADDITIONAL CONFINEMENT.
UNDEFINED TERMS BECOME
WEAPONIZED IN COURT. THIS
CONCERN IS ESPECIALLY ACUTE FOR
YOUTH OF COLOR, WHOSE RECORDS
ARE MORE LIKELY TO REFLECT
SYSTEMIC BIAS. AND THIS
VAGUENESS IS EVEN MORE
CONCERNING WHEN COMBINED WITH A
LENGTHY COMMITMENT PERIOD AND
THE POSSIBILITY OF PLACEMENT IN
AN ADULT FACILITY TOGETHER.
THIS APPROACH DOES NOT DESCRIBE
TREATMENT ORIENTED INTERVENTION,
BUT RATHER PREVENTATIVE
DETENTION, WHICH THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PERMIT,
AND THIS BODY SHOULD NOT
AUTHORIZE. CALIFORNIA LAW IS
INCREASINGLY RECOGNIZE WHAT
SCIENCE HAS LONG KNOWN THAT THE
ADOLESCENT BRAIN CONTINUES TO
MATURE WELL INTO A PERSON'S
MID-TWENTIES. ONE OF THE
PRIVILEGES OF REPRESENTING
YOUNG, YOUNG PEOPLE IS WATCHING
HOW MUCH THEY CHANGE FROM
ENTERING THE SYSTEM, IMPULSIVE
AND ANGRY, TO BECOMING
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BY THE
TIME THEY'RE IN THEIR EARLY 20S.
AND THAT'S WHY CALIFORNIA IS
INCREASINGLY RECOGNIZED THAT
YOUNG ADULTS DESERVE DIFFERENT
TREATMENT. AB 1902 IS ASKING
YOU TO RAISE A COMMITMENT
PERIOD FOR YOUTH AND YOUNG
ADULTS, ONE THAT HAS BEEN IN
PLACE FOR DECADES AT A TIME
WHEN DOING SO IS SO
INCONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE
SCIENCE OF ADOLESCENT
DEVELOPMENT AND CALIFORNIA'S
OWN STATED VALUES REGARDING
YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS. AND FOR
THOSE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK YOU TO OPPOSE THE BILL. I
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS
TIME, WE'LL TAKE OTHER
OPPOSITION WITNESSES, COME UP
TO THE MIC. STATE YOUR
OPPOSITION. ABBY RODRIGUEZ
REGISTERING OPPOSITION FOR ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION AND THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE. THANK YOU. JIM LINDBERG,
ON BEHALF OF THE FRIENDS
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION OF
CALIFORNIA. OPPOSED. MARCO
GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AS WELL. OPPOSED.
THANK YOU. ISRAEL. WE'RE WITH
THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR
YOUTH AND COMMUNITY JUSTICE.
ALSO, BECAUSE OF THE REVERSAL
OF AMENDMENTS AND IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. LARA
RODOLPHE WITH THE HAYWOOD BURNS
INSTITUTE IN OPPOSITION. HIÆN
NGUYEN WITH LEGAL SERVICES FOR
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN IN
OPPOSITION. DAFNA, ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR YOUTH
LAW IN OPPOSITION, ALSO
REGISTERING OPPOSITION FOR
ALIANZA FOR OPPORTUNITY.
ALLIANCE FOR BOYS AND MEN OF
COLOR. BRIDGES OF HOPE.
CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR WOMEN PRISONERS,
CALIFORNIA JUVENILE JUSTICE
COMMISSIONERS COLLABORATIVE,
CALIFORNIA YOUTH DEFENDER
CENTER. CANCEL THE CONTRACT.
ANTELOPE VALLEY, CAREFIRST,
CALIFORNIA CENTER ON JUVENILE
AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE COLLECTIVE
FOR LIBERTY. LIBERATORY
LAWYERING COMMUNITIES UNITED
FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE,
COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS, FELONY
MURDER ELIMINATION PROJECT,
FRESH PLANS FOR YOUTH HANG OUT
AND DO GOOD IN OUR CARE. SAN
MATEO COUNTY LAW OFFICES OF
TANYA IBANEZ, INTEGRAL
COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS INSTITUTE
INITIATE JUSTICE, NATIONAL
CENTER FOR YOUTH LAW, PEACE
UNITED CHRIST CHURCH, RESTORE
180 RESTORING HOPE, CALIFORNIA
RUBICON PROGRAM, SILICON VALLEY
DEBUG THE CALIFORNIA YOUTH
JUSTICE PROJECT, THE PEACE AND
JUSTICE LAW CENTER, THE SOCIAL
IMPACT CENTER, UNLOCKED FUTURES,
URBAN PEACE INSTITUTE,
YOUNGSTERS FOR CHANGE AND YOUTH
JUSTICE COALITION. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANY OTHERS? IF THERE
ARE NO OTHERS, WILL BRING IT
BACK TO THE DAIS FOR YOU. ME?
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH,
I DO HAVE A QUESTION. SO IS
THIS FOUR YEAR EXTENSION? IS
THAT MANDATORY OR IS THAT AT
THE DISCRETION OF A JUDGE WHO
THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE DISCRETION?
RIGHT. SO THE JUDGE WOULD BE
ABLE TO BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT, ALL
THESE YOUTH OFFENDERS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, ALL THESE
OFFENSES, THEY DON'T HAPPEN IN
A LITTLE BOX IN A NEAT LITTLE
BOX. THERE ARE DIFFERENT
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR DIFFERENT
CRIMES. THIS CRIME SHE'S
TALKING ABOUT IS ABSOLUTELY
HORRENDOUS. AND WHEN A JUDGE IS
FACED WITH SOMEBODY LIKE THAT,
IT MAKES SENSE. IT'S NOT ABOUT
THE CONFINEMENT, IT'S ABOUT
KEEPING THEM AWAY FROM THE, THE
THE PUBLIC WHILE THEY FIGURE
OUT IF THIS PERSON IS GOING TO
GET BETTER OR NOT. AT SOME
POINT THEY CAN GET BETTER AND
THEN THEY CAN, THEY CAN DECIDE
TO PETITION THE COURT. BUT. YOU
KNOW, WE NEED WE NEED A WAY TO
RECOGNIZE THAT THE VICTIMS THAT
WE KEEP VICTIMIZING ON BEHALF
OF, OF TRYING TO KEEP PEOPLE
OUT OF PRISON, I GET IT, BUT
THERE ARE CASES WHERE THERE
PEOPLE ARE JUST TOO DARN
DANGEROUS AND THEY NEED THEY
NEED TO HAVE EXTRA, EXTRA
ATTENTION PAID TO THAT. THE
FAMILIES OF THESE VICTIMS. AND
I KNOW ANOTHER CASE, IT'S IT'S
SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO THIS EVERY
COUPLE OF YEARS THEY HAVE TO DO
THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
THEIR WHOLE LIFE IS GOING TO
COURT SO THAT THE PERSON THAT
DID SOME HIDEOUS ACT TO THEIR
LOVED ONE THAT'S NOW GONE, AND
ALL THE CONSEQUENCES THAT
FOLLOW GET TO MAKE THAT THE
REST OF THEIR LIFE. SO THIS
KIND OF PUTS IT BACK ON THE
PERSON WHO IS COMMITTED, THE
THE ATROCITY IN SOME CASES. AND,
AND I DON'T THINK IT'S UNFAIR.
I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S
REASONABLE TO GIVE THE VICTIMS
SOME RELIEF IN THIS PROCESS
WHEN IT'S DESERVED OR WHEN IT'S
APPROPRIATE. AND, AND SO
THEREFORE, WHEN THE TIME COMES,
I WILL BE SUPPORTING YOUR BILL.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL ALLOW YOU
TO CLOSE. THANK YOU. I WANT TO
THANK THE ADVOCATES WHO ENGAGED
WITH MY OFFICE EARLY IN THIS
PROCESS. THEY SHOWED UP, THEY
RAISED IMPORTANT CONCERNS, AND
I LISTENED WHERE IT MADE SENSE.
I TOOK AMENDMENTS BECAUSE
GETTING THIS RIGHT MATTERS. AND
LET ME BE CLEAR, AB 1902 IS NOT
ABOUT PUNISHMENT. IT'S ABOUT
RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S ABOUT
ENSURING THAT THE SMALL NUMBER
OF INDIVIDUALS WHO FACE AN
EXTENSION DETENTION HEARING ARE
PLACED IN THE MOST APPROPRIATE
SETTING TO RECEIVE MEANINGFUL
TREATMENT, GROUNDED IN CLINICAL
JUDGMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY. IT
IS ALSO ABOUT HONORING VICTIMS,
THEIR VOICES, THEIR EXPERIENCES,
AND THEIR TRAUMA MUST NOT BE
SIDELINED. THEY MUST BE A PART
OF HOW WE DEFINE JUSTICE.
MADDIE'S MOTHER, LARA, SPOKE
TODAY WITH EXTRAORDINARY
COURAGE. YOUR PRESENCE IS A
POWERFUL REMINDER THAT LONG
AFTER THE HEADLINES ARE GONE,
THE PAIN REMAINS. THAT LASTING
IMPACT MUST BE REFLECTED IN HOW
OUR SYSTEM RESPONDS AND AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. WHEN WE GET
UP, WHEN WE HAVE A QUORUM, WE
HAVE MORE MEMBERS HERE. WE HAVE
THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE. WE'LL
DO SO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO LET THE
TWO MEMBERS BATTLE IT OUT.
HERE'S THE SITUATION. THE OTHER
MEMBERS BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE.
TWICE. DO YOU MIND IF WE LET
HIM GO? ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT
I WAS LOOKING FOR. THANK YOU, I
APPRECIATE IT. MY WITNESS HAS
TO TAKE A FLIGHT, SO THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. I'LL
PROMISE THAT. I'LL BE VERY
QUICK. MR. GIBSON IS PRESENTING
A B 2405. I CAN EVEN SEE THAT
WITHOUT MY GLASSES. I KEEP
TRYING THIS. IT'S DUMB. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN AND
STAFF. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING
ME TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL
2405, A BILL THAT RELATES TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT, PATIENT
TRANSPORT. THIS BILL IS A
STRAIGHTFORWARD BILL PUBLIC
SAFETY AND PATIENT SAFETY, THAT
ESTABLISH A CONSISTENT
STATEWIDE STANDARD FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHO
TRANSPORT INDIVIDUALS ON A 5150
HOLD. OUR HOSPITALS ARE BEING
PUSHED TO THE BRINK BY MANY
FACTORS. ONE OF THESE IS THE
PRACTICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
BEING OR BRINGING PATIENTS TO
HOSPITALS OUTSIDE OF THEIR
SERVICE JURISDICTION. AN
EXAMPLE, AN EXTREME EXAMPLE OF
BEING EXPERIENCED AS MARTIN
LUTHER KING COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
THAT IS LOCATED IN MY DISTRICT
IN WATTS, SOUTH CENTRAL LOS
ANGELES. THE DATA SHOWS THAT
THEY HAVE HUNDREDS OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
TRANSPORTING TO MARTHA KING
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL. OVER THE
LAST FOUR MONTHS, INCLUDING
JURISDICTIONS OUTSIDE OF ITS
SERVICE AREA. IN A MEETING WITH
ME AND LEADERSHIP, I'VE LEARNED
THAT SOME OF THESE PATIENTS
COME FROM SANTA MONICA,
HOLLYWOOD, PASADENA SANTA
MONICA IS ROUGHLY 20 MILES AWAY.
OFFICERS PASS SEVEN HOSPITALS
ALONG THE WAY. PASADENA, WHICH
IS ESTIMATED 22 MILES AWAY,
PAST FIVE HOSPITALS ALONG THE
WAY. IT IS A. IT IS SIMPLY A
BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO TRANSPORT
PATIENTS TO THE CLOSEST
DESIGNATED FACILITY
GEOGRAPHICALLY BY TIME, RATHER
THAN OF TO THE NEAREST HOSPITAL
OF ITS CHOICE. IN CASES WHERE A
DESIGNATED FACILITY IS UNABLE
TO ACCEPT THE INDIVIDUAL, THE
INDIVIDUAL SHALL BE TRANSPORTED
TO THE NEAREST APPROPRIATE
EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT TO WHERE
CUSTODY WAS FIRST ASSUMED. THIS
BILL SEEKS TO ENSURE THAT THE
VULNERABLE CALIFORNIANS RECEIVE
A TIMELY MEDICAL CARE BY
ESTABLISHING CLEAR, CONSISTENT
STANDARD FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRANSPORT. ADDITIONALLY, IT
WOULD ESTABLISH A QUARTERLY
REPORT FRAMEWORK TO THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE
AUTHORITY ON ALL EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT TRANSPORT. WITHOUT
LEGISLATION, MARTHA KING WOULD
CONTINUE TO SEE DROP OFF THAT
COMES FROM SANTA MONICA,
PASADENA AND OTHER SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES. THIS PLACE
SIGNIFICANT STRAINS ON THE
LIMITED RESOURCES OF SAFETY NET
HOSPITALS AND EXACERBATE
ALREADY HIGH EMERGENCY
DEPARTMENT UTILIZATION.
ASSEMBLY BILL 2405 ADDRESSES
INADEQUATE AND BUT STRENGTHENS
THE OVERALL EMERGENCY CARE
SYSTEMS WHILE SUPPORTING THE
LONG TERM STABILITY OF SAFETY
NET HOSPITALS AND IMPROVE
OUTCOMES FOR PATIENTS ACROSS
CALIFORNIA. SIMPLY PUT, MARTHA
KING HOSPITAL IS IN TROUBLE,
AND IT HAS BEEN. IT IS DEEMED A
DISTRESSED HOSPITAL. TWO YEARS
AGO, THIS LEGISLATURE MOVED $25.
MILLION TO KEEP MARTIN LUTHER
KING HOSPITAL OPEN BECAUSE A
YEAR AFTERWARDS, THE HOSPITAL
WOULD HAVE CLOSED IN 2000. AND
I BELIEVE AND THEY CAN CORRECT
ME. 2007 MARTHA KING HOSPITAL
CLOSED ITS DOORS. BUT IN 2015
MARTHA KING HOSPITAL ROSE FROM
THE ASHES. AND IT'S A BRAND NEW
HOSPITAL. BUT THEY ARE LIMITED
IN TERMS OF RESOURCES. AND
THERE HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY THE
EMERGENCIES. THAT'S THAT'S
COMING IN FROM OTHER OTHER
FACTORS. LIKE I JUST DESCRIBED
PASADENA, SANTA MONICA AND
OTHER CITIES BRINGING AND
TRANSPORTING. 5150 THIS IS
AGAIN, A SMALL SITUATION, BUT
IT'S IMPACTING THE RESOURCES
HERE WITH ME TO SUPPORT THIS
PARTICULAR MEASURE IS THE VICE
PRESIDENT OF THE COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS FOR MARTHA KING
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, WHO WAS
SELF INTRODUCED AND ALSO A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
FROM CAPITAL ADVOCATE WHO ALSO
SELF INTRODUCE. PLEASE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. EACH OF YOU HAVE
TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING, MR. VICE CHAIRMAN,
KRISTIE WEISS WITH CAPITAL
ADVOCACY HERE IN SUPPORT ON
BEHALF OF OUR CLIENT, THE
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THE REST OF MY TIME TO DOCTOR
NHÀ CÁC TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE,
THE CHALLENGE THAT THE HOSPITAL
IS FACING AND TRYING TO ADDRESS
WITH THE BILL. SO SEATED, YOU
GOT TWO MINUTES. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. MY NAME
IS DOCTOR NHÀ CÁC. I SERVE AS
VICE PRESIDENT FOR GOVERNMENT
AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AT MLK
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL IN SOUTH LA.
OUR EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT HAS
SHARED IS FACING OVERCROWDING
CRISIS THAT ENDANGERS PATIENT
SAFETY. WE HAVE 29 BEDS, BUT WE
SEE ROUTINELY 350 PATIENTS A
DAY. WE'RE ONE OF THE NATION'S
BUSIEST EDS TOP 20 IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. EVEN
OUR CHAPEL AND OUR GIFT SHOP
ARE USED FOR PATIENT CARE. OUR
CHAPEL. ONE UNFAIR REASON WHY
IS PATIENT DROP OFFS BY LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES FAR AWAY
FROM OUR COMMUNITY. TIMELY
ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE CARE IS A
MATTER OF STATEWIDE CONCERN.
EMS IS REQUIRED TO TRANSPORT
PATIENTS TO THE NEAREST
RECEIVING FACILITY, YET LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES DO NOT
HAVE UNIFORM STANDARDS. THIS
INCONSISTENCY IN TRANSPORT
PRACTICES RESULTS IN UNSAFE
DELAYS, UNFAIR DISTRIBUTION OF
PATIENTS ACROSS HEALTH CARE
FACILITIES, AND OVERCROWDING OF
SAFETY NET HOSPITALS NOT ONLY
IN LOS ANGELES BUT IN PALM
SPRINGS, PALM DESERT AND
SACRAMENTO AND IN SAN DIEGO. WE
SEE THIS FIRSTHAND IN FOUR
MONTH PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 25TH
TO FEBRUARY 26TH, WE HAD 400
LAW ENFORCEMENT DROP OFFS. ON
APRIL 4TH AT 12:28 A.M. A
PATIENT ON A 5150 INVOLUNTARY
PSYCHIATRIC HOLD WAS DROPPED
OFF FROM SAN GABRIEL NEXT TO
PASADENA, THE DISTANCE FROM SAN
GABRIEL TO MLK COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL IS 22 MILES. THIS DROP
OFF WOULD HAVE HAD TO BYPASS
MORE THAN 13 FACILITIES.
HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, SAN
GABRIEL VALLEY HOSPITAL,
MONTEREY PARK HOSPITAL,
ADVENTIST HEALTH, WHITE
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, LA GENERAL
HOSPITAL AND EIGHT OTHERS. FOR
SOMEONE IN A BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
CRISIS, THAT DELAY CAN BE
DANGEROUS. MINUTES MATTER.
THESE ARE PATIENTS WHO ARE
DEEMED DANGEROUS TO SELF,
DANGEROUS TO OTHERS OR GRAVE
DISABILITY. A B 2405 FIXES THIS
BY CREATING A SIMPLE COMMON
SENSE AND UNIFORM STANDARD. IF
LAW ENFORCEMENT TRANSPORTS
SOMEONE ON A 5150 PSYCHIATRIC
HOLD, THEY GO TO THE NEAREST
APPROPRIATE FACILITY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY TODAY. AT THIS TIME,
WE'LL TAKE ANY BUDDY WHO WOULD
LIKE TO EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT
FOR THE BILL. COME ON UP.
EXPRESS YOUR SUPPORT. IVY
RODRIGUEZ WITH THE ACLU
CALIFORNIA ACTION REGISTERING
ITS WIENER POSITION. AND JUST
WANT TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE TO
THE AUTHOR AND HIS STAFF FOR
HAVING CONVERSATIONS THROUGH
HOPES THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN
PATIENT AUTONOMY. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL TAKE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES COMING UP.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. LOOKS
LIKE WE JUST HAVE ONE. NO, WE
HAVE TWO. OKAY. EACH OF YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR. ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL, ALSO
REGISTERING ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND OPPOSITION WHO
ARE UNAVOIDABLY DETAINED IN THE
OTHER COMMITTEE THIS MORNING.
AS WE'VE TESTIFIED BEFORE, MR.
CHAIR, THIS SORT OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRACTICE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT AS THE BILL IS
AMENDED OR IS GOING TO BE
AMENDED, I'M NOT SURE OF THE
TIMING OF EVERYTHING, BUT THIS
THIS PRACTICE AS IT RELATES TO
5150S, WE JUST DON'T THINK IT
SHOULD BE IN STATUTE. THERE ARE
MANY FACTORS THAT MIGHT GO INTO
A DETERMINATION, AS YOU KNOW,
GIVEN YOUR PRIOR LIFE, AS TO
WHERE A PERSON SHOULD BE
TRANSPORTED. AND WE THINK THE
LOCAL PROTOCOLS SHOULD BE
DETERMINATIVE WITH THE
AMENDMENTS. THE BILL NO LONGER
INCLUDES AN EXIGENT
CIRCUMSTANCES EXCEPTION. IT
USED TO. IT WASN'T A VERY GOOD
ONE, BUT AT LEAST IT
ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE MIGHT
BE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
COULD BE ADDRESSED IN AN
OFFICER'S DECISION ON WHERE
THEY'RE TRANSPORTING SOMEONE
WHO IS IN NEED OF 5150
EVALUATION, BUT THAT'S BEEN
TAKEN OUT OF THE BILL, AND
THERE'S STILL NO NO DIRECTION
IN THE BILL. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
THE NEAREST FACILITY MIGHT BE
PHYSICALLY INACCESSIBLE? SO
THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IF
THEY CAN'T BE ACCEPTED. BUT
WHAT IF THERE'S A HUGE FIRE
SURROUNDING THE FACILITY AND
THEY CAN'T GET I MEAN, IS THAT
IS THAT COVERED BY THIS? NOT
CLEAR. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH
PUTTING THIS STATUTE IS EVERY
SINGLE SITUATION AND ITS
DYNAMIC CIRCUMSTANCES HAS TO BE
ACCOUNTED FOR. AND YET IT'S NOT
THE AS THE ANALYSIS NOTES, HOW
ARE OUR DEPUTY SHERIFFS, FOR
EXAMPLE, SUPPOSED TO KNOW IF
THE FIRST, SECOND OR THIRD
CHOICE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S
NEAREST IS ON DIVERSION, FOR
EXAMPLE, AND CAN'T ACCEPT A
PATIENT. SO FOR ALL OF THOSE
REASONS ABOUT THE PHYSICAL
PROBLEMS WITH SAYING IN STATUTE,
YOU HAVE TO TAKE SOMEONE TO
THIS PLACE BECAUSE IT'S THE
CLOSEST, EITHER GEOGRAPHICALLY
OR BY TIME. BUT ADDITIONALLY,
THE UNFUNDED MANDATE TO WRAP UP
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
REPORT QUARTERLY WERE OPPOSED
TO THE BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JULIO
DELEON, A LIEUTENANT WITH THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE. WE HAVE ONE PARTICULAR
CONCERN WITH OUR COUNTY.
SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE NOT LÀ. WE
DON'T HAVE THAT MANY HOSPITALS
IN OUR IN OUR GEOGRAPHICAL AREA.
HOWEVER, THIS WOULD IMPOSE A
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM FOR OUR
EAST AND DEPUTY SHERIFFS THAT
WORK IN BLYTHE, COLORADO RIVER
STATION AND INDIO STATION. IF
WE WERE TO READ THIS BILL,
LITERALLY, OUR DEPUTIES WOULD
BE REQUIRED TO GO OUT OF STATE
INTO PARKER, ARIZONA, BECAUSE
THAT IS THE CLOSEST
GEOGRAPHICAL HOSPITAL DISTANCE
AND IN TIME TO OUR EASTERN END
DEPUTY. SO THIS WOULD CAUSE US
PEACE OFFICERS IN CALIFORNIA TO
GO INTO ANOTHER STATE AND TO
TRANSPORT PEOPLE INTO ANOTHER
STATE. WE WOULD LOSE OUR
COMMUNICATIONS WITH OUR
DISPATCHERS. WE WOULD LOSE OUR
PEACE OFFICER STATUS, KIND OF.
I KNOW THERE ARE SOME
EXCEPTIONS, BUT THERE IT'S A
GRAY AREA AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE
ANY BACKUP IF SOMETHING WERE TO
HAPPEN ON THE WAY OR COMING
BACK, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTLY WITH
ANY ARIZONA LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENCIES. SO THAT IS OUR
SPECIFIC CONCERN. WE DID RAISE
THAT WITH WE DID RAISE THOSE
CONCERNS WITH THE AUTHOR
YESTERDAY. I'M HOPING THAT THEY
ARE ADDRESSED, BUT WE ARE
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED AT THIS
POINT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AT
THIS TIME, WE'LL TAKE ANY OTHER
OPPOSITION. COME ON UP TO THE
MICROPHONE. STATE YOUR
OPPOSITION CHAIR. MEMBERS, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, I
APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
AUTHOR, BUT STILL IN OPPOSITION
POSITION AT THIS TIME AND OUR
COMMENTS WITH THE SHERIFFS.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. FRANCO,
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND THE FIRE
DISTRICT ASSOCIATION AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. GOOD
MORNING. GOOD MORNING. I'M
DOCTOR ABDALATI. ON BEHALF OF
MYSELF, I RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE
THIS UNLESS AMENDED JUST TO
HELP SOME PROTECTIONS FOR IN
HOSPITALS AND ACUTE CARE
SETTINGS. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO
SPEAK WITH THE AUTHOR ABOUT
THAT. THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR. ON
BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES AND KIND OF A
TWEENER POSITION, WE JUST HAVE
CONCERNS. WE VERY MUCH
APPRECIATE THE RECENT
AMENDMENTS TAKING IT OUT OF THE
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ACT,
BUT STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT
CONCERNS ABOUT THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT MANDATES IN THE
BILL. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
WITH THAT, I WILL BRING IT BACK
TO THE DAIS. I HAVE A COLLEAGUE.
COLLEAGUE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO
COMMENT? DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
I DO NOT, BUT HAVE WE
ESTABLISHED QUORUM? NO. WELL,
WE HAVE NOT. I THOUGHT
ELECTIONS TOOK A LONG TIME.
EVEN LONGER. OKAY. HAPPY TO
REMOVE IT ONCE WE HAVE A QUORUM.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE
SOME EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE WITH
THIS AREA, WITH YOUR HOSPITAL,
WITH THE ENTIRE SOUTH BAY, AND
GOING ALL THE WAY UP INTO NORTH
HOLLYWOOD AND THE HOSPITALS.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UCLA AND
THEATERS AND ALL OF THOSE BEING
DIVERTED WITH CRITICAL PATIENTS
IN THE BACK. IT'S PART OF THE
SYSTEM. WHY? AND I DO I GET IT,
SOME HOSPITALS FEEL LIKE
THEY'RE GETTING DUMPED ON AND
MAYBE YOU ARE, BUT THERE'S A
BUNCH OF OTHER REASONS THAT WE
NEED TO FERRET OUT BEFORE WE
KNOW WHY THEY'RE GETTING DUMPED
ON. AND SOME OF THEM ARE
THERE'S SOME HOSPITAL ERS THAT
ARE CONSTANTLY, CONSTANTLY
BEING SATURATED, AND THEY'RE
CLOSE TO SATURATION. THEY HAVE
SECURITY ISSUES. THEY HAVE
WHATEVER ISSUES YOU HAVE. SOME
HOSPITALS ARE MUCH SMALLER THAN
OTHER HOSPITALS AND DON'T HAVE
THE CAPABILITY OF TAKING A 5150.
SO SO THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH
THE BILL IS HOW, YOU KNOW, IT'S
THE EMS IS THE ONE WHO TRIES TO
DETERMINE WHAT THESE CATCHMENT
AREAS ARE AND ALL OF THAT. THIS
SEEMS LIKE WE'RE IT'S SOMETHING
THAT SHOULD BE SOLVED IN THAT
REALM SO THAT SOMETHING FAIR
AND ADEQUATE CAN BE DETERMINED
WITH THE HOSPITALS THEMSELVES,
BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT
ULTIMATELY GET THESE PATIENTS.
SO, YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. I'M NOT
QUITE SURE WHICH WAY I GO, IF I
GO AT ALL ON, ON THIS BECAUSE
OF I REALLY THINK THE HOSPITALS
NEED TO WEIGH IN AND FIGURE OUT
A SYSTEM WHERE THAT NOT NOT
ONLY JUST INCLUDES EMS AND, YOU
KNOW, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PART
OF THIS, BUT ALSO PD AND MAKING
SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE
THEY'RE TAKING PEOPLE THAT
AREN'T JUST GOING TO GET TURNED
OUT INTO THE STREET IMMEDIATELY
AND BECOME SOMEBODY ELSE'S.
5150 AND, AND PART OF IT COULD
BE WHERE THE NEXT LOCATION IS,
WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GO AFTER
THE ER. IF THEY'RE CLOSE TO A
PSYCHIATRIC FACILITY THAT CAN
TAKE THEM. SO YEAH, IT'S A,
IT'S A, IT'S A HARD ISSUE TO
DEAL WITH. AND IT ALWAYS HAS
BEEN. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON. I
MEAN THIS IS PRIME TIME IN THE
IN THE 80S. SO SO IT'S IT'S
SOMETHING I'M, YOU KNOW,
ACUTELY FAMILIAR WITH. AND I
DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE THE
ANSWERS FOR YOU. SO ANYWAY,
WITH THAT, YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE MY
WITNESSES FOR COMING AND FOR
REPRESENTING MARTIN LUTHER KING
HOSPITAL. I JUST WANT TO SAY,
THE DOCTOR SAID THAT MARTIN
LUTHER KING HAS 29 BEDS. AND SO
AND I ALSO IN MY OPENING
COMMENTS, TALKED ABOUT MARTIN
KING HOSPITAL CLOSING. VERY
SELDOM DO WE HAVE A HOSPITAL
THAT CLOSED OPEN UP AGAIN IN
CALIFORNIA OR ANY OTHER
HOSPITAL. AND SO THIS IS AN
ANOMALY, RIGHT. AND SO WE WANT
TO MAKE SURE THAT MARTIN KING
HOSPITAL DOORS REMAIN OPEN AND
CONTINUE TO OPEN FOR
GENERATIONS TO COME. AND TO THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF RIVERSIDE
DEPUTY SHERIFFS WHO CAME,
DEPUTY LIEUTENANT, EXCUSE ME,
WHO CAME? WE JUST HAD A
CONVERSATION, MY OFFICE
YESTERDAY. CERTAINLY. TAKING
THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, WE
WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK,
EVEN OVER THE SUMMER BREAK, TO
GET TO A NEUTRAL POSITION. AND
ALSO, HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE ABLE
TO SUPPORT AND ALSO WITH OTHER
LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE WANT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO WORK. BUT AGAIN,
MY MOTIVATION IN THESE LAST SIX
MONTHS THAT I HAVE IN OFFICE IS
TO MAKING SURE THAT, ONE, THIS
BILL GETS TO THE GOVERNOR'S
DESK AND SIGNS THE LAW. I'LL BE
DAMNED IF I'M GOING TO HAVE
MARTIN HOSPITAL CLOSED UNDER MY
WATCH, UNDER MY TERM. I SAW
THIS HOSPITAL CLOSED BEFORE,
AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'M GOING
TO HAVE MARTIN LUTHER KING
HOSPITAL CLOSED AGAIN. I SAW
PEOPLE LOSE THEIR LIVES. I SAW
THIS HOSPITAL SCRAMBLE UNDER
COVID AND MANY PEOPLE DIED AND
WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THE KIND OF
CARE IT NEEDS. THIS HOSPITAL
HAS TO REMAIN OPEN FOR
GENERATIONS TO CONTINUE TO
SERVE BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE IN
THE COMMUNITY AND THE
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. IT
SERVES OUR COMMUNITY AND IT'S
THERE FOR A PURPOSE, AND WE
UNDERSTAND WHAT I ARTICULATED
AND WHAT THE DOCTOR ARTICULATED
TO HAVE PATIENTS, EVEN 5150,
BEING TRANSPORTED FROM SANTA
MONICA, FROM PASADENA TO COME
TO MARTIN HOSPITAL, AND THEY
PASSING OF OTHER HOSPITAL, THEY
ARE WELL ABLE AND QUALIFIED TO
PROVIDE AND SERVICE INDIVIDUALS
WITH 5150. THEY PASSING UP
INDIVIDUAL HOSPITALS, SEVEN AND
13 OTHER HOSPITALS THAT CAN
PROVIDE THE SAME KIND OF CARE
TO 5150. WHY ARE THEY NOT
TAKING THOSE INDIVIDUALS? THERE
ARE 52 IN THE COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES THAT ARE QUALIFIED
CENTERS TO HANDLE 5150
PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS, BUT
THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY GOING TO
MARTIN LUTHER KING HOSPITAL
THAT ARE NOT EVEN NOT EVEN
QUALIFIED. I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT
EVEN CERTIFIED, BUT THEY'RE
TAKING UP 29 BEDS. AND THE
RESOURCES THEY'RE TAKING UP TO
HANDLE MARTIN LUTHER KING
HOSPITAL WILL NOT TURN ANY
PATIENTS AWAY, BUT THEY'RE
DRAINING THE RESOURCES OF
CRITICALLY ILL PEOPLE THAT NEED
THOSE SERVICES. I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR A VOTE AT THE PROPER
TIME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AS
YOU CAN SEE, WE STILL DO NOT
HAVE A QUORUM. AND SO WE WILL
BE TAKING THIS UP WHEN WE
ESTABLISH A QUORUM, AND WE'LL
BE VOTING ON ALL BILLS AT THAT
TIME. THANK YOU. DO WE NEED. DO
YOU. DO? ALL RIGHT. I'VE BEEN
TOLD THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO HAVE TO EAT LUNCH, BUT WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE THE FINAL TWO
MEMBERS HERE. WE'RE GOING TO
TAKE. YOU HAVE TWO BILLS. I
BELIEVE. SHE HAD COME IN AND
CHECKED IN A LITTLE EARLIER.
SORRY. AND THEN. AND THEN WE'RE
GOING TO RECESS. GOOD MORNING,
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I AM
PROUD TO PRESENT AB 1886, WHICH
ENSURES THAT ALL YOUTH ON
NONCUSTODIAL PROBATION,
REGARDLESS OF THEIR HOUSING
SITUATION, ARE TREATED FAIRLY
AND GIVEN CLEAR TIMELINES FOR
WHEN PROBATION SHOULD END. THIS
BILL CLOSES A GAP IN CURRENT
LAW SO THAT YOUTH IN
OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENTS RECEIVE
THE SAME PROTECTIONS AS YOUTH
LIVING AT HOME, HELPING PREVENT
UNNECESSARILY LONG PROBATION
TERMS. RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A
TWO TIERED SYSTEM. YOUTH WHO
REMAIN AT HOME BENEFIT FROM
CLEAR TIMELINES AND REGULAR
COURT REVIEW, WHILE YOUTH IN
OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENTS DO NOT
RECEIVE THOSE SAME PROTECTIONS.
BECAUSE OF THIS GAP, YOUNG
PEOPLE CAN STAY ON PROBATION
LONGER THAN NECESSARY, OFTEN
DUE TO FACTORS OUTSIDE OF THEIR
CONTROL, SUCH AS PLACEMENT
DECISIONS OR SYSTEM LIMITATIONS
RATHER THAN ACTUAL BEHAVIOR.
THIS DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS
VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES AND
INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD OF
DEEPER SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT
WITHOUT IMPROVING OUTCOMES. IT
UNDERMINES THE GOAL OF
REHABILITATION AND CREATES
INEQUITIES IN HOW YOUTH ARE
TREATED. AB 1886 WOULD HELP FIX
THIS ISSUE BY APPLYING CLEAR
STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHING A 12
MONTH BASELINE FOR PROBATION
FOR YOUTH IN OUT-OF-HOME
PLACEMENTS. UNLESS A COURT
CLEARLY FINDS A SPECIFIC REASON,
IT SHOULD CONTINUE THIS ALSO.
THIS BILL ALSO REQUIRES REGULAR
COURT REVIEW HEARINGS TO ASSESS
A YOUNG PERSON'S PROGRESS AND
ENSURES THAT PROBATION
CONDITIONS ARE REASONABLE, AGE
APPROPRIATE AND FOCUSED ON
REHABILITATION. WITH ME HERE
TODAY TO TESTIFY ARE KARINA
ZAVALA AND JOSIAH BÀN. ONLY
WITH DAPHNE? DAFNA GOES ON,
EXCUSE ME AS A WITNESS. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
EACH OF YOU, YOU HAVE TWO
MINUTES. IF YOU CAN ADHERE TO
THAT, THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING,
VICE CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS JOSIAH
BENONI, REPRESENTING CALIFORNIA
YOUTH CONNECTION, ALSO KNOWN AS
PSYCH. I'M HERE TODAY IN
SUPPORT AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
AB 1886. THE OPPOSITION FROM
PROBATION AND THE COURTS ARGUES
THAT A 12 MONTH PRESUMPTION IS
TOO RIGID FOR DUAL STATUS
FOSTER YOUTH, BUT THEIR
ARGUMENTS FAIL TO HOLD UP UNDER
SCRUTINY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
VULNERABLE FOSTER YOUTH, PRE
VETTED AND DETERMINED BY THE
COURTS AS SAFE TO RETURN TO
THEIR COMMUNITIES, BEING
PENALIZED BY THE CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR
CIRCUMSTANCES ENTIRELY OUTSIDE
OF THEIR CONTROL. HOUSING
STATUS EXTENDED OPEN ENDED
PROBATION DOES NOT REHABILITATE
FOSTER YOUTH. IT INADVERTENTLY
TRAPS THEM. THIS POLICY IS
CLOSE TO HOME FOR ME. MY MOTHER
WAS A DUAL STATUS YOUTH. SHE
WAS ACTUALLY IN AN ADULT PRISON
AS A MINOR WHEN I WAS BORN
BEFORE HER 18TH BIRTHDAY,
TRAPPED IN AN AIMLESS JUVENILE
FRAMEWORK WITH NO CLEAR END
DATE, SHE HAD NO INTENTION OF
COMPLYING WITH HER JUVENILE
PROBATION. PRIOR TO HER FIRST
PRISON SENTENCE, THE SYSTEM
ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZED HER TO
ATTEMPT TO EVADE LAW
ENFORCEMENT UNTIL SHE TURNED 18.
RATHER THAN ENGAGE WITH IT FOR
COMPLETION DECADES LATER, WHEN
SHE ENTERED THE ADULT SYSTEM,
SHE SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED
PAROLE IN JUST 13 MONTHS
BECAUSE THERE WAS A CLEAR,
INCENTIVIZED GOAL. SHE HASN'T
RETURNED TO INCARCERATION IN
FOUR YEARS. SURVEILLANCE IS NOT
SUPPORT. WE SHOULD ZOOM OUT AND
CONSIDER HOW RELIANT THE STATE
IS ON USING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
TO MANAGE CHILD WELFARE. DUAL
STATUS YOUTH DON'T NEED TO LIVE
UNDER CONSTANT THREAT OF
INCARCERATION JUST TO RECEIVE
TRAUMA THERAPY OR BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH SERVICES IF THEY'RE
ALREADY UNDER MASSIVE CHILD
WELFARE OVERSIGHT, ADDING AN
EXTRA LAYER OF PUNITIVE
PROBATION SURVEILLANCE IS
REDUNDANT. COUNTERPRODUCTIVE,
CREATES A DISCRIMINATORY TWO
TIER SYSTEM AND FUELS A
MULTI-GENERATIONAL CYCLE OF
JUSTICE, INVOLVEMENT AND FOSTER
CARE. BREAKING THESE CYCLES
REQUIRES SYSTEMS TO GIVE YOUNG
PEOPLE A GENUINE OPPORTUNITY TO
THRIVE INDEPENDENTLY. THIS BILL
TAKES OUR JUVENILE FRAMEWORK
FROM ENDLESS SURVEILLANCE TO
OUTCOMES DRIVEN, GOAL ORIENTED
JUSTICE. THANK YOU. AND I'LL
ADD THAT AT THE STATE AND
FEDERAL LEVELS, THE RESPECTIVE
EXECUTIVE BRANCHES HAVE
RECENTLY TAKEN ACTION AND
EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR FOSTER
YOUTH. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. HELLO. GOOD MORNING,
CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE SENATE.
MY NAME IS KARINA AND I AM A
PSYCH LEADER WITH SAN DIEGO
YOUTH SAN DIEGO ENDING GIRLS
INCARCERATION. AFTER SPENDING
MORE THAN THREE YEARS IN FOSTER
CARE AND ON PROBATION. I CAN
TELL YOU THIS THE SYSTEMS DID
NOT MAKE MY LIFE MORE STABLE.
INSTEAD, IT OFTEN FELT LIKE THE
RULES WERE ALWAYS CHANGING AND
NEVER IN MY FAVOR. EVERY TIME I
HAD A NEW PLACEMENT OR A NEW
PROBATION OFFICER, THE
EXPECTATION EXPECTATIONS
CHANGED. THERE ARE SO MANY WAYS
TO GET IN TROUBLE, BUT NOT
ENOUGH SUPPORT TO HELP ME
SUCCEED. IT FELT LIKE I WAS
ALWAYS BEING TESTED INSTEAD OF
BEING HELPED BECAUSE I WAS ON
PROBATION. MANY PLACEMENTS, DID
NOT WANT DID NOT WANT TO TAKE
ME. INSTEAD OF MOVING FORWARD,
I BECAME STUCK IN A CYCLE OF
BEING PLACED IN INSTITUTIONS
AND GOING IN AND OUT OF CUSTODY.
IT FELT LIKE I WAS BEING SENT
BACK TO THE STARTING LINE OVER
AND OVER AGAIN. YOUTH IN FOSTER
CARE ALREADY FACED SO MANY
CHALLENGES AND OBSTACLES. WE
NEED STABILITY, SUPPORT AND
PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN US. WE
NEED OPPORTUNITIES TO BUILD OUR
FUTURES, NOT SYSTEMS THAT ARE
Kò, THAT KEEP THAT, KEEP
HOLDING US BACK. AB 1886 GIVES
YOUTH A GOAL THAT THEY CAN
ACTUALLY REACH. IT HELPS ENSURE
FOSTER YOUTH THAT FOSTER THAT
FOSTER YOUTH ARE NOT KEPT UNDER
SUPERVISION LONGER THAN
NECESSARY, AND GIVES THEM A
REAL CHANCE TO MOVE FORWARD
WITH THEIR LIVES. SUPERVISION
ALONE DOES NOT EMPOWER YOUTH
SUPPORT, TRUST AND OPPORTUNITY.
DO I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT ON AB 1886? THANK YOU.
THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY TODAY. ALL RIGHT. AT
THIS TIME, WE'LL TAKE ANY OTHER
WITNESSES THAT WOULD LIKE TO
NOT WITNESSES. I'M SORRY, IS
GOING TO BE NOON. AND YOU KNOW
WHAT TO DO ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND SUPPORT. ABBY
RODRIGUEZ REGISTERING PROUD
SUPPORT FOR ACLU CALIFORNIA
ACTION AND A SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE.
MICHAEL HENNING, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE OF
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES IN
SUPPORT. MARCO GEORGE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SOPHIA
NEWHOUSE ROUND FOR THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S UNION LOCAL 148 WE
SUPPORT. NUNEZ. I HAVE A LONG
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT I'LL
JUST READ OFF IN SUPPORT
INITIATE JUSTICE, THE
CALIFORNIA YOUTH JUSTICE
JUSTICE PROJECT, THE CHILDREN'S
PARTNERSHIP, THE COLLECTIVE FOR
LIBERTY, LIBERTY AND LAWYERING,
THE PEACE AND JUSTICE LAW
CENTER, UNDERGROUND, GRIT
UNIVERSITY, THAT POPULAR UPWARD
TOGETHER, URBAN PEACE INSTITUTE.
URBAN. PEACE MOVEMENT,
YOUNGSTERS FOR CHANGE. YOUTH.
ALLIANCE, YOUTH FOR INNOCENCE,
YOUTH JUSTICE COALITION, YOUTH
JUSTICE EDUCATION CLINIC AT
LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL AND YOUTH
LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE. THANK YOU.
KARINA RODRIGUEZ. I ALSO HAVE A
LONG LIST OF SUPPORT
ORGANIZATIONS. NUESTRA CAUSA
ORANGEWOOD, ORANGEWOOD
FOUNDATION, PEACE, UNITED
CHURCH OF CHRIST, SANTA CRUZ,
RESTORE 180 RESTORING HOPE,
CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE. ALL OF
US ARE NONE. RUBICAM PROGRAMS.
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE, SANTA. CRUZ. BARRIOS.
UNIDOS. SILICON VALLEY DEBUG.
STARTING OVER. INC. ALL IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING. ERIC
HENDERSON, PROUD CO-SPONSOR ON
BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, ALSO
REGISTERING SUPPORT FOR A NEW
PATH. ALIANZA FOR OPPORTUNITY.
ALL OF US ARE NONE, AND ALL OF
US ARE NONE. SACRAMENTO ALL
YOUTH ARE SACRED. ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR COMMUNITY
EMPOWERMENT, ACTION, ACE ACTION
ANGELES BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND
REENTRY CONSULTING, ANTI POLICE
TERROR PROJECT, ASIAN
SOLIDARITY COLLECTIVE. BACK TO
THE START. BAY PEACE. BEND THE
ARC. JEWISH ACTION. CALIFORNIA
BOOKS AND BUCKETS. BRIDGES OF
HOPE. CALIFORNIA. BROTHERHOOD.
CRUSADE AND BUILDING HEALTHY.
COMMUNITIES. MONTEREY. COUNTY.
HØI. LARA RODOLFI. PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND STRONG SUPPORT
ALSO REGISTERING SUPPORT FOR
FAMILIES. INSPIRING REENTRY AND
UNIFICATION FOR EVERYONE.
FREEDOM FOR YOUTH. FRESNO
BARRIOS UNIDOS FRIENDS
COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION OF
CALIFORNIA GLIDE. FOUNDATION
FOR JUSTICE. INITIATE JUSTICE,
INSIDE OUT, RIDERS INTEGRAL
COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS INSTITUTE.
JESSIE'S PLACE, ORGANIZATION,
JUSTICE TO JOBS COALITION, LA
DEFENSA LEGAL SERVICES. FOR.
PRISONERS WITH CHILDREN, AND
MILPA COLLECTIVE. GOOD MORNING
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. KELLY
O'BRIEN WITH THE WESTERN CENTER
ON LAW AND POVERTY, ALSO HERE
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA
ALLIANCE OF CHILD AND FAMILY
SERVICES, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS
FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR WOMEN
PRISONERS, CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY
FOUNDATION, CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
BASED HEALTH ALLIANCE.
CALIFORNIA UNITE CALIFORNIANS
UNITED FOR RESPONSIBLE BUDGET.
CANCEL THE CONTRACT, CANCEL THE
CONTRACT. ANTELOPE VALLEY
CENTER ON JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL
JUSTICE. CHILDREN NOW. CHILDREN
DEFENSE FUND. COALITION OF
CALIFORNIA. STATE. TRIBES.
COLEMAN. ADVOCATES. COMMUNITY.
INTERVENTIONS. COMMUNITY. WORKS.
COMMUNITY. CONSUMER.
ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA.
COURAGE, CALIFORNIA. ELLA BAKER,
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND
CHILD POVERTY, EQUALITY,
CALIFORNIA, AND FAIR CHANCE
PROJECT. THANK YOU. LIZ BLOOM
GUTIERREZ, ON BEHALF OF SMART
JUSTICE CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT.
MONNING. THANK YOU. LAURA
O'CONNOR FROM COMPASSIONATE
CALIFORNIA, ALSO REPRESENTING
COMPASSIONATE CAPITAL CORRIDOR
INSPIRED COLLABORATIONS. AND ON
BEHALF OF ELDER JACKSON, INSIDE
CIRCLE AND THE NEW HEALING HOME
IN SACRAMENTO. THANK YOU.
STRONG SUPPORT. JOSHUA JACOBY
WITH HERE REPRESENTING OUR
ORGANIZERS AND LEADERS
CURRENTLY INCARCERATED IN SAN
FRANCISCO COUNTY JAIL AND THEIR
FAMILIES THAT WE WORK WITH AS
WELL. SO PROUD SUPPORT. STRONG
SUPPORT ISRAEL. WE ARE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH
AND COMMUNITY JUSTICE. I TOO
HAD A LONG LIST, BUT IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME, I'LL SAY WE
ARE NOW OVER 50 COMMUNITY BASED
ORGANIZATIONS IN 24 COUNTIES
AND GROWING AND ABSOLUTELY IN
VERY STRONG SUPPORT. AND THANK
YOU ALL. I HOPE I APPRECIATE
THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL TAKE ANY
LEAD WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. COME ON UP. HAVE A
SEAT. YOU EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU. WE ARE OFFICIALLY AT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS DANIEL SANCHEZ, ON
BEHALF OF THE CHIEF PROBATION
OFFICERS OF CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 1886. LAST
YEAR, THE CHIEF PROBATION
OFFICERS OPPOSED AB 1376 BONTA,
WHICH WHEN IMPLEMENTED IN JUST
THIS JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, SET
A 12 MONTH MANDATORY
PRESUMPTION FOR DISCHARGE FROM
COURT FOR WARDS OF THE COURT,
INCLUDING THOSE ADJUDICATED OF
HAVING COMMITTED SOME OF THE
MOST SERIOUS AND VIOLENT 707 B
OFFENSES SUCH AS MURDER, RAPE
AND KIDNAPING. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE SEAHAWKS
OPPOSITION WAS PREMISED ON THE
FACT THAT THE BILL SET A
PRESUMPTION OF DISCHARGE AND
REMOVED THE COURT'S ABILITY TO
MAKE INDIVIDUALIZED
DETERMINATIONS. THE FOCUS
REALLY SHOULD BE ON ARE THEY
MEETING THEIR ADDRESSING THEIR
CRIMINOGENIC NEEDS, MEETING
REHABILITATIVE GOALS THAT THAT
ALLOW FOR SAFE RETURN INTO THE
COMMUNITY? I DO WANT TO NOTE
THE CURRENT SYSTEM, AS HAS BEEN
STATED, IS NOT AN ENDLESS
PROBATION SYSTEM. THERE'S
ALREADY BEEN STRUCTURE TO THESE
TYPES OF HEARINGS AND DECISIONS.
BUT DESPITE AMENDMENTS TAKEN ON
JUNE 16TH, THE BILL WOULD
CONTINUE TO UNDO LIMITED BUT
NECESSARY EXEMPTIONS THAT WERE
PART OF LAST YEAR'S BILL.
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT FOSTER
YOUTH HAVE AN EXISTING
FRAMEWORK OF FOCUSED APPROACHES
THAT ARE TAKEN BY THE COURT AND
RELATED TO THE TYPES OF REVIEW
HEARINGS THEY HAVE COORDINATED
SERVICES, MANY SUPPORTS AND
THINGS THAT SURROUND THEIR
SPECIFIC AND COMPLEX NEEDS. WE
AGREE THAT THERE ARE. THOSE
THINGS ARE VERY IMPORTANT, BUT
AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S ALSO
THINGS THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED
AT IN RELATION TO HOW THESE
HEARINGS AND HOW THOSE SERVICES
ARE MET AND ADDRESSED FOR THIS
SPECIFIC POPULATION. LASTLY,
DESPITE THE REMOVAL OF THE S Y,
T F LANGUAGE FROM THE BILL AND
REVERTING THAT TO LANGUAGE LAST
YEAR, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE
THAT THAT LANGUAGE DOES NOT
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SERVING A
COMMITMENT TO AN S, Y, T, F IS
IN FACT EXEMPTED, AND THE
LANGUAGE THAT IS AROUND S, Y, T
F IN CURRENT LAW IS DIFFERENT
THAN THAT AROUND JUVENILE HALLS,
CAMPS AND RANCHES. SO IN
CLOSING, YOU KNOW, THIS BILL
REALLY IS NOT NECESSARILY
ADDRESSING A GAP. THE SPECIFIC
POPULATIONS THAT WERE PUT INTO
THIS BILL WERE THOSE THAT WERE
EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED LAST YEAR.
AND SO WE THINK THOSE ARE THERE
ARE MANY IMPORTANT
CONSIDERATIONS AROUND THAT. FOR
THOSE REASONS, WE ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. NEXT. SPEAKER
TWO MINUTES, MR. VICE CHAIR AND
SENATORS CLIFF COSTA, TODAY ON
BEHALF OF THE JUVENILE COURT
JUDGES OF CALIFORNIA, WHICH IS
A SECTION OF THE CALIFORNIA
JUDGES ASSOCIATION. FIRST, I'D
LIKE TO THANK THE ASSEMBLYWOMAN
FOR HER DIRECT ENGAGEMENT WITH
US AND FOR THE AMENDMENTS THAT
WERE TAKEN EARLIER THIS MONTH
IN JUNE. THEY DO ADDRESS SOME
OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE
JUVENILE COURT JUDGES DO HAVE
WITH AB 1886. GENERALLY, WE
AGREE WITH CPUC'S CLARIFICATION
AS IT RELATES TO THE SYTF
COMMITMENT AND WILL BE WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR AND THE
SPONSORS ON TRYING TO ADDRESS
THAT CONCERN. WHAT'S LEFT IN
THE BILL IS WHAT, FRANKLY
RELATES TO OUT-OF-HOME
PLACEMENT YOUTH. THIS IS AN
ISSUE THAT THE JUVENILE COURT
JUDGES OF CALIFORNIA AND THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION
REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON LAST
YEAR'S BILL WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN
BONTA AND SOME OF THE SPONSORS
OF THIS ORGAN OF THIS BILL,
THERE HAS BEEN AN. ON THE
RECORD, I WILL SAY THERE WAS A
MISCOMMUNICATION LAST YEAR.
THERE WAS. THE SPONSORS OF THE
BILL SENT A COMMUNICATION TO
THE CALIFORNIA JUDGES
ASSOCIATION, WHICH NEVER WAS
RECEIVED BY THE JUDGES
ASSOCIATION. WE CUT A DEAL, AND
THE DEAL WE CUT WAS
SPECIFICALLY TO COME BACK THIS
YEAR TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT
THEIR SUPPORT WITNESSES
TESTIFIED. AND THAT IS AS IT
RELATES TO THIS BILL AND FOSTER
YOUTH, THE JUVENILE COURT
JUDGES OF CALIFORNIA ARE
COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO WORK
ON THE FOSTER CARE YOUTH ISSUE
IN THIS BILL AND ARE AND WILL
CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH THE
AUTHOR AND THE SPONSORS ON THAT.
BUT THE BILL THAT IS IN FRONT
OF YOU IS MUCH BROADER THAN
JUST FOSTER YOUTH AND IMPACTS
ALL OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT YOUTH
THAT ARE ON PROBATION. AND FROM
OUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT IS A
GROUP THAT IS JUST,
UNFORTUNATELY, TOO BROAD. WE
CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN
OPPOSITION. WE RESPECTFULLY
REQUEST YOUR NO VOTE TODAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND ANY OTHER OPPOSITION
WITNESSES, OUR OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL. COME ON UP. STATE
YOUR NAME. ORGANIZATION. KIM
STONE STONE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION AND VERY
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANKS.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS? IF NOT,
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE DÍAS.
ANY QUESTIONS? CONCERNS? NO.
OKAY. YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU.
I'M A FOSTER MOM, SO IT IS
REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE
THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE
SPECIFICALLY ARE LOOKING AT THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXEMPT OR BRING
IN FOSTER YOUTH TO WHAT WE
AGREED ON LAST YEAR WITH
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BILL. I THINK
WHAT I WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF IS,
AS WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH
THE JUVENILE COURT JUDGES, THAT
WE DID HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC
CONVERSATION ABOUT SYTS BEING
AN ISSUE AND WANTING TO PULL
THEM OUT. AND WHEN WE DID PULL
THEM OUT, THEN THERE WAS THIS
IDEA THAT THAT WAS STILL TOO
BROAD. AND SO I JUST REALLY DO
AM COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION AND
WANT TO REALLY BE THOUGHTFUL
ABOUT TALKING EVEN DIRECTLY TO
THE YOUNG PEOPLE THEMSELVES.
WE'VE HAD REAL CONVERSATIONS
WITH YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE IN
SOME OF THE LESS RESTRICTIVE
PLACEMENTS, AND THEY HAVE
SHARED THEIR EXPERIENCES, AND I
JUST WANT TO BE REALLY
THOUGHTFUL ABOUT HOW WE ADDRESS
THEIR NEEDS AS WELL. AND I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THAT WILL GO IN THE STACK WITH
THE REST OF THE BILLS FOR US TO
VOTE ON LATER. GO AHEAD AND
PRESENT YOUR NEXT BILL. THIS
ONE WILL BE QUICKER, I PROMISE.
THANK YOU. CHAIR. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M PROUD TO PRESENT
AB 2403. SORRY, I KNOW Y'ALL
HAVEN'T EVEN LEFT YET. I'M
TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE. A BILL
FOCUSED ON KEEPING COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION JOBS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA FOR OUR WORKERS, OUR
BUSINESSES, AND OUR LOCAL
ECONOMIES. CALIFORNIA HAS LONG
BEEN A HUB FOR COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION. WE HAVE THE CREWS,
THE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE
TALENT THAT BUILT THIS INDUSTRY,
BUT WE ARE LOSING THAT WORK.
OVER THE PAST DECADE,
CALIFORNIA'S SHARE OF
NATIONALLY AIRED COMMERCIALS
HAS DROPPED FROM ABOUT 50 TO
25%, AND IN L.A. ALONE,
PRODUCTION HAS DECLINED BY 35%
IN JUST FIVE YEARS. THAT
DECLINE HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES.
IT MEANS FEWER JOBS FOR SKILLED
WORKERS, FEWER OPPORTUNITIES
FOR PEOPLE TRYING TO GET THEIR
FOOT IN THE DOOR, AND LESS
INVESTMENT IN OUR LOCAL
COMMUNITIES. COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION IS HIGHLY MOBILE,
AND RIGHT NOW, OTHER STATES ARE
ACTIVELY COMPETING FOR THIS
WORK AND WINNING BECAUSE THEY
OFFER TARGETED INCENTIVES. AT
THE SAME TIME, CALIFORNIA
REMAINS ONE OF THE ONLY MAJOR
PRODUCTION STATES WITHOUT A
DEDICATED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION
TAX CREDIT. THIS BILL IS
SUPPORTED BY LABOR ORGS
REPRESENTING THE VERY WORKERS
WHO POWER THIS INDUSTRY. OUR
LABOR PARTNERS KNOW THAT WHEN
PRODUCTION LEAVES, CAREERS,
LEAVE WITH IT. AB 2403 IS ABOUT
CLOSING THAT GAP, AND IT ALSO
CREATES A TARGETED INCENTIVE TO
KEEP COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION HERE
SO WE CAN RETAIN JOBS, SUPPORT
OUR WORKFORCE, AND ENSURE THIS
INDUSTRY CONTINUES TO GROW IN
THE STATE. THAT BUILT IT WITH
ME TODAY IS RALPH LOYOLA, LABOR
RELATIONS MANAGER AT THE
ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT
COMMERCIAL PRODUCERS, AND
ESTEBAN NUNEZ, MANAGING
DIRECTOR AT ACTOM. ESTEBAN WILL
BE READING THE TESTIMONY ON
BEHALF OF RUDY REYES, WHO'S A
LIGHTING TECHNICIAN AND
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE DIRECTOR AT
THE RESTORATIVE ACADEMIC
MENTORSHIP PROGRAM. AND I
UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE SOME
AMENDMENTS THAT YOU TOOK IN
REVEREND TAX. YES. YOU'RE GOING
TO BE TAKING IN THIS. YES, WE
ARE TAKING IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK
YOU. THANKS. GENTLEMEN, YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES. YOU DON'T
HAVE TO TAKE IT ALL IF YOU
DON'T WANT TO, BUT YOU GOT TWO
MINUTES. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I
AM RALPH WITH THE A ICP
REPRESENTING OVER 300 COMPANIES
THAT SPECIALIZE IN THE
PRODUCTION AND POST-PRODUCTION
OF TELEVISION COMMERCIALS FOR
ADVERTISERS AND AD AGENCIES.
THE A ICP IS PROUD TO SUPPORT
AND SPONSOR A B 2403. WE
APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE'S
CONSIDERATION OF THIS BILL AND
UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS BEEN
REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY DUE
TO PROVISIONS REQUIRING
APPLICANTS TO CERTIFY
INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE
CALIFORNIA FILM COMMISSION
UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY.
WE SUPPORT THESE PROVISIONS. AB
2403 ESTABLISHES A TARGETED TAX
CREDIT PROGRAM INTENDED TO
SUPPORT COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION
ACTIVITY IN CALIFORNIA. BECAUSE
THE PROGRAM RELIES ON APPLICANT
REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING
ELIGIBILITY, PRODUCTION
PRACTICES, LABOR COMPLIANCE,
AND THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE. THE BILL
APPROPRIATELY INCLUDES
ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES TO HELP
ENSURE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN
ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM.
THE CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT
SERVES AS STRAIGHTFORWARD
PURPOSE TO ENSURE THAT
APPLICANTS ATTEST TRUTHFULLY TO
THE FACTS THAT DETERMINE THEIR
ELIGIBILITY FOR THIS PUBLIC
BENEFIT. THE LANGUAGE DOES NOT
CREATE NEW CRIMINAL CONDUCT,
NOR DOES IT EXPAND LIABILITY
BEYOND EXISTING STANDARDS THAT
ROUTINELY SHAPE THAT ROUTINELY
APPLY THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT, WHERE TAXPAYERS OR
APPLICANTS SUBMIT MATERIAL
INFORMATION TO OBTAIN PUBLIC
FUNDS OR OTHER STATE
ADMINISTERED BENEFITS. THE
PROVISION ALSO HELPS TO PROTECT
LEGITIMATE PARTICIPANTS IN THE
PROGRAM BY PROMOTING A LEVEL
PLAYING FIELD AND DISCOURAGING
ABUSE. A B 2403 PAIRS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT GOALS WITH CLEAR
VERIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE
EXPECTATIONS, AND WE BELIEVE
THAT BALANCE IS APPROPRIATE.
THANK YOU TO THE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER AND THE ENTERTAINMENT
UNION COALITION FOR THEIR
SUPPORT AS WELL. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
ON A B 2403. THANK YOU. NEXT
SPEAKER. GO AHEAD. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, I
WILL BE READING OFF A GOOD
FRIEND OF MINE'S TESTIMONY,
RUDY REYES, WHOM I MET WITH MY
WORK AT THE ANTI-RECIDIVISM
COALITION. CHAIR AND MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS RUDY REYES. I'M A
SET LIGHTING TECHNICIAN WITH
LOCAL 728 AND ALSO THE
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE DIRECTOR AT
RAMP AND A MEMBER OF THE
ANTI-RECIDIVISM COALITION. I AM
ALSO FORMERLY INCARCERATED. I
SPENT 28 YEARS IN THE JUVENILE
AND ADULT SYSTEMS BEFORE I WAS
PAROLED IN LOS ANGELES IN 2017.
WHAT CHANGED MY LIFE WAS
COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION. I JOINED
MANIFEST WORKS, A PROGRAM THAT
TRAINS JUSTICE IMPACTED PEOPLE
ON REAL COMMERCIAL SETS FROM
THE CLIENT BID THROUGH POST. I
STARTED AS A PRODUCTION
ASSISTANT WITH NO FAMILY AND NO
CONNECTIONS, AND I EARNED MY
UNION CARD ONE COMMERCIAL AT A
TIME. THAT PATHWAY IS
DISAPPEARING. COMMERCIAL WORK
IS LEAVING CALIFORNIA AT A
RAPID PACE. I USED TO SHOOT 2
OR 3 SUPER BOWL COMMERCIALS A
YEAR, BUT IN 2024 AND 2025, I
ONLY SHOT ONE. UNLIKE FILM AND
TV, THESE PRODUCTIONS DON'T
QUALIFY FOR MEANINGFUL TAX
CREDITS, SO THE JOBS GO TO
OTHER STATES. THIS MATTERS
BECAUSE COMMERCIALS ARE WHERE
WORKERS LIKE ME GET OUR HOURS,
SHORT CYCLES, FREQUENT HIRING,
REAL ENTRY POINTS THAT DON'T
DEMAND YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
LAST YEAR, YOU PROTECTED FILM
AND TV JOBS. COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTION IS THE GAP, AND IT'S
THE ON RAMP FOR PEOPLE COMING
HOME TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING
REAL. AB 2403 IS A MODEST FIX,
A 20% CREDIT IN THE LA ZONE,
30% OUTSIDE CAPPED AT 15
MILLION WITH WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. THIS
IS ABOUT. THIS IS ABOUT
PROTECTING UNION JOBS AND
KEEPING THAT DOOR OPEN FOR THE
NEXT PERSON, STARTING FROM
NOTHING. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE ON AB 2403. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AT THIS TIME, ANYBODY WHO
WISHES TO SUPPORT THE MEASURE
CAN COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE
AND STATE THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE
MEASURE. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR
AND MEMBERS. ON BEHALF OF
SAG-AFTRA AND TEAMSTERS
CALIFORNIA AND PROUD SUPPORT.
GOOD AFTERNOON. ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA LULAC NATIONAL
ACTION NETWORK ANTI-RECIDIVISM
COALITION. CREATING RESTORATIVE
OPPORTUNITIES AND PROGRAMS.
FREE WORLD AND REP LA IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION
WITNESSES? IF NOT, WE'LL BRING
IT BACK TO THE DAIS. ANYBODY IN
THE AUDIENCE WANT TO JUST COME
UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE
THEIR SHORT OPPOSITION? IF NOT,
WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS.
YOU MAY CLOSE. RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. MR. SALAS, I WANT TO
TALK TO YOU OVER THERE FOR A
MINUTE. SORRY. YEAH, IT'S
REALLY SHORT. OKAY. I DON'T
KNOW. I DON'T KNOW, BUT JUST
THAT'S JUST. THE LAST, LAST
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THANK YOU AGAIN. WE ARE HERE TO
PRESENT AB 2379. I'M GRATEFUL
FOR THE COMMITTEE AND THE WORK,
THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS TO
UPDATE THE IMPLEMENTATION DATE.
AB 2379 ENSURES LICENSE AND
LICENSE EXEMPT. FAMILY CHILD
CARE PROVIDERS ARE INFORMED OF
THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WHEN CONFRONTED BY IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT. THE BILL REQUIRES
THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES TO NOTIFY PROVIDERS OF
THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT
PROTECTIONS AND TO PROTECT
ACCESSIBLE, MULTILINGUAL
TRAINING. THIS BILL IS CHILD
CARE DOORS OPEN BY EMPOWERING
PROVIDERS WITH THE INFORMATION
THEY NEED TO PROTECT THEMSELVES
AND CHILD CARE IN THEIR CARE.
WITH THIS, WE HAVE TWO
CHILDCARE PROVIDERS I'M GOING
TO HAVE INTRODUCE THEM, AND
THAT'S WENDY MORAN AND ZOILA
TOMA. AND WE'LL HAVE ONE OF
THEM SPEAK ON BEHALF OF BOTH OF
US. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IF
YOU CAN, YOU NEED TO KEEP IT TO
TWO MINUTES. WE'RE ALREADY PAST
TIME THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING
THIS, SO APPRECIATE THAT. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS ZOILA TOMA.
I AM A MEMBER OF SEIU LOCAL 99
CC BIÂU AND ELIZA, FAMILY CHILD
CARE EDUCATOR FROM LOS ANGELES
COUNTY. I PROUDLY SERVE
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES FOR THE
PAST 15 YEARS. I AM HERE TODAY
TO RESPECTFULLY URGE A YES VOTE
ON AB 2379 AND SPEAKING ON
BEHALF OF FAMILY, CHILD CARE
EDUCATORS, CHILDREN AND FAMILY
WHO COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY.
PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN
TURNED UPSIDE DOWN BY THE FEAR
AND UNCERTAINTY IN MY COMMUNITY.
I KNOW FAMILY EDUCATORS WHO NO
LONGER LEAVE THEIR HOMES
BECAUSE THEY FEAR BEING
TARGETED. SMALL CHILDREN ARE
WITNESSING WHAT IS HAPPENING TO
THEIR FAMILIES, FRIENDS, AND
NEIGHBORS. AND I'M CARING AND
CARING, STRESS AND ANXIETY THAT
NO CHILD SHOULD EVER HAVE TO
BEAR. WE ALL KNOW THAT CHILDREN
THAT HAVE WITNESSED IMMIGRATION
RATES WILL CARRY THIS TRAUMA
FOR LIFE. AS A FAMILY EDUCATOR,
WE ARE ON THE FRONT LINES EVERY
DAY AND FAMILY TRUST US WITH
WHAT MATTERS THE MOST THEIR
CHILDREN. WE PROVIDE EARLY
EDUCATION, STABILITY AND SAFE
PLACE WHERE CHILDREN CAN LEARN
AND THRIVE. WE TAKE THAT
RESPONSIBILITY VERY SERIOUSLY.
WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ALREADY
EXIST WHEN OPERATING A LICENSED
FAMILY CHILD CARE HOME. AB 23 A
B 2379 IS ABOUT EDUCATION. IT
DOES NOT STOP THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT FROM DOING ITS JOB.
IT ENSURES THE FAMILY CHILD
CARE EDUCATORS RECEIVE ACCURATE,
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS TRAINING. SO
WE UNDERSTAND THAT LEGAL
PROCESS CAN RESPOND
APPROPRIATELY AND CONTINUE
PROTECTING CHILDREN IN OUR CARE.
KNOWING OUR RIGHTS DOES NOT
MEAN REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
IT MEANS UNDERSTANDING THE LAW
SO WE CAN REMAIN CALM, RESPOND
PROFESSIONALLY AND AVOID
CONFUSION DURING A STRESSFUL
SITUATION. CALIFORNIA HAS
INVESTED IN OTHER TRAININGS FOR
FAMILY CHILD CARE EDUCATORS
LIKE HEALTH AND SAFETY,
UNDERSTANDING OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITY IS ANOTHER
IMPORTANT PART OF BEING PART OF
BEING PREPARED TO PROTECT THE
CHILDREN ENTRUSTED TO OUR CARE.
THIS BILL GIVES FAMILY CHILD
CARE EDUCATORS THE KNOWLEDGE
AND CONFIDENCE TO RESPOND
APPROPRIATELY BY CONTINUING TO
PROVIDE CARE. WRAP UP PLEASE. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR YES
ON BOTH. AB 2379. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I THOUGHT YOU SAID
YOU HAVE ONE. YES. WE'RE GOING
TO HAVE ONE MEMBER. YES. THANK
YOU. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY.
WE'LL WRAP UP. THEY CAN STAY
HERE SITTING DOWN. OH, OKAY.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE. ALL
RIGHT. ME TO COME ON UP VERY
QUICKLY. YOU. JESSICA HèA WITH
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. TANIKA
BANANI, WILL YOU DO WNE FOR
SUPPORT? THANK YOU. KAREN, YOU
NEED US US IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. WITH CCP YOU AND YES ON
THE BILL THANK YOU. ABBY
RODRIGUEZ WITH ACLU CAL ACTION
AND PROUD SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANY OPPOSITION
DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. ALL RIGHT.
COME BACK TO THE DAIS. NO
QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD AND CLOSE
THE VICE CHAIR AND ASK FOR A
VOTE. I WANT TO THANK ALL THE
PROVIDERS FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SORRY WE HAD TO CUT EVERYTHING
A LITTLE BIT SHORT HERE, BUT WE
HAVE TO GO. SO ANYWAY. SENATE
PUBLIC SAFETY IS NOW IN RECESS.
TO FILE ITEM 30AB2232 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON. GOOD
AFTERNOON. IF THERE ARE ANY
PRINCIPAL WITNESSES IN SUPPORT
OF AB 2232, YOU'RE WELCOME TO
JOIN US HERE AT THE TABLE. AND
SO THE ASSEMBLY MEMBER IS GOING
TO PRESENT FIRST, AND THEN
HE'LL INTRODUCE THE WITNESSES,
AND THEN YOU'LL EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES TO PRESENT ON THE BILL.
SO WHENEVER YOU'RE READY,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, YOU MAY
PRESENT. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIR AND SENATORS. I'M HERE
TODAY TO PRESENT AB 2232 AS
SPONSORED BY THE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I
WANT TO FIRST STATE THAT WE
ACCEPT THE. GLADLY ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS. AB 2232
REQUIRES THE STATE TO TRACK AND
PUBLICLY REPORT DETAILED DATA
EACH YEAR ON REQUESTS TO MOVE
UP PAROLE HEARINGS STARTING IN
2027. IT ALSO MANDATES WRITTEN
EXPLANATIONS FOR EACH DECISION
AND MAKES THOSE SUMMARIES
AVAILABLE TO RELEVANT PARTIES,
WITH ALL PROVISIONS EXPIRING IN
2032. I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT
TO THANK THE COMMITTEE STAFF
AND THE CHAIR FOR WORKING WITH
MY OFFICE AND THE SPONSOR TO
BRING THIS, BRING THIS AND HELP
MOVE THIS FORWARD. THE BILL'S
EVOLVED FROM A CASE THAT
OCCURRED IN MY DISTRICT IN 2003.
17 YEAR OLD PLACER COUNTY
RESIDENT JUSTINE VANDERSLOOT
WAS STRANGLED TO DEATH. HE. THE.
THE ASSAILANT WAS SENTENCED TO
25 YEARS TO LIFE IN PRISON. HE
PETITIONED FOR PAROLE IN 2023.
AT THE HEARING, HE CONFESSED
THAT HE STRANGLED JUSTINE TO
DEATH BEFORE POURING CHEMICALS
OVER HER AND BURYING HER BODY
IN THE WOODS. HE WAS DENIED
PAROLE FOR FIVE YEARS, ONLY TO
BE GRANTED ANOTHER PAROLE
HEARING LESS THAN THREE YEARS
LATER IN 2025. I'LL CONTINUE TO
FIGHT TO FIGHT FOR THE FAMILY
AND OTHER FAMILIES IN THIS
SITUATION THAT ARE ENSURING
THAT THEY'RE PROTECTED,
SUPPORTED AND NEVER OVERLOOKED.
THE GOAL OF 2232, HOWEVER, IS
STRAIGHTFORWARD TO GATHER THE
DATA NECESSARY TO MAKE INFORMED,
RESPONSIBLE POLICY DECISIONS.
ONCE WE HAVE MORE INFORMED DATA
REGARDING PAROLE DENIALS FROM
CDCR. TODAY I HAVE MORGAN GUYER,
PLACER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
AND DEBBIE BOYD WITH CRIME
VICTIMS UNITED PLACER COUNTY IS
EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE PROJECT
WITH ME TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT
OF THE BILL. GOOD AFTERNOON.
YOU EACH HAVE TWO MINUTES TO
PRESENT THE BILL AND WHOEVER
WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS DEBBIE BOYD.
AGAIN WITH CRIME FICTION UNITED
AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE PLACER
COUNTY EMPOWERMENT AND
RESILIENCE TEAM. WE ARE HERE
TODAY BECAUSE OF THE WORK WE DO
ALONGSIDE A REMARKABLE FAMILY
FROM OUR COUNTY. THE FAMILY WHO
LOST THEIR DAUGHTER, JUSTINE
VANDERSLOOT, TO A BRUTAL TEEN
DATING VIOLENCE HOMICIDE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS FAMILY
CONTINUES TO EXPERIENCE
REPEATED AND UNIMAGINABLE
TRAUMA DURING THE
POST-CONVICTION PROCESS. ONE OF
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLES
IS THE ACCELERATION OF THEIR
DAUGHTERS MURDERS. PAROLE
HEARINGS AFTER RECEIVING A FIVE
YEAR DENIAL. JUSTINE'S MURDERER
BECAME ELIGIBLE AGAIN IN JUST
TWO YEARS, FORCING THIS FAMILY
TO ONCE AGAIN PREPARE, RELIVE
AND FACE THE INDIVIDUAL
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR
DAUGHTER'S DEATH. AND TO TOP IT
OFF, JUST ONE WEEK BEFORE THE
CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY, THAT IS WHAT
INITIALLY BROUGHT US HERE. WITH
THAT SAID, I WANT TO SHARE
ANOTHER REASON WHY WE ARE HERE
TODAY. SINCE INTRODUCING THE
LEGISLATION, WE WERE ABLE TO
ENGAGE IN A PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATION WITH THE
OPPOSITION ON THIS ISSUE. AND
WHILE WE WILL BOTH CONTINUE TO
ADVOCATE FOR OUR RESPECTIVE
CLIENTS AND THEIR
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS, WE
REACHED A CRITICAL POINT OF
AGREEMENT. AND THAT IS THE LACK
OF TRANSPARENCY IN CDCR
PROCESSES, WHICH IS PREVENTING
ALL OF US FROM FULLY
UNDERSTANDING HOW THESE
DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE AND
WHETHER THE SYSTEM IS WORKING
AS INTENDED FOR ALL OF US. THAT
IS SIGNIFICANT. AB 2232 WILL
GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO
GATHER CRITICAL DATA REGARDING
THE PAROLE ADVANCEMENT PROCESS,
BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW DECISIONS
ARE MADE, AND ENSURE THAT BOTH
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS AND
VICTIM CONSIDERATIONS ARE BEING
UPHELD IN PRACTICE, NOT JUST IN
THEORY. WE MAY NOT ALWAYS SIT
ON THE SAME SIDE OF THIS TABLE
OR ON AN ISSUE, BUT MOMENTS
LIKE THIS DO MATTER, AND THEY
DESERVE TO BE RECOGNIZED. SO
BECAUSE GOOD POLICY, THOUGHTFUL
POLICY SOMETIMES CAN BRING
TOGETHER PEOPLE FROM VERY
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AROUND A
SHARED GOAL. AND IN THIS CASE,
THE GOAL IS TRANSPARENCY AND
ENSURING THAT WE NEVER LOSE
SIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AFFECTED BY
THESE DECISIONS. SO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION
ON THIS ISSUE AND WOULD
APPRECIATE AND I VOTE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MORGAN
GUYER. I'M THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF PLACER COUNTY. I
CAN'T SAY IT MUCH BETTER THAN
MY FRIEND DEBBIE, SO I WILL BE
VERY BRIEF. THIS BILL DOES NOT
SEEK TO ELIMINATE THE
ADVANCEMENT PROCESS. THIS
RECOGNIZES ITS SIGNIFICANCE
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME
SUPREME COURT DECISION IN IN RE
VICS. THIS TRIES TO INSTILL
SOME MEANINGFULNESS AND SOME
DIGNITY IN THE PROCESS FOR OUR
VICTIMS, NEXT OF KIN AND OUR
SURVIVORS IN THE ADVANCEMENT
PROCESS. RIGHT NOW, OFTENTIMES
THE VICTIMS AND NEXT OF KIN ARE
TREATED AS AFTERTHOUGHTS OR
INSIGNIFICANT IN THE PROCESS.
THIS DATA TRACKING WILL ALLOW
THOSE VICTIMS TO TO UNDERSTAND
MORE MEANINGFULLY WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THIS ADVANCEMENT
PROCESS AND WHAT THE METRICS
ARE BY WHICH THOSE DECISIONS
ARE GRANTED, AND ULTIMATELY,
PEOPLE BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR
PAROLE. I THINK THIS IS A
SENSIBLE APPROACH. I APPRECIATE
THE COMMITTEE'S SUGGESTIONS AND
AMENDMENTS, AND APPRECIATE THE
AUTHOR, MR. PATTERSON, FOR
BRINGING THIS. WITH THAT, WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL INVITE ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR AB
2232 TO PLEASE COME FORWARD. IF
YOU CAN JUST LIMIT YOUR
TESTIMONY TO YOUR NAME, WHAT
ORGANIZATION OR CITY YOU'RE
FROM, AND YOUR POSITION ON THE
BILL. HELLO. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS
REGINA LEE CHÁVEZ. I AM WITH
THE PLACER COUNTY EMPOWER AND
RESILIENCE PROJECT, AND I AM
ALSO AN ANGEL MOM TO A
BEAUTIFUL 15 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER.
I AM STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF AB
2232. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT
WITNESS. HI, I'M CASSIDY
PAGANUCCI. I AM ALSO WITH THE
EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE PROJECT
AND I SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS JULIA
ALONZO AND I'M WITH THE
EMPOWERMENT RESILIENT GROUP.
AND I ALSO REQUEST THE SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. AFTERNOON, TAMMY
MORGAN WITH EMPOWER AND
RESILIENCE AND I ALSO SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, MY
NAME IS ANNABELLE VELASQUEZ AND
I'M WITH THE EMPOWERING
RESILIENCE PROJECT AND I AM IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. I'M BROOKE
SMITH AND I'M WITH EMPOWER
RESILIENCE AND I SUPPORT. THANK
YOU, STEPHANIE HERRERA WITH THE
EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE PROJECT
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. IVY
FITZPATRICK FOR THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION,
THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND SUPPORT
ALSO REGISTERING SUPPORT FROM
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THANK YOU.
OKAY. WE'LL NOW INVITE ONE
MOMENT, PLEASE. WE'LL NOW
INVITE UP TO TWO MINUTES. ARE
YOU IN FAVOR? OKAY. I MEAN.
CORY SALZILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION. SUPPORT. OKAY. IS
THERE ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO
EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE BILL?
OKAY. IF NOT, WE'LL INVITE UP
TO TWO OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO
A B 2232. ARE THERE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES? THANK YOU.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO SIT HERE OR.
MY NAME IS SUE KIM, AND I'M A
POLICY DIRECTOR AT UNCOMMON LAW.
I WANT TO EXPRESS APPRECIATION
FOR THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN TAKEN ON THIS BILL AND
THINK THAT WE'VE COME A LONG
WAY, AND WE HAVE EXPRESSED A
FEW REMAINING CONCERNS ON THE
BILL AND HAVE HAD SOME
PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS. WE
HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE CHANGES
THAT ARE UNDERWAY, AND SO I'M
NOT ABLE TO WITHDRAW MY
OPPOSITION AT THIS TIME, BUT WE
LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE
WORKING ON THE LANGUAGE AND
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE
BETWEEN TRANSPARENCY AND ALSO
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY,
AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS BILL
ACCURATELY REFLECTS AN
UNDERSTANDING OF THE
ADVANCEMENT PROCESS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION TO AB 2232, SEEING
NO ONE COME FORWARD TO BRING
BACK THE DYESS FOR ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? VICE
CHAIR? YEAH. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR THE BILL. AND IN
TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS AREA,
YOU KNOW, THE PAROLE PROCESS,
AND I UNDERSTAND IT FROM ONE
FAMILY'S PERSPECTIVE THAT I'M
CLOSE TO AND I'M NOT GOING TO
WORK. IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS. IN
TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE
BEEN CONVICTED OF CRIMES, IT'S
KIND OF GONE WAY IN THE FAVOR
OF THEM AS OPPOSED TO AND THEN
LEAVING, LEAVING THE VICTIMS
FAMILIES IN THE LURCH. AND, AND
THEY, THEY, THEY DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS ANYMORE.
AND SO I THINK YOUR BILL IS
TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT AND, AND
GIVING THEM SOME CERTAINTY AS
TO, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S TWO
YEARS OR FOUR YEARS OR FIVE
YEARS, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TWO WE
HAD TWO TWO YEAR PAROLE
HEARINGS IN A ROW. AND THEN
THEY FINALLY DID A FIVE YEAR
PAROLE HEARING. AND, YOU KNOW,
THIS FAMILY HAS HALF OF THEM
HAVE TO COME FROM BACK EAST AND
THEN RELIVE THE NIGHTMARE OF OF
THEIR DAUGHTER BEING STRANGLED
AND KILLED. SO. SO I CAN SEE
WHERE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO
ADDRESS HERE. AND THAT'S A KIND
OF A REBALANCE TO WHERE THE
VICTIM'S FAMILY HAS THE JUSTICE
THEY NEED. AND, AND, AND ALSO
SOME OF THE RELIEF THEY NEED
FROM HAVING TO RELIVE THIS
NIGHTMARE OVER AND OVER. WHILE
WE'VE CREATED AN ENDLESS STREAM
OF, OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE
THAT ARE INCARCERATED. SO WITH
THAT, YOU KNOW, WE STILL DON'T
HAVE A QUORUM. SO OKAY. AND IF
SERGEANT CALL ABSENT MEMBERS,
WE CAN ESTABLISH A QUORUM. I
WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE. THE
AMENDMENTS CLARIFY THAT THE
ANNUAL DATA MUST BE THAT MUST
BE COMPILED, PERTAINS TO
REQUESTS TO ADVANCE PAROLE,
HEARING DATES AND THE BOARD'S
REVIEW. THOSE REQUESTS. I JUST
WANT TO CONFIRM YOU ARE
ACCEPTING THOSE AMENDMENTS. YES,
SIR. OKAY, GREAT. AND I'LL TURN
IT BACK OVER YOU TO MAKE A
CLOSING STATEMENT. GREAT. WELL
THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO
APPRECIATE OUR WITNESSES HERE.
IT'S GOOD TO SEE THEM. AND ALSO
ALL THE PEOPLE WHO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT. AND AGAIN, THANK THE
COMMITTEE. AND I THINK THIS WAS,
YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A REALLY
GOOD PROCESS HERE. YOU KNOW,
THE BILL WAS A LOT DIFFERENT
WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED. BUT I
THINK WE ARE GOING TO END UP
WITH A RESULT WHERE WHERE
EVERYBODY GETS THE DATA, YOU
KNOW, REQUIRED TO MAKE GOOD
POLICY DECISIONS AT THE END OF
THE DAY. SO WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US
TODAY. WE DON'T HAVE A QUORUM.
ONCE WE DO, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION ON THE BILL. THANK YOU.
AND WE DO HAVE A SECOND BILL BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON,
WHICH IS FILE ITEM 31, AB 2237.
GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND
SENATORS HERE TODAY TO PRESENT
AB 2237, ALSO SPONSORED BY MY
GOOD FRIEND, PIERCE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY MORGAN GUYER,
AND THE BLAKESPEAR COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
WITH THIS. YOU KNOW, I THINK
THE REALLY IMPORTANT THING IS
THIS BILL CAME OUT OF THE
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE, YOU KNOW,
AFTER A LOT OF NEGOTIATIONS WAS
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS
ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY
RECEIVE THE REHABILITATION
NEEDED IN ORDER TO BE
SUCCESSFUL AND TO NOT
RECIDIVATE AND TO ENSURE THAT
THEY CAN LIVE PRODUCTIVE LIVES
ONCE THEY'RE RELEASED FROM, YOU
KNOW, RELEASED BACK TO THEIR
THEIR FREEDOM ONCE AGAIN, AFTER
AFTER THEY'VE PAID THEIR DEBT
TO SOCIETY. AND SO WE WANTED TO
ENSURE THAT EVERYONE SUCCESSFUL
IN THIS OPERATION. AND SO
THAT'S WHY WE INTRODUCED THIS
LEGISLATION AGAIN, WHICH CAME
AT A DIFFERENT FORM. BUT WE
RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANT THING
IS TO ENSURE THAT THAT THE
REHABILITATION IS COMPLETED.
AND WITH THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS
RIGHT NOW, SOME OF THE PEOPLE,
YOU KNOW, FOR WHATEVER, IN
CERTAIN PLACES, IT'S HARD TO
GET INTO A PROGRAM OR MAYBE THE
PROGRAM TAKES A LITTLE LONGER
THAN ONE YEAR. BUT AT THE END
OF THE DAY, WE WANTED TO ENSURE
THAT THEY CAN HAVE MORE THAN
ONE YEAR ON PROBATION TO
COMPLETE THEIR TREATMENT
PROGRAM INSTEAD OF IT JUST
ENDING, AND THEN YOU'RE NOT
RECEIVING THE ACTUAL TREATMENT
THAT WE'VE ALL DECIDED AS A
LEGISLATURE THAT WE WOULD LIKE
THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO COMPLETE.
SO WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS IT
MAKES A VERY MODEST CHANGE AND
SAY, HEY, YOU CAN GO UP TO AN
EXTRA YEAR, BUT THAT WOULD BE
TERMINATED FOR THESE
INDIVIDUALS ONCE THEY COMPLETE
THE TREATMENT. IF IT DOESN'T
QUITE GET TO THAT FULL EXTRA
YEAR. SO, YOU KNOW,
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE
CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT BOARD HAVE
REPEATEDLY EMPHASIZED THAT
THESE PROGRAMS ARE CRITICAL FOR
MANAGING OFFENDERS IN OUR
COMMUNITY. SO I HAVE HERE WITH
ME THE ACTUAL EXPERTS ON THIS
PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY ONCE AGAIN, AND ALSO
SIRI MCLEOD FROM THE COUNTY'S
PROBATION DEPARTMENT. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON. YOU EACH HAVE TWO
MINUTES TO PRESENT THE BILL.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN AGAIN?
PROBATION OFFICER WITH PLACER
COUNTY, ALSO 20 IN 2022, AS
APPOINTED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE
ASSEMBLY TO THE CALIFORNIA SEX
OFFENDER MANAGEMENT BOARD, OR
CSAM, TO REPRESENT ALL
PROBATION. AND I'M ALSO A BOARD
DIRECTOR FOR CAL ATSA, OR THE
ASSOCIATION FOR THE TREATMENT
AND PREVENTION OF SEXUAL ABUSE.
IN JUNE, AS ASSEMBLYMAN,
PATTERSON ADVISED CSAM, A BOARD
OPERATING UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S
OVERSIGHT VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR
THIS BILL. RESEARCH INDICATES
THE RISK OF SEXUAL RE-OFFENSE
IN ADULT MALES IS HIGHEST
DURING THE FIRST FEW YEARS
FOLLOWING RELEASE FROM CUSTODY.
THAT RISK DECLINES OVER TIME AS
MALES AGE AND REMAIN OFFENSE
FREE IN THE COMMUNITY. FOR THAT
REASON. FOR THAT REASON, TIMELY
ENGAGEMENT IN SEX OFFENDER
TREATMENT FOLLOWING RELEASE IS
CRITICAL. SHORTENED PROBATION
TERMS HAVE HAD A DETRIMENTAL
IMPACT ON TREATMENT COMPLETION.
MOST PEOPLE CANNOT COMPLETE
TREATMENT WITHIN A SINGLE YEAR.
SUCCESSFULLY DOING SO REQUIRES
AN EXCEPTIONAL LEVEL OF
MOTIVATION, ACCOUNTABILITY AND
SUSTAINED ENGAGEMENT AND
TREATMENT. AND FRANKLY, MOST
PROBATIONERS DON'T HAVE THAT ON
THE ONSET. THERE IS A BROAD
CONSENSUS AMONGST PROFESSIONALS
IN THE SEXUAL ASSAULT FIELD
THAT REDUCING RECIDIVISM IS NOT
SOLELY THE RESULT OF TREATMENT.
RATHER, IT IS THE EFFECTIVENESS
OF THE CONTAINMENT MODEL, WHICH
IS MANDATED UNDER LAW.
CONTAINMENT IS A
MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH THAT
BLENDS COMMUNITY SUPERVISION,
TREATMENT, VICTIM ADVOCACY, AND
OTHER COMMUNITY RESOURCES.
PROBATION IS NOT A GOTCHA NOR A
MECHANISM FOR UNNECESSARY
INCARCERATION. PROBATION
ENHANCES PUBLIC SAFETY WHILE
PROVIDING PROBATIONERS WITH
SUPPORT AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO
SUCCESSFULLY REINTEGRATE INTO
SOCIETY. MOREOVER, A
MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION IS NOT
DE FACTO LOW RISK, JUST AS A
FELONY CONVICTION IS NOT DE
FACTO HIGH RISK. A MISDEMEANOR
MAY NOT HAVE ENTERED THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM CHARGED WITH A
MISDEMEANOR. I CAUTION AGAINST
REFERRING TO MISDEMEANOR SEXUAL
OFFENSES AS, QUOTE UNQUOTE,
JUST MISDEMEANORS. THESE
OFFENSES INVOLVE REAL VICTIMS
AND HAVE PROFOUND CONSEQUENCES
AMONGST THE VICTIM SURVIVOR
COMMUNITY. LASTLY, A CASE ON
TREATMENT PROVIDER INDICATED
THAT ONLY APPROXIMATELY 40% OF
PEOPLE CONTINUE TREATMENT AFTER
THEIR PROBATION TERM IS ENDED.
THIS SUGGESTS THAT PROBATION
SUPERVISION PLAYS A SIGNIFICANT
ROLE IN ENCOURAGING TREATMENT,
PARTICIPATION AND COMPLETION,
REINFORCING THE IMPORTANCE OF
ADEQUATE SUPERVISION PERIODS TO
SUPPORT REHABILITATION AND
PUBLIC SAFETY. FOR THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON AGAIN. MORGAN GUYER,
PLACER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
I'M JUST GOING TO HONE IN ON
THE TWO TWO PIECES THAT WERE
PRESENTED TO US BY THE
OPPOSITION, ONE THAT MR. MCLEOD
ZEROED IN ON, WHICH WAS THESE
AREN'T JUST MISDEMEANORS,
TAKING JUST A SAMPLING FROM THE
PLACER COUNTY DA'S OFFICE.
THESE ARE MEN WHO ARE FOLLOWING
AROUND YOUNG GIRLS AROUND A
MALL, VIDEOTAPING THEM, TRYING
TO TO FILM UP THEIR SKIRTS.
THIS IS THE MAN WHO SITS NEXT
TO A CHILD IN A MOVIE THEATER
AND BEGINS RUBBING THEIR LEG,
PARALYZING THEM IN FEAR. THESE
ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE MASTURBATING
IN FRONT OF CHILDREN AND PEOPLE
EXHIBITING THEMSELVES FOR THAT
PURPOSE. WE ARE. WE ARE SEEKING
TO AVOID. THE OTHER PROBLEM
THAT WAS PRESENTED BY THE
OPPOSITION WAS THAT EXTENDED
PROBATION TERMS DON'T SOLVE THE
PROBLEM. IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE. IT DOES BECAUSE IT IS
BUILT AROUND THE METRIC OF
SUCCESS, THE COMPLETION OF THE
TREATMENT PROGRAM. THAT EXTRA
YEAR THAT WAS THAT WAS
SHORTENED THROUGH AB 1950, IS
EXTENDED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF REQUIRING OFFENDERS TO
FINISH THAT TREATMENT WHEN THE
TREATMENT IS COMPLETED THAT
GOES INTO THAT SECOND YEAR,
THEY CAN IMMEDIATELY PETITION
TO HAVE THEIR PROBATION
TERMINATED, EFFECTIVELY
GUARANTEEING THEIR SUCCESS
THROUGH THAT TREATMENT PROGRAM
AND MAXIMIZING THAT PROBATION
PERIOD FOR TWO YEARS ONLY,
AGAIN WITH THE OPTION TO BE
ABLE TO TERMINATE IT. SO IT
DOESN'T JUST EXTEND PROBATION
FOR THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE
GOTCHA VIOLATIONS. IT IS BUILT
INTO THE SUCCESS METRIC, WHICH
IS THAT TREATMENT PROGRAM. THIS
IS A MEASURED APPROACH THAT
WILL ASSIST NOT ONLY OUR OUR
PUBLIC, BUT BUT THE OFFENDERS
WHO ARE WHO ARE STRUGGLING TO
COMPLETE THE TREATMENT AND HAVE
ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY IF THEY
DON'T. WITH THAT, WE
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST, AND I
VOTE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL NOW INVITE ANYONE WHO
WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT
FOR AB 2237 TO. PLEASE COME
FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME,
ORGANIZATION OR CITY YOU'RE
FROM AND POSITION ON THE BILL
ON THE WRONG SIDE. AGAIN, CORY,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
STATE SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION,
SUPPORT. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. IVY
FITZPATRICK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN SUPPORT.
CASSIDY PAGANI WITH THE EMPOWER
AND RESILIENCE PROJECT, I
SUPPORT. JULIE ALONSO WITH THE
EMPOWERMENT RESILIENT PROJECT I
SUPPORT. STEPHANIE HERRERA WITH
THE EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE
PROJECT AND SUPPORT. ANIBAL
VELASQUEZ WITH EMPOWERING
RESILIENCE PROJECT IN SUPPORT.
TAMMY MORGAN WITH EMPOWER AND
RESILIENCE, I ALSO SUPPORT.
BROOKE SMITH WITH EMPOWER
RESILIENCE PROJECT AND I
SUPPORT. REGINA LEAH CHAVEZ
WITH THE EMPOWER AND RESILIENCE
PROJECT AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
MINORITIES AS WELL FOR JUSTICE
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DEBBIE
BOYD WITH CRIME VICTIMS UNITED
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY. UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE
ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT
FOR AB 2237, WE'LL NOW TAKE UP
TO TWO OPPOSITION WITNESSES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, ERIC HENDERSON, ON
BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION TO AB 2237. WE DO
APPRECIATE THE EARLIER
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL, BUT WE
DO CONTINUE TO HAVE SOME
CONCERNS. AS MENTIONED, A FEW
YEARS AGO, THIS LEGISLATURE
PASSED AB 1950, WHICH LIMITED
PROBATION TERMS TO NO MORE THAN
TWO YEARS FOR A FELONY
CONVICTION AND ONE YEAR FOR A
MISDEMEANOR CONVICTION. WITH
LIMITED EXCEPTIONS. THESE
LIMITS WERE PUT INTO PLACE
BASED ON RESEARCH DEMONSTRATING
THAT PROBATION SERVICES ARE
MOST EFFECTIVE DURING THE FIRST
18 MONTHS OF SUPERVISION. AB
2237 EXTENDS PROBATION FOR AN
ADDITIONAL YEAR TO COMPLETE
PROGRAMING. BUT I DO WANT TO
NOTE THAT FAILURE TO COMPLETE
PROGRAMING IS NOT NECESSARILY
DUE TO UNWILLINGNESS OR
NONCOMPLIANCE. REASONS WHY AN
INDIVIDUAL MAY NOT BE ABLE TO
COMPLETE CLASSES ON TIME
INCLUDE PROVIDER SHORTAGES,
WAITLISTS, INSURANCE BARRIERS,
TRANSPORTATION LIMITATIONS,
GEOGRAPHIC ACCESS ISSUES,
SCHEDULING CONSTRAINTS, AND
MANY OTHERS. WE DEFINITELY
AGREE THAT PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO
PEOPLE WHO NEED THEM, AND WHO
WOULD BENEFIT THE MOST FROM
THEM, BUT WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT
THE MORE EFFECTIVE SOLUTION IS
TO INCREASE ACCESS TO TREATMENT
AND SERVICES DURING THE
PROBATION PERIOD ALREADY
AUTHORIZED BY LAW, RATHER THAN
EXTENDING COURT SUPERVISION.
IMPORTANTLY, EXTENDED PROBATION
IMPACTS EVERY ASPECT OF A
PERSON'S LIFE, AND PROBATION
REQUIREMENTS CAN BE ONEROUS AND
MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE ON
PROBATION TO MAINTAIN A JOB,
MAINTAIN HOUSING AND MORE.
TYPICALLY, THESE VIOLATIONS
OFTEN LEAD TO JAIL TIME, WHICH
CREATE A SERIOUS HARDSHIPS FOR
INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING THE LOSS
OF A JOB, HOUSING OR BOTH.
THESE TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS IN
THE PAST, PRIOR TO THE PASSAGE
OF AB 1950, COST THE STATE
SIGNIFICANT SUMS OF MONEY TO
INCARCERATE PEOPLE AS WELL. SO
FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY URGE YOUR NO VOTE
ON AB 22237 AND OPPOSE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND OTHER
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. MY
NAME IS SOPHIA NEWHOUSE BROWN.
I'M A PUBLIC DEFENDER IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, AND I REPRESENT
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER, UNION LOCAL 148 AND
WE ARE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSING
THIS BILL BECAUSE THERE'S NO
ADDED BENEFIT TO KEEPING PEOPLE
ON PROBATION. IN THIS CASE,
IT'S JUST A COST TO THE STATE
AND TO TAXPAYERS. WHEN SOMEONE
IS FOUND GUILTY AT TRIAL OR
TAKES A PLEA TO A CHARGE THAT
MANDATES THEIR REGISTRATION AS
A SEX OFFENDER, THEY'RE ALREADY
UNDER THE COURT'S EYE FOR LIFE.
THE RATIONALE OF EXPOSING OR
IMPOSING RATHER, AN EXTENDED
PERIOD PROBATIONARY PERIOD TO
INCREASE THE OBLIGATIONS AND
TIME CONVICTED INDIVIDUALS ARE
ON PROBATION. IT DOES NOT HELP
PROTECT PUBLIC AND VICTIMS, OR
MAKE EFFECTIVE USE OF THE
COURT'S TIME AND TAXPAYER
DOLLARS. ALREADY, MY CLIENTS
WHO ARE FOUND GUILTY OF A SEX
OFFENSE ARE ORDERED TO COMPLETE
52 SEXUAL COMPULSION CLASSES.
THE COURT HAS ALREADY HAS THE
JURISDICTION AND THE ABILITY TO
PAUSE PROBATION, EXTEND
PROBATION, OR HAVE A HEARING ON
MY CLIENT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE
TERMS OF PROBATION. HOW THIS
WORKS IN PRACTICE IS IF SOMEONE
IS FOUND GUILTY OF A SEX
OFFENSE AND IS ORDERED TO DO
THEIR 52 SEXUAL COMPULSION
CLASSES, BUT IT IS NEARING THE
YEAR OF PROBATION, AND THEY'VE
ONLY COMPLETED ABOUT 32 CLASSES
AT THAT POINT. THE COURT HAS
THE ABILITY, AND IN MY
EXPERIENCE, EXERCISES DOES
EXERCISE THEIR ABILITY TO
EXTEND, PAUSE OR OTHERWISE FIND
A VIOLATION FOR NOT MAKING
ADEQUATE PROGRESS IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THEIR PROBATIONARY TERMS
WITHIN THE PERIOD. I ALSO ECHO
THAT FUNDS GOING TOWARDS MAKING
PROGRAMS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO
LOWER WAITLISTS WOULD ALSO BE
AN EFFECTIVE USE OF THESE FUNDS.
ADDITIONALLY, WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT SEX OFFENDER
OFFENSES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO
HAVE TO REGISTER AS A RESULT OF
BEING CONVICTED OF A SEX
OFFENSE, THAT ALREADY IS AN
INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF OVERSIGHT.
WHEN SOMEONE HAS TO REGISTER AS
A SEX OFFENDER, THEY HAVE TO DO
SO ON A VERY, VERY STRICT
TIMELINE. AND IF THEY DON'T
FALL WITHIN THAT TIMELINE OR
REGISTER WITHIN THE YEAR, THEY
AUTOMATICALLY PICK UP A NEW
MISDEMEANOR CHARGE FOR FAILING
TO REGISTER. I'LL WRAP UP.
THANK YOU. AGAIN. AN INDIVIDUAL
INDIVIDUAL IS EFFECTIVELY UNDER
THE COURT'S EYE FOR LIFE. WHEN
THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY OF A SEX
OFFENSE, AND IMPOSING
ADDITIONAL PROBATIONARY
OVERSIGHT DOESN'T IS NOT WORTH
THE COST. IF YOU CAN, PLEASE
WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS AND THE
LOCAL LOCAL COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S UNION. 148 STRONGLY
OPPOSES THIS BILL. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. OKAY. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION TO AB 2237? ABBY
RODRIGUEZ REGISTERING STRONG
OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF ACLU,
CAL ACTION AND THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE. MARCO GEORGE, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S ASSOCIATION IN
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. LIZ GUTIERREZ, ON BEHALF
OF SMART JUSTICE CALIFORNIA, IN
OPPOSITION. OKAY. UNLESS
THERE'S ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO
EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO AB 2237,
I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS, VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH AGAIN FOR YOUR YOUR
THOUGHTFULNESS ON THIS, THIS
TYPE OF BILL AND THIS TYPE OF
ISSUE. WHENEVER YOU HAVE
TREATMENT AS PART OF GETTING
BETTER OF THE REASON THAT YOU
COMMITTED THE CRIME WAS BECAUSE
YOU NEED DRUG TREATMENT OR
WHATEVER. YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN
THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN,
PEOPLE SENTENCED TO 30 DAYS OF
TREATMENT. SO THEY GO TO
TREATMENT AND THEY'RE NOT
BETTER. WHEN THEY GET OUT. THEY
LAPSE WITHIN TWO WEEKS. AND A
LOT OF THOSE PEOPLE NOW ARE
THEY'RE JUST DEAD BECAUSE WE
DIDN'T HELP THEM. PROBATION HAS
A LITTLE BIT MORE OVERSIGHT
THAN JUST THE GENERAL BEING ON,
ON THE, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY. I DON'T
KNOW THAT THERE'S MUCH CONTACT
WITH THAT WITH WITH THE COURTS
ONCE SOMEBODY IS RELEASED FROM
PROBATION. BUT THIS IS ALL
ABOUT MAKING SURE THEY GET
TREATED. THAT'S ALL. AND
WHATEVER THE REASONS THAT THEY
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE
TREATMENT, THEY STILL NEED TO
FINISH TREATMENT BECAUSE
OTHERWISE THEY'RE STILL A
PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD AND
THEY'RE NOT IN JAIL. THEY'RE ON
PROBATION. SO IT SHOULDN'T BE
THAT BIG A DEAL THAT THEY
CONTINUE AND FINISH THEIR
TREATMENT SO THAT THEY'RE NOT A
PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD,
SUPPOSEDLY, HOPEFULLY. AND IF
THEY GET DONE, THEY THEY JUST
SIMPLY PETITION THE COURT AND
THEY GET THEIR PROBATION
RELEASED. SO I'M NOT SURE WHY
THIS IS SUCH A HEFTY ISSUE FOR
EVERYBODY TO GET PASSED. SO
ANYWAY, I'LL BE SUPPORTING YOUR
BILL WHEN WE'RE ABLE TO VOTE,
WHICH IS NOT NOW. OKAY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE? OKAY.
IF NOT, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER
TO THE AUTHOR TO MAKE A CLOSING
STATEMENT. GREAT. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCKENNA FOR THE
FOR THE TUNE DROP, YOU KNOW,
MIDDLE OF THE PRESENTATION. BUT
BUT, YOU KNOW, IN ALL
SERIOUSNESS, YOU KNOW, IT'S
INTERESTING BECAUSE 20 YEARS
AGO THIS YEAR, I WAS ACTUALLY I
WAS A STAFF MEMBER FOR THEN
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TODD SPITZER,
WHO'S NOW THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OF ORANGE COUNTY, AND HE WORKED
WITH JUDY CHU TO CREATE THE
CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT BOARD. SO IT'S KIND
OF NEAT. 20 YEARS LATER, TO
HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE
CALIFORNIA SEX OFFENDER
MANAGEMENT BOARD HERE
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL, BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT
THE STATE LEGISLATURE, WHO
MAKES A LOT OF THESE APPOINTEES,
THAT THEY CREATE THE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND AND
POLICIES AROUND MANAGEMENT OF
THIS POPULATION. SO IT'S AN
HONOR TO BE HERE TODAY TO TALK
ABOUT THIS. BUT, YOU KNOW, JUST
SOME THINGS THAT I WANT TO SAY.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU VIOLATE
PROBATION, YOU DON'T GO. YOU
DON'T GO TO PRISON. THERE'S NOT
STATE INCARCERATION. YOU KNOW,
IT'S IT'S A COUNTY MANAGED
SYSTEM AND THE COUNTIES ARE
GOING TO MANAGE THAT. THERE'S A
STATEMENT THAT THERE'S NO ADDED
BENEFIT. WELL, I THINK AN
INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING THE
TREATMENT THAT TO HELP THEM
ENSURE THAT THEY CAN GO BACK
INTO SOCIETY AND ACTUALLY LIVE
A SUCCESSFUL LIFE. THAT'S WHY
WE THOUGHT THAT THIS BILL WAS
REALLY IMPORTANT ACTUALLY, TO
LIMIT TO MISDEMEANORS RATHER
THAN FELONIES, BECAUSE WE WANT
THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO BE
SUCCESSFUL. AND THEN AND THEN
THERE WAS THERE WAS A ANOTHER
STATEMENT ABOUT STATE
SUPERVISION FOR LIFE. AS WE
KNOW, THE LAW CHANGED WHEN YOUR
REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER, YOU'RE
NOT UNDER UNLESS IT'S A CERTAIN
SEX DEFENSE. BUT MOST SEX
OFFENSES ARE NOT UNDER THE
STATE'S EYES FOR LIFE. THAT'S
NOT TRUE. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO WITH THIS BILL IS A VERY
MODEST STEP TO ENSURE THAT
EVERY INDIVIDUAL RECEIVES THE
TREATMENT THAT NOT ONLY THEY'RE
ORDERED TO, BUT THE LEGISLATURE
HAS ASKED FOR THEM TO BE
COMPLETED. WE DON'T WANT THEM
TO COMPLETE 32 OF THEIR CLASSES,
THAT THERE'S A REASON WHY
THERE'S A CERTAIN NUMBER,
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE DATA
SAYS THEY WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL.
SO WE'RE NOT ONLY TRYING TO
HELP THE VICTIMS HERE, THE
VICTIMS OF THESE CRIMES. WE'RE
ACTUALLY TRYING TO HELP THE
INDIVIDUAL GOING THROUGH THE
PROBATION TO ACTUALLY BE
SUCCESSFUL. THAT'S THE ENTIRE
PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. SO WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, ASSEMBLY MEMBER. THANK
YOU, EVERYONE FOR PARTICIPATING
IN THIS DISCUSSION. WE'LL MOVE
TO THE NEXT BILL PRESENTATION
IN FILE ORDER. I SEE ASSEMBLY
MEMBER SHARP COLLINS, AND SO
WE'LL PROCEED NOW TO FILE ITEM
27AB2108.
OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO
PROCEED NOW TO FILE ITEM
27AB2108. IF THERE ARE ANY
WITNESSES WHO WILL BE
TESTIFYING IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL, YOU ARE WELCOME TO JOIN
US HERE. THANK YOU. IT'S RIGHT
THERE. AND WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY TO BEGIN, YOU MAY PROCEED.
THANK YOU. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON,
MR. CHAIR. AND SENATORS, I'M
HERE TO PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL
2108, WHICH CREATES A STATEWIDE
DIVERSION OPTION FOR LOW LEVEL
NONVIOLENT RETAIL THEFT. SO
OFFENDERS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
WITHOUT BEING PUSHED DEEPER
INTO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. I
APPRECIATE THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE WORKING WITH ME ON
THIS BILL, AND I DO ACCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AS WE
HAVE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED THESE
AMENDMENTS. THE AMENDMENTS MAKE
IT CLEAR THAT THIS POLICY ONLY
APPLIES TO LOW LEVEL THEFT
CRIMES, NÓ FELONIES AND
CODIFIES CASE LAW. PROP 36
PROMISED VOTERS A BALANCED
APPROACH TO CRIME BY CREATING A
BLEND OF REHABILITATIVE
OPPORTUNITIES AND
ACCOUNTABILITY, WHICH IS WHAT
DIVERSION IS. AND WHILE WE HAVE
DIVERSION PROGRAMS FOR DRUGS
AND MENTAL HEALTH, WE DO NOT
HAVE THE SAME FOR CRIMES OF
NECESSITY LED BY POVERTY.
ASSEMBLY BILL 2108 CREATES
PATHWAYS INTO THE WORKFORCE,
WHETHER IT'S VOCATIONAL OR
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS TO HELP
LIFT INDIVIDUALS OUT OF POVERTY
AND CURB RETAIL THEFT. SO LET
ME BE CLEAR THIS BILL EXCLUDES
ANY THEFT THAT INVOLVES
VIOLENCE OR THREATENED VIOLENCE,
ORGANIZED RETAIL THEFT OFFENSES,
AND HABITUAL REPEAT THEFT
OFFENDERS. FURTHERMORE, IT
ENSURED JUDGES RETAINED THE
DISCRETION TO EVALUATE A
DEFENDANT'S SUITABILITY FOR
DIVERSION BASED ON THE ACTUAL
CASE. CONTRARY TO WHAT FOLKS
ARE SAYING, THIS BILL IS NOT
ANTI PROP 36, BUT INSTEAD, AS
PREVIOUSLY STATED, BUILDS ON
THE PROPOSITION'S PROMISE OF
CONSEQUENCES AND TREATMENT.
WITHOUT THIS BILL, FOLKS WHO
ARE IN POVERTY, WHO ARE
CONVICTED OF THEFT CRIMES ARE
LEFT WITH NO TREATMENT OPTIONS.
FURTHER, THIS BILL IS SUPPORTED
BY THE VERY VICTIMS THEMSELVES,
THE RETAILERS ASSOCIATION, WHO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS A WAY
TO REDUCE THEFT CRIMES.
RETAILERS ARE THE ONES THAT
SUFFER WHEN DIVERSION OR
INCARCERATION FAILS, AND THEY
HAVE CHOSEN TO SUPPORT ASSEMBLY
BILL 21082108 DIVERTS
APPROPRIATE RETAIL THEFT CASES,
WHILE ALSO INCLUDING GUIDANCE
FOR COURTS TO CONSIDER
AVAILABLE WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
PROGRAMING OR JOB TRAINING AS A
COMPONENT OF THE DEFENDANTS
DIVERSION, GRANTING FOLKS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN A NEW SKILL
SET WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, IS
ESSENTIAL TO THRIVING IN THIS
STATE, BUT ALSO THIS ENTIRE
COUNTRY. THIS IS ABOUT GIVING
ACCESS TO THOSE IN NEED AND
CURTAILING THINGS BEFORE THINGS
CAN ACTUALLY GET WORSE. MEANING
CATCHING PEOPLE EARLY. THIS IS
THE TIME FOR THIS BILL. THE
TIME FOR THIS BILL IS ACTUALLY
HERE AND NOW. SO LET ME REMIND
YOU OF THINGS THAT WE CONTINUE
TO TALK ABOUT. WE HAVE SPENT A
LOT OF TIME HIGHLIGHTING THE
HARM DONE BY H.R. ONE CUTS.
THESE CUTS WILL PUSH THOUSANDS
OF CALIFORNIANS INTO POVERTY,
FURTHER INCREASING THE
NECESSITY OF SECURING BASIC
RESOURCES. WHAT DO WE THINK
WILL HAPPEN WHEN 562,000
CALIFORNIANS LOSE THEIR FOOD
ASSISTANCE, VALUED AT
APPROXIMATELY $6 A DAY? HOW
WILL THE 1 MILLION CALIFORNIANS
KICKED OFF OF MEDI-CAL SECURE
THE MEDICATION AND OTHER
MEDICAL SUPPLIES? AND WHERE
WILL FAMILIES FIND THE
RESOURCES TO CARE FOR THEIR
SENIOR FAMILY MEMBERS, WHO
STAND TO LOSE OVER 1 BILLION IN
FUNDING OUT OF THE MAY REVISE
DEPRIVATION OF RESOURCES BREEDS
DESPERATION, AND DESPERATION
BREEDS NECESSITY. IF THESE
PEOPLE END, THEY'RE ACTUALLY
CAUGHT UP IN THE RETAIL THEFT
DUE TO POVERTY AND THE
NECESSITY AND THE NECESSITY TO,
YOU KNOW, TO MOVE FORWARD. ARE
THEY LESS DESERVING OF
DIVERSION, OPPORTUNITY AND
TREATMENT THAN THOSE
EXPERIENCING ADDICTION AND
MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES? I
THINK NOT. OR SHOULD OUR
JUSTICE SYSTEM LIFT UP EQUITY
AND COMPASSION? ACCESS TO OFF
RAMPS AS PROMISED WITHIN PROP
36? SO WITH ME HERE TO TESTIFY
IS ANTHONY DIMARTINO FROM
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE. AND AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME, I DO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
AN AYE VOTE. I'LL TURN IT OVER
TO MY WITNESS, ANTHONY
DIMARTINO, TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. HI. GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
SENATORS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
FIRST, MY NAME IS ANTHONY
DIMARTINO AND I'M THE DIRECTOR
OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS AT
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE. I WANT TO ALSO THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR THE WORK ON
THE ANALYSIS AND THE AMENDMENTS.
REALLY DO APPRECIATE IT. AND I
BELIEVE WE DO HAVE A STRONG
BILL IN FRONT OF US TODAY. I'M
HERE TODAY AS A PROUD
CO-SPONSOR AND SUPPORT OF
ASSEMBLY BILL 2108, AUTHORED BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER DOCTOR SHARP
COLLINS, ÁP 21. Ã, AS AMENDED,
CREATES A DIVERSION
CONSIDERATION PROCESS FOR
NONVIOLENT MISDEMEANOR THEFT
OFFENSES. IT MAINTAINS JUDICIAL
DISCRETION AND ONLY APPLIES TO
NONVIOLENT MISDEMEANORS.
DIVERSION IS A CRITICAL
INTERVENTION TOOL IN THE
JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES
TAILORED RESOURCES AND
RESPONSES TO THE DEFENDANT.
UNDER CURRENT LAW, THERE IS NOT
A CONSISTENT FRAMEWORK ACROSS
ALL 58 COUNTIES FOR DIVERSION.
THIS INCONSISTENCY ALLOWS FOR
INEQUITABLE DIVERSION
CONSIDERATION PROCESS THAT
LACKS EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR
DEFENDANTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR
DIVERSION ON A CASE BY CASE
BASIS. AB 2108 MIRRORS AND
BUILDS UPON THE SUCCESS SEEN
WITH DRUG DIVERSION THROUGH
PENAL CODE 1000, AND BRINGS A
FAMILIAR STRUCTURE AND NEEDED
UNIFORMITY TO THE USE OF
DIVERSION IN APPROPRIATE THEFT
CASES. AB 2108 PROVIDES MORE
ACCESS FOR DEFENDANTS TO BE
CONNECTED WITH APPROPRIATE
RESOURCES OR PROGRAMS TO HELP
FOSTER THEIR SUCCESS IN THE
COMMUNITY, WHILE ESTABLISHING
APPROPRIATE GUARDRAILS AND
MAINTAINS THE DISCRETION OF THE
COURT. AB 218 STRENGTHENS THE
SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES BY
SCALING UP PROVEN STRATEGIES,
MEETING INDIVIDUALS WHERE THEY
ARE, AND INVESTING IN PUBLIC
SAFETY SOLUTIONS THAT
PRIORITIZE LONG TERM SAFETY.
FOR THESE REASONS, WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
ON ASSEMBLY BILL 2108, AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU SO
VERY MUCH. WE'LL INVITE ANYONE
WHO WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT FOR AB 2108 TO PLEASE
COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON,
GLEN BACCHUS FOR DRUG POLICY
ALLIANCE AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON. A LITTLE ON
BEHALF OF CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. ON BEHALF OF CRIME
SURVIVORS, SPEAK IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. MARCO GEORGE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ÁP
RODRIGUEZ REGISTERING PROUD
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF ACLU, CAL
ACTION AND SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE. ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA RETAILERS
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. SOPHIA NEWHOUSE BROWN, ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS UNION
LOCAL 148 IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
IGNACIO HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, WE ARE
CO-SPONSOR OF THE MEASURE.
APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE. GOOD
AFTERNOON, ERIC HENDERSON ON
BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER CENTER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT FOR AB 2108 CÁC ANYONE
ELSE COME FORWARD? WE'LL NOW
TAKE TWO OPPOSITION WITNESSES.
GOOD AFTERNOON. SORRY, I HAVE A
MEETING ACROSS TOWN. HAD TO RUN
BACK OVER AND GO BEFORE YOU IF
YOU WANT TO CATCH YOUR BREATH.
HE LIKES ME BREATHING HARD
ANYWAYS. I'M SORRY. NO. OUT OF
BREATH, I MISS. SO I'M VERN
PEARSON BEFORE WE PROCEED. SO
WE DO NOT ALLOW CLAPPING,
LAUGHING, INTERRUPTIONS, NOISE
IN THE CROWD. SO I JUST WANT TO
JUST ESTABLISH THAT AS THAT.
THAT IS OUR POLICY. WE WANT TO
GIVE ATTENTION AND RESPECT TO
THE WITNESS AND ALL THOSE WHO
ARE TESTIFYING. SO, SIR, YOU
HAVE TWO MINUTES. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, AND I APPRECIATE
THAT. MY NAME IS VERN PEARSON.
I'M THE ELECTED DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF EL DORADO COUNTY. I
AM IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WAS
ONE OF THREE ARCHITECTS THAT
PUT TOGETHER PROPOSITION 36. IT
WAS MYSELF AND OTHER ELECTED DA
AND A, FRANKLY, A POLITICAL
CONSULTANT THAT WAS A VERY KEY
PERSON IN THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION. AND WHAT WE
TRIED TO DO WAS TO LOOK AT WHAT
HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST, SOME
THINGS THAT HAVE WORKED WELL,
THINGS THAT DIDN'T WORK SO WELL,
AND THEN COME UP WITH A
FRAMEWORK INSTEAD OF PETTY
THEFT WITH A PRIOR. IT'S PETTY
THEFT WITH TWO PRIORS. THAT WAS
THE WAY IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. AND
BUT THE RECOGNITION IS WE HAVE
TO HOLD PEOPLE THAT HAVE
REPEATEDLY COMMITTED PROPERTY
CRIMES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR
ACTIONS AT SOME POINT. I'M ONE
OF THE MOST CONSERVATIVE DAS IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA YET FOR
WHAT THIS BILL PURPORTS TO DO,
WE ROUTINELY DIVERT PEOPLE
ALREADY. THIS IS AN UNNECESSARY
BILL. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS A
SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM,
JUST A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF
TIME AGO, TWO THIRDS OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAME
TOGETHER AND SAID, PROP 36 IS
THE LAW OF THE LAND. AND I
THINK, UNFORTUNATELY, THIS BILL
AS DRAFTED, I UNDERSTAND
THERE'S AMENDMENTS, AND I WANT
TO ALSO STRESS THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE, HER CHIEF OF STAFF,
WHO'S HERE, YOUR STAFF? THEY
WERE VERY GRACIOUS. I MET WITH
THEM OVER THE LAST WEEK AND
VERY UNDERSTANDABLE LISTENING
TO THE CONCERNS AS THAT GOES.
HOWEVER, IT'S INESCAPABLE THAT
IT WILL UNNECESSARILY UNDERMINE
THE WILL OF TWO THIRDS OF THE
VOTERS IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND FOR THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A NO VOTE.
MR. CHAIR, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, IN OPPOSITION TO
THE BILL, ALSO WOULD LIKE TO
REGISTER THE OPPOSITION OF THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA. CALIFORNIA ALREADY
HAS NUMEROUS TARGETED DIVERSION
PROGRAMS FOCUSED ON OFFENDERS
UNDERLYING CONDITION OR
REHABILITATIVE NEEDS, INCLUDING
JUST A FEW MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION, VETERANS DIVERSION,
COLLABORATIVE COURTS, YOUTH
OFFENDER PROGRAMS AND TREATMENT
DIVERSION. IN FACT, JUST A FEW
YEARS AGO, CALIFORNIA LAW WAS
AMENDED TO GIVE THE PROSECUTOR
COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT THE
AUTHORITY TO CREATE A DIVERSION
OR DJ PROGRAM FOR PERSONS WHO
COMMIT A THEFT OFFENSE OR
REPEAT THEFT OFFENSES. THAT'S
PENAL CODE SECTION 1001.81. IN
ADDITION, THERE'S ALSO PENAL
CODE SECTION 1001.95, WHICH IS
A VERY BROAD MISDEMEANOR
DIVERSION PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS A
JUDGE OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO OFFER
DIVERSION IN A WHOLE HOST OF
CASES, WITH VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS,
LIKE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
STALKING. SO TWO VERY SPECIFIC
MISDEMEANOR DIVERSION PROGRAMS
THAT CAN BE USED FOR THEFT
TODAY AS WE SIT HERE. BUT
INSTEAD OF RELYING ON LOCAL
DISCRETION, THOSE PROGRAMS THAT
ARE ALREADY IN PLACE, THIS
MANDATES A NEW DIVERSION
FRAMEWORK THAT IGNORES A
DEFENDANT'S CRIMINAL HISTORY,
INCLUDING ANY EVIDENCE OF
REPEAT THEFT PATTERNS. THIS
WOULD ALLOW MANY QUALIFYING
THEFT CASES TO BE DIVERTED AND
DISMISSED, WITH THE ARREST
DEEMED NOT TO HAVE OCCURRED FOR
MOST PURPOSES. UPON SUCCESSFUL
COMPLETION OF DIVERSION. THAT.
THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, AS
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAID,
YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET TO A
PENAL CODE SIX, SIX, 6.1
VIOLATION OF A THEFT WITH AT
LEAST TWO PRIORS. IF YOU NEVER
HAVE A FIRST OR SECOND
PREDICATE OFFENSE BEING ABLE TO
BE PROSECUTED. THIS IS
ABSOLUTELY IT MAY NOT IMPACT
PC6 66.1. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
THIS IS STILL AN ATTACK ON THE
THEFT ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS
OF PROP 36, WHICH WAS
OVERWHELMINGLY APPROVED BY
VOTERS. FOR THOSE REASONS, WE
ASK FOR YOUR NO VOTE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE
ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION TO AB 2108 TO PLEASE
APPROACH THE MICROPHONE. STATE
YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION
POSITION CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION ALSO BEEN ASKED TO
CONVEY AN OPPOSITION POSITION
ON BEHALF OF PORAC. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. IVY
FITZPATRICK ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE AND THE RIVERSIDE
DISTRICT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE AND RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS NOT ON BEHALF OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF KELLY
MARTINEZ IN RESPECTFUL
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. PAT ESPINOSA, ON
BEHALF OF THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY
DA'S OFFICE IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR.
CHAIR. MEMBERS, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS
PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE
AN OPPOSING AMENDED POSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SEEING NO ONE ELSE COME FORWARD
TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL, I BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. YES,
SENATOR WIENER, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. ASSEMBLY MEMBER. THANKS
FOR THE BILL. I'LL BE
SUPPORTING IT TODAY, AND I
APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH THE
COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS. ONE
QUESTION I HAVE, WHICH IS, I
THINK, ONE OF THE TANGENTIAL
THINGS IN THE BILL THAT I KNOW
MY MY DA RAISED WITH ME IS THAT
THE BILL REQUIRES THE DA AT THE
BEGINNING TO STATE OR CERTIFY
WHETHER THE CASE IS ELIGIBLE OR
NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DIVERSION. AND
I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING IS
THAT'S NOT NORMALLY HOW THE
PROCESS WORKS WITH DIVERSION.
AND SO IF YOU COULD COMMENT ON
THAT, LIKE WHAT WAS THE
RATIONALE FOR PUTTING THAT IN,
SINCE THERE IS AN EXISTING SORT
OF PROCESS FOR DETERMINING THAT?
AGAIN, I KNOW THAT'S SORT OF
TANGENTIAL TO THE BILL, BUT MY
MY D.A. DID ASK ME ABOUT THAT.
NO PROBLEM. I'LL TURN IT OVER.
THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR THAT QUESTION. I
MEAN, DIVERSION THROUGHOUT
STATUTES LOOKS DIFFERENT. AND
SO I NOT EVERY SINGLE DIVERSION
WILL REQUIRE SOME SOME OF IT IS
JUDGED ON COURT LED. SOME OF IT
IS LED BY THE PUBLIC DEFENDER.
WE BASED THIS OFF OF PC 1000.
THAT'S THE CONSIDERATION
PROCESS FOR DRUG DIVERSION,
WHICH DOES HAVE THE DA'S LOOK
AND CERTIFY CASE. SO THAT'S
WHERE IT ACTUALLY IS IN PC 1000.
THAT'S WHERE WE GOT THIS FROM.
AND WE WANTED TO TAKE THE
BURDEN OFF OF THE DEFENSE OR
THE COURT TO HAVE TO INITIATE
THE DIVERSION, STARTING THE
DIVERSION PROCESS. OKAY. OKAY.
YEAH, MAYBE IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO
TAKE ANOTHER LOOK. I FOR ME,
APART FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF
DIVERSION, JUST MAKING SURE
THAT IT'S A GOOD AND REASONABLE
PROCESS IS OF COURSE IMPORTANT.
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE ON
ASSEMBLY BILL 2108. SHARP
COLLINS. AND SO I'LL ASK IF
THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMITTEE.
JUST TO SUMMARIZE THE
AMENDMENTS. ONE TO CLARIFY
UNDER 1001 .91, SUBSECTION A,
THAT OF THE CRITERIA TO BE
CONSIDERED AS TO A DEFENDANT'S
SUITABILITY FOR DIVERSION. TO
CLARIFY THAT THE OFFENSE CHARGE
IS NOT A FELONY, AND TWO, TO
PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF WHAT A
CONTEMPORANEOUS VIOLATION MEANS,
WHICH IS BASED ON, I THINK,
EXISTING LAW. YES. SO WITH THAT,
I'LL ASK IF THERE ARE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. IF NOT,
I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE
AUTHOR TO CLOSE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 2108. YOU
KNOW, I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW AND
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WHOLE
APPROACH HAS COME OUT OF ME
HAVING QUARTERLY PROP 36
MEETINGS THROUGHOUT MY ACTUAL
DISTRICT. THAT DID CONSIST OF,
OF COURSE, SOME OF MY MY, MY
FOLKS WAS HERE, THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, PROBATION COMMUNITY
PARTNERS, COUNTY OFFICERS,
ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND A HOST
OF OTHERS. AND THE WHOLE THING
IS THIS DIVERSION IS A
RECOGNITION IN SECOND CHANCES,
AND IT TRULY HAS THE POWER TO
REHABILITATE. IT IS NOT A GET
OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD, BUT IT
IS A TRUE COMMITMENT TO DO THE
HARDEST WORK POSSIBLE, WHICH IS
WORKING ON YOURSELF. IN MY
PERSONAL OPINION, AS I SAID ON
THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR, EVERYBODY
HAS SOMETHING. EVERYBODY HAS
SOMETHING EITHER IN THEIR
BACKGROUND THAT THEY ARE NOT
PROUD OF, OR THEY KNOW SOMEONE
WHO TRULY DESERVES A SECOND
CHANCE BASED OFF OF AN ACTUAL
MINOR OFFENSE. YOUR VOTE TODAY
WILL TELL US, WILL REALLY TELL
CALIFORNIA WHETHER OR NOT WE
ARE TRULY BELIEVERS OF THE
PURPOSE OF HAVING THESE
PROGRAMS TO HELP TO
REHABILITATE. SO ASSEMBLY BILL
2108 ALLOWS THAT OPPORTUNITY
WHILE WORKING TO REDUCE CRIME
LEVELS AND ALSO CHANGE LIVES.
IF WE DON'T SHOW FOLKS THAT WE
TRULY BELIEVE IN THEM AND
PROVIDE THEM THE ACTUAL
SUPPORTS THAT SOME AS OTHERWISE
HAVE ACTUALLY HAVE NOT BEEN
ABLE TO GAIN, THEN WE WILL
CONTINUE DOWN THE PATHWAY THAT
WE CURRENTLY ARE. PEOPLE
DESERVE TO HAVE QUALITY OF LIFE
AND NOT JUST SURVIVE, BUT
THRIVE HERE IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. AND THIS BILL WILL
ALLOW THEM TO GET THAT
OPPORTUNITY AND GRANT ACCESS.
WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AND I VOTE. THANK YOU SO
VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A QUORUM.
FINALLY. SO THE COMMITTEE
ASSISTANT WILL CALL THE ROLL TO
ESTABLISH A QUORUM AGAIN HERE,
AGAIN HERE, SAY HERE, SAY HERE.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. HERE.
CORTESE. PEREZ. WIENER. PRESENT.
WIENER HERE. OKAY. AND I WILL
NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON AB
2108. THERE'S A MOTION. OKAY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO WE
HAVE A MOTION BY SENATOR
CABALLERO. IF WE CAN PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. AB 2108 MOTION
IS TO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. AGAIN. I AGAIN
I SAY NO. NO. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. CORTESE. PEREZ.
WIENER. WIENER. AYE. OKAY.
WE'LL KEEP THAT BILL IN CALL
FOR ABSENT MEMBERS. THANK YOU
ALL VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. I'LL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. MOVE BY
SENATOR VICE CHAIR CIERTO, WE
CAN PLEASE CALL THE ROLL OUT OF
GAME I, I SAY I SAY I CABALLERO
I CABALLERO I CORTEZ PEREZ
WIENER I WIENER AYE. OKAY.
WE'LL KEEP CONSENT ON CALL. AND
SO I HAVE IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE
I CHAIR TWO STANDING COMMITTEES
OF THE SENATE. SO I HAVE TO GO
GAVEL IN THE SENATE HOUSING
COMMITTEE. AND SO MR. VICE
CHAIR, I WILL BE BACK IF YOU
CAN. PLEASE TAKE OVER. THANK
YOU. AND AND I BELIEVE THE NEXT
NEXT BILL IS SENATOR SCHULTZ
AND THEN MCKENNA. ARE YOU READY
FOR ME, MR. VICE CHAIR? GO
AHEAD. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. IT IS, SIR. THANK
YOU. VERY GOOD. WHEN YOU'RE
READY, GO AHEAD. WELL, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, MR. VICE CHAIR
AND COLLEAGUES. I'M PLEASED TO
PRESENT ASSEMBLY BILL 1905 THIS
AFTERNOON, WHICH WILL
STRENGTHEN PROTECTIONS FOR
YOUNG PEOPLE IN CUSTODY BY
ESTABLISHING CLEAR GUARDRAILS
AROUND CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
FIRST, SOME BACKGROUND RESEARCH
HAS INCREASINGLY FOUND THAT
JUVENILES ARE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE
TO PRESSURE MANIPULATION AND
DECEPTION WHILE BEING
INTERROGATED, WHICH INCREASES
THE RISK OF FOR COERCED AND
UNRELIABLE STATEMENTS OR
CONFESSIONS. AND BEFORE I GO ON,
I'LL JUST NOTE THAT IS WHY
WE'RE RUNNING THIS BILL, WHICH
TO A LARGE DEGREE IS ALREADY
CODIFIED, ARGUABLY IN WELFARE
AND INSTITUTIONS. CODE, SECTION
625.7, SUBDIVISION A, WHICH
PROHIBITS THE USE OF
MANIPULATION AND DECEPTIVE
TACTICS AGAINST MINORS. BUT
REGARDLESS, THE RISK IS
PARTICULARLY HEIGHTENED WHEN
JUVENILES ARE INTERACTING WITH
UNDERCOVER LAW ENFORCEMENT
AGENTS. NOW, CALIFORNIA HAS NOT
YET IMPLEMENTED CLEAR STATUTORY
LIMITS ON THE USE OF UNDERCOVER
TACTICS DURING CUSTODIAL
INTERROGATIONS IN A CUSTODIAL
SETTING, HENCE THE PURPOSE OF
THE BILL. TO FURTHER CLARIFY.
I'LL NOTE THAT THIS THIS
PHENOMENON CAN RESULT IN
OFFICERS ELICITING STATEMENTS
THAT ARE NOT CREDIBLE OR
LAWFULLY OBTAINED, LEADING TO
BOTH COSTLY LITIGATION OVER
ADMISSIBILITY AND ULTIMATELY
BOGGING DOWN THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM. AB 1905 SEEKS TO CHANGE
THAT. AB 1905 WOULD PROHIBIT
THE USE OF UNDERCOVER LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENTS TO SEEK
STATEMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS IN
CUSTODY WHO ARE 17 YEARS OF AGE
OR YOUNGER AT THE TIME OF THE
ALLEGED OFFENSE, AND ARE 26
YEARS OR YOUNGER WHILE IN
CUSTODY. AND I WANT TO THANK
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS FOR WORKING SO
COLLABORATIVELY WITH OUR OFFICE
ON THOSE AMENDMENTS. THE BILL
FORTIFIES THE INTEGRITY OF OUR
JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND REDUCES THE
RISK OF UNRELIABLE STATEMENTS
BY CREATING A CONSISTENT AND
CLEAR STATEWIDE STANDARD TO
PREVENT CONSTITUTIONALLY
QUESTIONABLE INTERROGATIONS,
AND DIRECTS COURTS TO CONSIDER
VIOLATIONS. WHEN DETERMINING
ADMISSIBILITY, IT'S IMPORTANT
TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE BILL NOW
ONLY APPLIES AGAIN TO
INDIVIDUALS IN CUSTODY WHO ARE
26 YEARS AND YOUNGER, AND THAT
IS AFTER WORKING CLOSELY WITH
K¾T A A AND OPPOSITION TO
ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS. AS I
MENTIONED, THIS REFLECTS
ANOTHER PORTION OF NOT ONLY THE
PENAL CODE, BUT THE WELFARE AND
INSTITUTIONS CODE. AND THE
RECENT CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY
NARROWS THE SCOPE OF THE BILL
WHILE STILL ADDRESSING THE
UNIQUE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO
DECEPTION AND MANIPULATION
AMONG THIS VULNERABLE
POPULATION. FINAL NOTE, MR.
VICE CHAIR, WE HAVE
ADDITIONALLY AGREED WITH K¾T Ã
TO INCLUDE A RETROACTIVITY
PROVISION ENSURING THAT ACTIVE
CRIMINAL CASES WILL NOT BE
IMPACTED. WE CONTINUE TO HAVE
ONGOING CONVERSATIONS WITH K¾T
Ã ON AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT,
AND WE REMAIN EVER HOPEFUL.
HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL THAT WE'LL
BE ABLE TO MOVE THEM TO NEUTRAL
WITH THESE CHANGES. AB 1905
WILL CREATE A CONSISTENT AND
CLEAR STATEWIDE STANDARD AND AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME, MR. VICE
CHAIR, I'LL RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN AYE VOTE. TESTIFYING IN
SUPPORT TODAY, I HAVE JASMINE
HARRIS, POLICY DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA INNOCENCE COALITION,
AND JESSICA JESSICA MALIKIAN,
DEPUTY ALTERNATE PUBLIC
DEFENDER WITH THE LOS ANGELES
WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY. THANK
YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE. YOU
GOT TWO MINUTES EACH. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND VICE
CHAIR AND MEMBERS. I AM JESSICA
MALIKIAN. I'M TESTIFYING HERE
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION.
YOUNG PEOPLE ARE VULNERABLE TO
PRESSURE MANIPULATION AND
COERCIVE INTERROGATION TACTICS,
AND THIS LEGISLATURE HAS LONG
RECOGNIZED THIS REALITY AND
RESPONDED THOUGHTFULLY. SB 395
AND SB 203 ENSURED YOUTH HAVE
ACCESS TO COUNSEL BEFORE
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION, AND
MORE RECENTLY, AB 2644
PROHIBITED LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM
USING DECEPTION AND
PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATIVE
TACTICS DURING INTERROGATIONS
OF YOUTH. THESE REFORMS REFLECT
A CLEAR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE
THAT YOUNG PEOPLE REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS WHEN
CONFRONTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT,
A SIGNIFICANT GAP REMAINS.
WHILE DIRECT INTERROGATIONS ARE
NOW APPROPRIATELY REGULATED,
LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS TURNED TO
AN UNREGULATED AND MORE
CONCERNING METHOD. USING
UNDERCOVER AGENTS TO ELICIT
STATEMENTS. THESE AGENTS EMPLOY
MANY OF THE SAME METHODS
PROHIBITED BY AB 2644, BECAUSE
SUCH PROHIBITIONS DO NOT APPLY
TO THEM. AB 1905 IS A LOGICAL
CONTINUATION OF THIS
LEGISLATURE'S EFFORTS TO
PROTECT YOUTH. IT APPLIES
REGARDLESS OF THE FORM THE
QUESTIONING TAKES AND ENSURES
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION CANNOT BE
UNDERMINED SIMPLY BY SHIFTING
FROM A TRADITIONAL
INTERROGATION ROOM TO A COVERT
CUSTODIAL OPERATION. AB 1905 IS
NARROWLY TAILORED TO APPLY TO
YOUTH 25 AND UNDER, AS DEFINED
BY EXISTING CALIFORNIA LAW, AND
RECOGNIZE AS SHARING
DEVELOPMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
THAT WARRANT SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION. LIMITING THE
BILL TO THOSE UNDER 18 WOULD
CREATE A LOOPHOLE BY ALLOWING
FOR DELAYING ARREST SOLELY TO
AVOID THE BILL'S PROTECTIONS.
SUCH DELAYS, WHICH MY
COLLEAGUES IN LOS ANGELES HAVE
SEEN FIRSTHAND, WOULD BE
DETRIMENTAL TO ALL PARTIES
INVOLVED, INCLUDING CRIME
VICTIMS SEEKING TIMELY
RESOLUTION OF THEIR CASES. THE
AGE THRESHOLD IN THIS BILL
ENSURES THE BILL'S PROTECTIONS
ARE MEANINGFUL, CONSISTENT AND
NOT EASILY CIRCUMVENTED. AND
FOR THESE REASONS, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
SUPPORT AND THANK YOU FOR
ADHERING TO THE TWO MINUTE RULE.
GO AHEAD MA'AM. GOOD AFTERNOON
EVERYONE. I'M JASMINE HARRIS,
POLICY DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA INNOCENCE COALITION.
OUR ORGANIZATIONS HAVE
COLLECTIVELY HELPED FREE MORE
THAN 100 INNOCENT CALIFORNIANS.
AND LOOKING ACROSS THOSE CASES,
ONE LESSON IS CLEAR WHEN AN
INVESTIGATION BECOMES CENTERED
ON A ON A PERSON'S OWN
STATEMENTS RATHER THAN
OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, THE RISK OF
WRONGFUL CONVICTION INCREASES
DRAMATICALLY. THAT IS
ESPECIALLY TRUE WHEN THOSE
STATEMENTS INVOLVE CONDUCT THAT
OCCURRED DURING ADOLESCENCE. WE
KNOW THAT ONCE A CONFESSION OR
INCRIMINATING STATEMENT IS
OBTAINED, EVEN ONE THAT IS
INCOMPLETE, UNRELIABLE, OR
TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT, IT
CHANGES THE COURSE OF AN
INVESTIGATION. IT INFLUENCES
INVESTIGATIVE DECISIONS, SHAPES,
CHARGING DECISIONS, AND CARRIES
ENORMOUS WEIGHTS WITH JURIES
AND JUDGES. THAT'S WHY THE
RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY OF
CONFESSION EVIDENCE MATTERS SO
MUCH. I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY
ADDRESS AN ARGUMENT I'VE SEEN
IN SOME OF THE OPPOSITION
LETTERS, AND THAT IS THE CLAIM
THAT THESE VERY SPECIFIC
PERKINS OPERATIONS ARE
NECESSARY TO EXONERATE THE
WRONGFULLY CONVICTED. THIS IS
MISLEADING AND MISREPRESENTS
THE SUCCESS OF THESE OPERATIONS
OPERATIONS. IN A
POST-CONVICTION CONTEXT. THESE
OPERATIONS ARE DONE WITHOUT THE
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL'S
KNOWLEDGE OR PRESENCE AND ARE
CONFIRMATORY, NOT DISPOSITIVE.
IN FACT, IN MANY OF THESE CASES,
THE ACTUAL PERPETRATOR IS NEVER
BROUGHT TO JUSTICE, AND THE
LEGAL BURDEN FOR EXONERATION
HAS ALREADY BEEN REACHED.
ULTIMATELY, THIS BILL PROTECTS
EVERYONE. IT HELPS ENSURE THAT
INVESTIGATORS BUILD CASES ON
RELIABLE EVIDENCE. PROSECUTORS
OBTAIN CONVICTIONS THAT
WITHSTAND REVIEW, VICTIMS
RECEIVE LASTING JUSTICE, AND
INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE NOT SWEPT
INTO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS. I WE
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL
TAKE ALL THE ME TWOS IN FAVOR
OF THE BILL. COME ON UP. STATE
YOUR NAME, YOUR ORGANIZATION,
IVORY RODRIGUEZ WITH
REGISTERING PROUD SUPPORT FOR
ACLU, CAL ACTION AND THE SAN
FRANCISCO PUBLIC DEFENDER'S
OFFICE. THANK YOU. MARCO GEORGE.
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION,
PROUD CO-SPONSOR. THANK YOU,
GLENN BACCHUS, ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN
SUPPORT. A LITTLE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND SUPPORT. IGNACIO
HERNANDEZ ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEYS FOR
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN SUPPORT AND
ALSO ON BEHALF OF EXONERATED
NATION AND SUPPORT. SOPHIA
NEWHOUSE, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS
UNION LOCAL 148 IN SUPPORT. LIZ
BLUM GUTIERREZ SMART JUSTICE,
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT. ALL
RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE AT THIS
TIME? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE
OPPOSITION. CHIEF. OPPOSITION
WITNESSES. COME ON UP. THERE'S
JUST ONE. THAT'S FINE. TWO. BUT
YOU STILL GOT TWO MINUTES. I
KNOW YOU'LL HOLD ME TO IT. MR.
CHAIR CARILLO, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, STILL IN
OPPOSITION TO AB 1905. WE
APPRECIATE THE AUTHOR TAKING
THE AMENDMENTS THAT HE'S TAKEN
THUS FAR. WE STILL HAVE
SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH THE
BILL, THE MATERIALS AND
ARGUMENTS OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF
THE BILL REFERENCE, QUOTE
UNQUOTE, YOUNG PEOPLE, AND THE
ASSERTION THAT THEY ARE, QUOTE,
UNIQUELY VULNERABLE DURING
CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION,
CUSTODIAL INTERACTIONS WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THE PROBLEM IS THE
BILL'S REACH IS NOT LIMITED TO
MINORS. AS THE AUTHOR SAID, IT
APPLIES TO ANY PERSON WHO IS
UNDER THE AGE OF 18 AT THE TIME
OF THE CRIME, AND UNDER 26 AT
THE TIME OF CUSTODY. SO THIS IS
NOT JUST SOMEONE WHO WAS 17 AND
360 DAYS WHEN THEY COMMITTED
THE CRIME IN 18 YEARS AND FIVE
DAYS WHEN THEY'RE INTERROGATED.
BUT SOMEONE WHO HAD BEEN 17 AT
THE TIME OF THE CRIME AND THEN
WAS 25 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME OF
CUSTODY. IN EITHER CASE, THE
BILL ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT LAW
ENFORCEMENT FROM SEEKING
VALUABLE EVIDENCE FROM ADULTS
IN CUSTODY BASED ON THE NOTION
THAT YOUNG PEOPLE DESERVE A
HIGHER LEVEL OF PROTECTION WHEN
IT COMES TO INTERROGATIONS,
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE I'M
NOT SURE IT WILL BE COMPELLING,
BUT THE APPELLATE CASE THAT'S
CITED IN THE BILL'S FACT SHEET
PEOPLE VÆ SAPATA IS REALLY MORE
OF A MIRANDA CASE CANDIDLY,
THAN A PERKINS CASE. ZAPATA
INVOLVED THE DEFENDANT BEING
THE SUBJECT OF A PERKINS
OPERATION. BUT THE MAIN ISSUE
NOTED BY THE COURT IS THAT
ZAPATA'S ADMISSION OF GUILT WAS
OBTAINED AFTER HE INVOKED HIS
MIRANDA RIGHTS. THE PROBLEM IS
THE BILL USES A POT AS A
JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS PASSAGE,
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE POT
DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN A
JUVENILE AT THE TIME OF THE
INTERROGATION, AND THAT FURTHER
REGULATION OF PERKINS
OPERATIONS IS NOT NECESSARILY
THE MAIN MOTIVATOR OF THE
COURT'S RULING. PERKINS
OPERATIONS ARE EXCEEDINGLY RARE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN INVOLVING
ACTUAL MINORS AND ALSO RARE IN
CASES THAT ARE NOT HOMICIDES.
ADDITIONALLY, AS IT RELATES TO
JUVENILES, AS WITNESSES STATED
ÁP 2644, JUST FOUR YEARS AGO
WAS PASSED. PROHIBITS LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FROM
EMPLOYING THREATS, PHYSICAL
HARM, DECEPTION, OR
PSYCHOLOGICALLY MANIPULATIVE
INTERROGATION TACTICS. THESE
PROTECTIONS ALREADY EXIST. WE
DON'T THINK THERE NEED TO BE
FURTHER LIMITATIONS ON PERKINS.
OPS, FOR THOSE REASONS, WERE
OPPOSED TO THE BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS
TIME, WE'LL TAKE ANY OTHER
OPPOSITION TO THE BILL. COME UP
AND STATE YOUR OPPOSITION. ALL
RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. JULIA
DELEON. ON BEHALF OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE IN OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
BERNIE OJEDA, ON BEHALF OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT UNDER SHERIFF ROBERT
LUNA. WE APPRECIATE THE
DISCUSSIONS, BUT AT THIS TIME,
AT THIS TIME, WE MUST REMAIN
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED. GOOD
AFTERNOON, COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS NADIA MOSHIRI, AND
I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
SHERIFF KELLY MARTINEZ FROM SAN
DIEGO COUNTY. RESPECTFULLY, IN
OPPOSITION. ALL RIGHT. DO WE
HAVE MORE? IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY
MORE, WE'RE GOING TO BRING BACK
TO THE DAIS. WE HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? YES, SENATOR
CABALLERO, SO. I APPRECIATE
WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE DOING
WITH THIS BILL. IT'S IT'S
ALWAYS INTERESTING TO ME THAT,
YOU KNOW, THE AGE AT WHICH
THERE IS A BELIEF THAT PEOPLE
SHOULDN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE
FOR WHAT THEY DO KEEPS GETTING
LONGER AND LONGER. AND I AND I
SAY THAT WITH LOTS OF LOVE AND
AFFECTION, BUT IT'S ALSO BUT
IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT
THEN WE WANT 16 AND 17 YEAR
OLDS TO BE ABLE TO VOTE. SO
DON'T MAKE A DECISION UNTIL
THEY'RE 26. BUT THE 16 AND 17
YEAR OLDS SHOULD BE ABLE TO
VOTE ANYWAY. I JUST I CALL THAT
OUT BECAUSE WHEN SOMEBODY COMES
AND THEY ASK FOR A VOTE ON A 16
OR 17 YEAR OLD, AND I'M THE
ONLY DEMOCRAT THAT VOTES NO, I
WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHY,
BECAUSE I, I JUST THINK THAT
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
AND SO I'M NOT THRILLED ABOUT
THE UP TO 26 JUST IT JUST I GET
THE SCIENCE. BUT BUT AT SOME
POINT YOU TO HAVE TO HAVE A
PARENT OR ANOTHER ADULT PRESENT
JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME
IF YOU'RE BEING INTERROGATED,
RIGHT? IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE IN
CUSTODY. SENDING SOMEONE IN
THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW,
AS A, AS A CELLMATE, AS A TRICK
IS, IS NOT FAIR. AND MAYBE,
MAYBE IT'S, IT'S DECEPTIVE AND
NOT THE BEST WAY TO GET
INFORMATION, BUT, BUT TO HAVE
TO HAVE SOME KIND OF, TO TRY TO
PROTECT SOMEBODY THAT'S IN
CUSTODY WHEN YOU'RE WAY PAST
THE ADULT 18 YEARS OLD DOESN'T
MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT YOUR BILL
TODAY, BUT I'M NOT SURE IN
TERMS OF ON THE FLOOR WHETHER
THAT'S I'M GOING TO FEEL LIKE
THAT'S SOMETHING I WANT TO DO
BECAUSE I, I, I THINK THAT WHEN
A YOUNG PERSON, A MINOR
EXPRESSES AN INTEREST OR
EXPRESSES THE INTENT TO HAVE AN
ADULT PRESENT WITH THEM THAT
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO, AND
THAT ADULT CAN BE A TEACHER
THAT MIGHT SERVE AS A BETTER
ADULT IN TERMS OF, OF A, OF A
CONFIDANT AND A, AND A ADULT
FIGURE IN THEIR LIFE. NOT ALL
JUVENILES HAVE PARENTS THAT
THEY TRUST AND THAT THEY TURN
TO IN TIMES OF CRISIS. BUT I DO
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO
GIVE THEM THAT THAT. RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. VICE
CHAIR, ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. MY
COMMENTS ARE WHAT SHE SAID.
OKAY. I'M GONNA HAVE TO USE
THAT. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND
CLOSE. WELL, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH, MR. VICE CHAIR. I WILL BE
BRIEF TO SENATOR CABALLERO.
APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. DULY
NOTED. I WOULD JUST LEAVE YOU
ALL WITH WITH TWO THINGS. FIRST
OF ALL, IF THE SHERIFF'S
ASSOCIATIONS AND MANY
REPRESENTATIVES, IF THERE'S IF
THEY GET PAST THE IDEOLOGICAL
OPPOSITION AND THERE'S A
DIFFERENT AGE BY WHICH YOU
THINK THAT IT WOULD NOT BE
OBJECTIONABLE, WE'D LOVE TO
HAVE THAT LEVEL OF CONVERSATION.
WE WE HAVEN'T SO FAR. SO I'M
INVITING ANY SHERIFF'S
REPRESENTATIVE TO ENGAGE WITH
US. BUT THE OTHER THING I WOULD
ACTUALLY ADD, SENATOR, IS AT
LEAST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AND
WHY I AGREED TO MAKE THAT
CHANGE TO THE BILL, IT ACTUALLY
CONFORMS WITH EXISTING LAW. AND
WHAT I WOULD SPECIFICALLY CITE
TO IS PENAL CODE SECTION 1010,
16.7, WHICH DEFINES YOUTH AS IT
RELATES TO PROBATION. AND SO
PART OF THE ARGUMENT WAS
CONFORMITY AND CONSISTENCY
WITHIN THE LAW. NOTWITHSTANDING
THAT FACT, WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE
A CONVERSATION WITH ANYONE AND
EVERYONE OUTSIDE OF JUST THE
THE, THE PERFORMATIVE NATURE OF
THE COMMITTEE PROCESS. SO WE
WOULD LOVE TO TALK WITH ANYBODY.
WITH THAT, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. OKAY. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND
CALL ROLL ÁP 1905. SCHULTZ.
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE FLOOR
AGAIN. CIERTO CIERTO. NO.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
ORTEZ. PEREZ. WIENER WIENER.
AYE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT
BILL WILL REMAIN ON CALL. OKAY.
NEXT UP MISS. LET'S SEE.
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCKINNON, I
BELIEVE YOU ARE UP WITH THE
BILL. I THINK I'VE HEARD BEFORE,
SO I DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT
MYSELF. MR. VICE CHAIR, CAN I
PLEASE PRESENT THE A B 2411
BECAUSE MY WITNESSES HAVE TO
LEAVE ME LOOK AND SEE WHERE
YOU'RE AT. THAT IS ITEM NUMBER
31. OKAY, 31 PATTERSON NÓ. OH,
I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. 24112411
OKAY. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, I
THOUGHT THE OTHER ONES ON
CONSENT. NO, NO. YEAH. 2411 IS
THE ONE THAT I'VE HEARD BEFORE.
YES. OH, WELL, ABSOLUTELY. YOU
CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT ONE.
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I WOULD
LIKE TO BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS DESCRIBED
IN THE BILL AND ANALYSIS. AND
SINCERELY THANK YOU AND YOUR
STAFF FOR THE EXCELLENT WORK ON
THIS BILL. SENATORS AB 2411
CREATES A PROCESS TO TRAIN OUT
OF STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC SAFETY
DURING THE 2028 OLYMPICS AND
PARALYMPIC GAMES, ACCORDING TO
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. THE LA
28 HOST CITY. THE GAMES WILL
REQUIRE AN ESTIMATE OF 30,000
ADDITIONAL SWORN LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO KEEP
ATHLETES, FANS AND VISITORS
FROM AROUND THE WORLD SAFE. WE.
YET CURRENT ESTIMATES HAVE
IDENTIFIED ONLY 6000 STATE
OFFICERS THAT COULD BE
AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE NECESSARY
MUTUAL AID. TO BE CLEAR, AB
2411 DOES NOT REPLACE AVAILABLE
IN STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICIALS FOR USE DURING THE
2028 GAMES. THE BILL CLEARLY
STATES THAT ANY OUT-OF-STATE
OFFICERS USED FOR THE GAMES
WILL ONLY AUGMENT AVAILABLE IN
STATE OFFICERS. I APPRECIATE
THE PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS
I'VE HAD DIRECTLY WITH OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT LABOR PARTNERS, AND
WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM
TO ENSURE THAT ANY OUT OF STATE
OFFICERS USED IN THE 2028 GAMES
WILL MEET CALIFORNIA'S HIGH
STANDARDS OF CONDUCT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. SENATORS, WE
HAVE A CHOICE ON HOW WE KEEP
ATHLETES, FANS AND VISITORS
SAFE DURING THE 2028 GAMES. WE
CAN USE THE NEXT TWO YEARS TO
ESTABLISH A PROCESS FOR LA
28KLES AND THE COMMISSION ON
PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND
TRAINING TO PLAN, COORDINATE
AND DEPLOY TRAINING FOR
SUPPLEMENTAL OUT OF STATE
OFFICERS TO ENFORCE CALIFORNIA
STATE LAWS. OR WE CAN DO
NOTHING AND LEAVE IT UP TO THE
TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
PROTECT LOS ANGELES. WHILE WE
LIKE WHAT WE SAW LAST SUMMER
WITH NO ACCOUNTABILITY AS CHAIR
OF THE ASSEMBLY SELECT
COMMITTEE ON THE 2028 OLYMPIC
AND PARALYMPIC GAMES, I WOULD
PREFER THAT WE PLAN, TRAIN AND
REQUIRE ANY OUT OF STATE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO SERVE
UNDER A STATE RUN CENTRAL
COMMAND AND COMPLY WITH ALL
STATE LAWS FOR CONDUCT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. SENATORS ARE
SAFE. GAME IS CENTRAL TO A
SUCCESSFUL GAMES, AND AB 2411
WILL GIVE US A TOOL NECESSARY
TO KEEP ALL OF US SAFE WHEN WE
CELEBRATE THE 2028 OLYMPICS AND
PARALYMPIC GAMES, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
AND TODAY MY WITNESS IS ANDREW
TWEED. ON BEHALF OF OUR PROUD
SPONSOR, THE CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, OFFICE OF MAYOR KAREN
BASS AND COMMANDER MARIO MOTO
OF THE LOS ANGELES POLICE
DEPARTMENT, AND DETECTIVE DAVID
SUN, ALSO WITH THE LAPD. TO
HELP ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
WHICHEVER ONE OF YOU WANTS TO
GO FIRST, YOU'VE GOT TWO
MINUTES, CHAIR MEMBERS ANDREW.
LOS ANGELES MAYOR. CHAIR
MEMBERS. ANDREW ANTHONY HERE
TODAY ON BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES
MAYOR KAREN BASS. MAYOR'S
OFFICE IS PLEASED, AS THE
AUTHORS INDICATED, TO SERVE AS
SPONSOR FOR THIS MEASURE. AND
WE THANK THE AUTHOR FOR
BRINGING THIS MEASURE FORWARD.
THE BILL IS ABOUT PREPARATION,
COORDINATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE GAMES ARE AROUND THE CORNER,
AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE
WELCOME THE WORLD IN THE MOST
SECURE AND COORDINATED WAY, AND
THAT WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
LEAD TIME THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE
PREPARATIONS FOR PROPER FORCE
ENHANCEMENT AND CROWD CONTROL
AND OTHER NEEDS THROUGH A VERY
COORDINATED AND DIRECTED
FASHION. THIS MOMENT WILL BRING
EXTRAORDINARY OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE CITY, THE REGION AND THE
STATE. AND THERE WILL BE FAN
ZONES, CROWDS, HIGH PROFILE
VENUES, TRANSIT CORRIDORS. ALL
OF THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED
AND PLANNED FOR. AND SO WE
THANK THE AUTHOR AND THIS
COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION TO FOLLOW
A PROTOCOL THAT'S WELL SET,
WITH VERY WELL DEFINED ROLES
FOR A MAJOR INTERNATIONAL EVENT,
A HISTORIC EVENT, AND WE CREATE
THE AUTHORITY THROUGH THIS
MEASURE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE
ROLES ARE WELL DEFINED. AND
PREPARING EARLY IS OUR BEST
MEDICINE. I'LL DEFER TO OTHER
WITNESSES TO ELABORATE, AND
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
TO PRESENT. GOOD AFTERNOON,
VICE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME
IS MARIO MOTTA, AND I AM A
COMMANDER WITH THE LOS ANGELES
POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE
COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE LAPD
MAJOR EVENTS GROUP, WHICH IS
THE DEPARTMENT'S LEAD ENTITY IN
THE PLANNING FOR THE 2028
OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES.
THE LAPD IS ONE OF SIX MEMBERS
WITHIN THE NATIONAL SPECIAL
SECURITY EVENTS DESIGNATION,
THE EXECUTIVE STEERING
COMMITTEE THAT OVERSEES THE
OVERALL PLANNING, SAFETY,
SECURITY AND DEPLOYMENT FOR THE
GAMES AS IT PERTAINS TO PUBLIC
SAFETY ACROSS THE VENUES IN THE
LA REGION, THROUGH THE NSC
STRUCTURE AND THE UNITED STATES
SECRET SERVICE, THERE HAVE BEEN
SPECIFIC ASSIGNMENTS THAT HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT WILL BE
THAT WILL REQUIRE SWORN LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL TO STAFF
THESE POSITIONS. THE CITY OF LA
ALONE WILL HOST EIGHT LARGE
VENUES AND ENCOMPASSING SEVERAL
CITY SQUARE MILES PER SITE,
ALONG WITH SEVEN ROAD RACES AND
A MARATHON THAT WILL SPAN
ACROSS MULTIPLE LAW ENFORCEMENT
JURISDICTIONS, INCREASING OUR
DEMAND FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS JUST OUTSIDE LOS
ANGELES. OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES
WILL ALSO HOST SCOPED OLYMPIC
VENUES, FURTHER INCREASING THE
DEMAND FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
PERSONNEL ACROSS THE ENTIRE
REGION. FOR CONTEXT, THE LAPD
WILL BE MOBILIZED, DEPLOYED FOR
66 CONTINUOUS DAYS FOR THE
OLYMPICS AND PARALYMPICS.
THAT'S 66 DAYS ON PEAK DEMAND
DAYS, THE LAPD WILL DEPLOY
APPROXIMATELY 6700 OFFICERS
ACROSS THE VARIOUS SITES OF
WHICH WE, THE LAPD, CAN ONLY
PROVIDE ONE THIRD OF THAT
DEPLOYMENT. SO ROUGHLY 2200
OFFICERS PER DAY. THAT LEAVES A
STAFFING GAP OF APPROXIMATELY
4400 OFFICERS PER DAY. THIS IS
FOR LAPD VENUES ONLY. THE GAP
MUST BE FILLED BY OTHER
IN-STATE AND OUT-OF-STATE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. THE LAPD
ALONE NEEDS ROUGHLY 12 TO
15,000 OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO THE
LAPD TO COVER THE GAMES FOR THE
REGION. OFFICERS WILL WILL ALSO
BE COVERING SCOPE EVENTS, AND
IT IS ESTIMATED THAT ON ANY
GIVEN DAY, WE NEED 13 TO 16,000
OFFICERS DEPLOYED ACROSS THE
LOS ANGELES REGION. AND TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT, WE NEED 24 TO
30,000 OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO THE
GAMES FROM ALL OVER THE STATE
AND AND THE OUTSIDE OF THE
STATE. FOR THESE REASONS, THE
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT,
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, AND
THE NATIONAL SPECIAL SECURITY
EVENTS EXECUTIVE STEERING
COMMITTEE, WHICH WE ARE PART OF,
SUPPORT THIS BILL. BY ADVANCING
THIS LEGISLATION, CAL OAS CAN
HAVE THE ABILITY TO START THE
PROCESS AND ADDRESSING THE
PERSONNEL GAPS AS TIME IS NO
LONGER ON OUR SIDE. WITH THE
GAMES JUST TWO YEARS AWAY, WE
ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR ON ANY AMENDMENTS
AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE
AND A GENUINE PERSPECTIVE OF
THE CHALLENGES WE FACE IN
PROVIDING A ROBUST SAFETY AND
SECURITY PLAN ACROSS ALL VENUES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH FOR BOTH YOUR
TESTIMONIES. AT THIS TIME.
WE'LL TAKE ANYBODY IN SUPPORT
OF THE MEASURE. COME ON UP AND.
GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOU KNOW
WHAT TO DO. MR. CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN SUPPORT.
CHLOE KING WITH POLITICAL
SOLUTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA ORTHOTIC AND
PROSTHETIC ASSOCIATION, AND
ALSO ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA TRAVEL ASSOCIATION
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. I'M HERE ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA HOTEL AND
LODGING ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT.
OKAY. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND TAKE OPPOSITION
WITNESSES. YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
WHEN YOU COME ON UP, YOU'LL BE
THE CHIEF OPPOSITION WITNESS.
IT LOOKS LIKE. MR. CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS. RANDY PERRY, ON BEHALF
OF PORAC, WE'VE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE AND
THE MAYOR'S OFFICE ON THE BILL
FOR A MONTH OR SO. NOW, A
COUPLE OF THINGS I JUST WANT TO
STATE ON THE ON ON SET HERE IS
THAT FOR CONCERN AND THE WORK
THAT WE'RE PUTTING INTO THIS
BILL IS REALLY BASED ON THE
FACT THAT PORAC HAS BEEN THE
TIP OF THE SPEAR ON THE LABOR
SIDE. REGARDING POLICE REFORM
OVER THE LAST DECADE. WE'RE
BEING VERY CAREFUL. A LOT OF
ISSUES OF WE'VE BEEN A PART OF
IN TERMS OF POLICE LICENSING.
AND LIKE LAST SUMMER, WE SAW
WHERE THE FEDS CAME IN, AND
JUST AS WE FELT WE WERE
REGAINING THE PUBLIC TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE, SEVERAL THINGS
HAPPENED ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL
THAT IS REFLECTING ON US AND
THEREFORE, ALL OF YOU HAVE PUT
IN MAJOR BILLS THIS YEAR AND
LAST YEAR TO DEAL WITH THAT
ISSUE, BUT HAVE SERIOUSLY
IMPACTED US. AGAIN, OUR CONCERN
HERE IS WITHOUT A STATE FOLKS
COMING IN THAT THEY HAVE THE
TRAINING, THEY HAVE THE SAME
TYPE OF BACKGROUND CHECKS AND,
AND, AND BASICALLY MAKING SURE
THEY'RE UP TO CALIFORNIA
STANDARDS. THE CURRENT
AMENDMENTS THAT WENT INTO THE
BILL. OUR CONCERNS ARE THAT WE
STILL DON'T HAVE THE POST
OVERSIGHT, BASICALLY, THAT WE
WANTED TO HAVE THE LANGUAGE
THAT SAYS THAT WE DEEM THAT THE
OUT OF STATE OFFICERS, WHEN
THEY COME IN, THEY'RE DEEMED TO
HAVE MET CALIFORNIA BACKGROUND,
BUT WHO IS MAKING THAT CHECK?
WHO IS MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S
OCCURRING? THERE WAS SOME
STREAMLINED TRAINING BY POST,
WHICH IS OUT OF THE BILL NOW.
THE BACKGROUND CHECKS
THEMSELVES. AGAIN, IT'S ALL
BEING BASED ON THE OFFICER
BEING DEEMED TO BE QUALIFIED BY
THEIR AGENCY AND THEIR STATE.
BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS ARE. WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE
BACKGROUNDS ARE AND AND THE
LIKE. SO WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE AUTHOR'S OFFICE
ON THIS. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WHEN THESE OFFICERS
COME INTO CALIFORNIA, THAT THEY
ARE LIVING UP TO BASICALLY WHAT
WE ARE REQUIRED TO LIVE UP TO,
WHAT OUR CITIZENS IN CALIFORNIA
HAVE, HAVE NEED YOU TO WRAP UP.
YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, THERE'S NO
ONE ELSE. AND THEY GET FOUR
MINUTES. NO, YOU GET TWO. ALL
RIGHT, I TRIED ANYWAY. SO I
JUST WANT TO SAY WE'LL CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH THE AUTHOR'S
OFFICE. THEY HAVE BEEN
WONDERFUL WORKING WITH US. WE
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT
THESE OFFICERS LIVE UP TO
CALIFORNIA STANDARDS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS
TIME, WE'LL TAKE ANYBODY WHO
WOULD LIKE TO BE A ME TOO IN
OPPOSITION. COME ON UP. STATE
YOUR NAME. MR. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS MATTHEW SEIBERLING, ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR
LOS ANGELES DEPUTY SHERIFFS.
WE'RE CURRENTLY IN OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED POSITION,
LARGELY FOR THE SAME REASONS
JUST OUTLINED BY PORAC. WE'RE
ENCOURAGED BY THE ANALYSIS AND
THE LANGUAGE THAT IS
POTENTIALLY GOING INTO THE BILL,
AND LOOK FORWARD TO READING IT
AND SEE IF IT REMOVES OUR
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. ALL
RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO
AHEAD AND BRING IT BACK TO THE
DAIS. ANYBODY UP HERE HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? YES, MISS. SENATOR
CABALLERO, I AM. I APPRECIATE
WHAT YOU'RE YOU'RE DOING HERE,
AND I WANT TO SECOND WHAT PORAC
SAID. I MY BIGGEST CONCERN WHEN
I READ THE BILL WAS THE OUT OF
STATE. I THINK I THINK PUBLIC
SAFETY OFFICERS IN CALIFORNIA
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STANDARDS
ARE AND THEY GET TRAINING. BUT
I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS ABOUT
BRINGING IN OUT OF STATE
OFFICERS. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED.
IT'S INCREDIBLE THE NUMBER OF
OFFICERS I WAS KIND OF BLOWN
AWAY WITH WITH WITH THAT NUMBER.
BUT IT'S A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME,
AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE INTERACTIONS WITH THE
PUBLIC ARE OF THE HIGHEST
QUALITY. AND SO HOPEFULLY YOU
CAN WORK IT OUT WITH THE
OPPOSITION. AND I SEE YOU
NODDING YOUR HEAD. SO AS LONG
AS YOU CONTINUE TO TO WORK ON
THAT, I, I, I'M WILLING TO
SUPPORT THE BILL TODAY. IT'S
GOT TO BE DONE. WE NEED WE NEED
THE OFFICERS ON PATROL. PEOPLE
WANT TO FEEL SAFE. THEY WANT TO
HAVE A GOOD TIME. IT'S BEEN
PHENOMENAL TO SEE THE FIFA.
ACTIVITY AND ALL OVER THE
COUNTRY, PEOPLE DOING PARADES,
COUNTRIES DOING PARADES DOWN
THE STREET. IT'S JUST IT WARMS
MY HEART DURING A TIME WHEN WE
HAVEN'T BEEN THE BEST ACTOR IN
THE WORLD STAGE, TO HAVE PEOPLE
HERE HAVING A GOOD TIME, AND WE
WANT THAT TO HAPPEN DURING THE
OLYMPICS AS WELL. SO THANK YOU
FOR BRINGING THIS BILL AND FOR
CONTINUING TO WORK. THANK YOU,
MR. VICE. THANK YOU SENATOR.
OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? ARE YOU
GOING TO BE TAKING THE
AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
OFFERED? YES. THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WAS OFFERED BY. YES. I
SAID THAT AT THE BEGINNING. YES.
I'LL BE TAKING THEM. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. BY THE COMMITTEE.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE THIS IN
OUR COMMITTEE, AND I OUTLINED
SOME CONCERNS. SO I'M GOING TO
PAINT THE BIG PICTURE FOR US.
SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK BASICALLY
24,000 OFFICERS FROM PLACES
LIKE DALLAS AND SOME OF THE
BIGGER BECAUSE THE LITTLE ONES
CAN'T SEND THEIR OFFICERS
BECAUSE THEN THEY'D HAVE NOBODY
TO COVER THEIR OWN PLACES. AND
WE'RE GOING TO TELL THOSE GUYS
THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY TRAINED
GOOD ENOUGH TO BE WORKING IN
CALIFORNIA. SO WE'RE GOING TO
PUT YOU THROUGH A LITTLE
ACADEMY OF OUR OWN, AND THEN
WE'RE GOING TO BRING YOU OVER.
YOU'RE GOING TO PAY YOU
OVERTIME BECAUSE THE WAY MUTUAL
AID WORKS IS YOU GET PAID
OVERTIME FOR THE MINUTE. YOU
PICK UP YOUR SUITCASE AND WALK
OUT THE DOOR ON A MUTUAL AID
LIKE THIS, TO THE MINUTE YOU
TAKE YOUR SUITCASE AND WALK
BACK IN THE DOOR. SO THAT'S
VERY, VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE
LABOR. I WOULD IMAGINE THEY'RE
GOING TO BE TAXED AT THEIR HOME
OR THEIR CALIFORNIA WAGES.
THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER
ISSUE FOR THEM BECAUSE IF
THEY'RE GETTING TAXED AT
CALIFORNIA WAGES, THAT'S
ANOTHER REASON FOR THEM NOT TO
WANT TO HELP AN INCIDENT LIKE
THIS. I CALL IT AN INCIDENT.
SORRY. TAKES KIND OF AN ALL OF
YOUR GOVERNMENT EFFORT. AND SO
IF WE'RE GOING TO HAMSTRING US
AND SAY WE DON'T REALLY WANT
THE FEDS TO HELP US, BUT WE
WANT SOME OUT OF STATE PEOPLE,
WE'RE GOING TO BEG THEM TO COME
IN, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE
THEM ALL THESE RULES, AND WE'RE
GOING TO TELL THEM THEY'RE NOT
REALLY GOOD ENOUGH AT WHERE
THEY ARE. THEY NEED TO BE GOOD
ENOUGH FOR US, AND THEN HAVE
THEM COME OVER HERE AND GO
THROUGH TRAINING AND THEN PAY
THEM AN UNGODLY AMOUNT OF MONEY.
AND IN THE MEANWHILE, YOU KNOW,
OUR OFFICERS HAVE BEEN
HAMSTRUNG IN THEIR EFFORTS TO
RECRUIT BECAUSE OF OUR RULES.
I'M VOTING YES JUST BECAUSE I
WANT TO SEE IT. I WANT TO SEE
IT WORK. I JUST WANT TO I WANT
TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE THAT WORK. BECAUSE FAILURE
IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IS
NOT AN OPTION. WE CANNOT HAVE A
MAJOR EVENT LIKE THIS IF WE
CANNOT OFFER THE PUBLIC SAFETY
PART OF IT. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M
AFRAID OF. I'M AFRAID WE HAVE
PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION
WHERE WE CAN'T. SO ANYWAY, I
WILL LET YOU CLOSE. I WILL, I
WILL BE SUPPORTING YOUR BILL.
I'M I'M VERY SKEPTICAL HAVING
UNDERSTANDING THE MUTUAL AID
SYSTEM AND WHAT IT TAKES WHEN
WE'RE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT
EVENTS THIS LARGE WITH THAT
AMOUNT OF PERSONNEL, THAT IS A
LOGISTICAL NIGHTMARE. AND YES,
OUR OUR PEOPLE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA NEED TO BE USED
FIRST. BUT WE CAN'T WE CAN'T
PUT GUYS ON DUTY FOR, FOR TWO
MONTHS. SO SO THAT'S JUST NOT
GOING TO HAPPEN. SO ANYWAY,
I'LL LET YOU CLOSE AND THEN AND
THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR A
VOTE. WELL, FIRST I'LL CLOSE
WITH I AM SO EXCITED ABOUT LA
28, THE OLYMPICS AND
PARALYMPICS COMING TO LOS
ANGELES. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A
FANTASTIC TIME. I'M LOOKING AT
EVERYBODY OUT IN THE AUDIENCE,
AND I KNOW THAT THEY'RE EXCITED
AS WELL. BUT BUT MOST
IMPORTANTLY, WE HAVE TO BE SAFE.
AND I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION. WE'VE
BEEN HAVING CONVERSATION AND I
ACTUALLY DO GET GET WHAT
THEY'RE SAYING. WE HAVE HIGH
STANDARDS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO
TELL PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE NOT
GOOD ENOUGH. MR. VICE CHAIR.
WE'RE GOING TO SAY, COME IN,
AND I KNOW THAT YOU MAY HAVE
DIFFERENT RULES THAN WE HAVE.
AND SO WE JUST WANT TO TRAIN
YOU ON CALIFORNIA RULES,
BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, THEY'RE
GOING TO BRING THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN ANYWAY. I MEAN,
WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS DONE. YOU
KNOW, IT'S JUST WE WOULD LOVE
TO HAVE USE USE OFFICERS FROM
FROM OUT OF STATE, BUT WE ARE
GOING TO USE OUR OFFICERS FIRST.
WE RESPECT THEM. WE HIGHLY
APPRECIATE THEM, BUT WE KNOW
THAT WE CAN'T TAKE THEM FROM,
YOU KNOW, THE LITTLE, LITTLE
TOWNS AND LITTLE CITIES AND
LEAVE THEM UNPROTECTED. AND SO
I WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
THE OPPOSITION. AND WITH THAT,
I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. BRING IT BACK
FOR A VOTE. ÁP 2411. MCHENRY
MOTIONS DO PASS, AS AMENDED, TO
APPROPRIATIONS. AGAIN, SAY I
SAY TO A CABALLERO CABALLERO I
ORTEZ PEREZ WIENER I WIENER I
THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'LL KEEP
THAT BILL OPEN FOR PEOPLE TO
COME IN AND VOTE ON. MR. HANEY,
YOUR NEXT. AND THEN I'LL COME
BACK. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. NOT
AT THE END. YEAH. HE'S IN FILE
ORDER, ACTUALLY. HE'S WAY UP
HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR.
VICE CHAIR AND MEMBERS, I WANT
TO START BY THANKING THE STAFF
FOR THE WORK ON THE BILL AND
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE'S
AMENDMENTS. AB 1897 WILL
STRENGTHEN CALIFORNIA'S
MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDERS
EVALUATION PROCESS THROUGH
EVIDENCE BASED RISK ASSESSMENTS
AND MORE EFFICIENT COURT
PROCEEDINGS. THE NEED FOR THIS
BILL WAS UNDERSCORED BY A CASE
WHICH OCCURRED IN SAN FRANCISCO,
WHEN A REPEAT OFFENDER WITH A
SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER
WAS COMMITTED AS A MENTALLY
DISORDERED OFFENDER AND LATER
EVALUATED FOR RELEASE. DURING
THAT PROCESS, EXPERTS REACHED
CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS ABOUT
WHETHER HE CONTINUED TO POSE A
SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OF PHYSICAL
HARM TO OTHERS. BECAUSE EXPERTS
REACHED DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS,
THE COURT FOUND HE DID NOT MEET
THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR
CONTINUED COMMITMENT IN ORDER
TO RELEASE. FOLLOWING THAT
RELEASE, HE WAS REPEATEDLY
REPORTEDLY SEEN APPROACHING AND
HARASSING WOMEN AGAIN AND WAS
LATER TAKEN BACK INTO CUSTODY
FOR AN ALLEGED PAROLE VIOLATION.
AB 1897 RESPONDS TO CASES LIKE
THIS BY ADDING IN SPECIFIC
CRITERIA THAT EXPERTS SHOULD
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN
CONSIDERING A REEVALUATION OF A
MENTALLY DISORDERED OFFENDER.
THIS WILL HELP PROMOTE MORE
TRANSPARENT AND EVIDENCE BASED
EVALUATIONS THAT ARE CONSISTENT
CONSISTENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT
STATE HOSPITALS. THE BILL ALSO
ALLOWS PETITIONS TO BE HEARD IN
THE COUNTY OF COMMITMENT TO
STATE PRISON ONLY IF THE
PETITIONER, THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY AND THE DEFENSE
COUNSEL ALL AGREE TO CHANGE THE
LOCATION. I'VE BEEN WORKING
CLOSELY WITH OPPOSITION TO
RESOLVE THEIR CONCERNS. I WILL
CONTINUE CONVERSATIONS ON
OUTSTANDING CONCERNS WITH ME.
TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL IS NIKI MOORE, SAN
FRANCISCO ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, AND DOCTOR REBECCA
APONTE, A FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST.
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU, MR. VICE CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, NIKKI MOORE WITH THE
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I WANT TO
THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING
WITH US ON LANGUAGE AND THE
STAKEHOLDERS FOR CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH US ON LANGUAGE. AS TO
THE JURISDICTION PIECE, THIS
WILL ALLOW THE PARTIES TO
STIPULATE TO HEAR THE HEARING
IN THE COUNTY OF COMMITMENT,
WHEN THAT IS APPROPRIATE. SO WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN AYE
VOTE. HI, I'M REBECCA PONCE,
I'M A FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST AND
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT IN PC2960
ET SEQ, WHICH IS COMMONLY KNOWN
AS THE OFFENDER WITH MENTAL
HEALTH DISORDER, OR HD. I
WANTED TO EXPRESS GRATITUDE TO
THE AUTHOR, HIS OFFICE AND
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS FOR THEIR
RESPONSIVENESS AND ADDRESSING
CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED ABOUT
A PRIOR VERSION OF THIS BILL,
AND I WANT TO JUST QUICKLY
STATE MY SUPPORT FOR THE ASPECT
OF THE BILL, KEEPING THE
JURISDICTION OF PATIENT
PETITIONS IN THE COUNTY OF
THEIR CURRENT TREATMENT OR
IMPRISONMENT, BECAUSE THAT
MAINTAINS CONTINUITY OF PATIENT
CARE. PATIENTS CAN HAVE THEIR
HEARINGS WHERE THEY ARE
CURRENTLY LIVING AND RECEIVING
TREATMENT, RATHER THAN HAVING
TO TRANSFER TO A COUNTY JAIL IN
THEIR COUNTY OF PRISON
COMMITMENT. AND IT ALSO
PROTECTS THE LEGAL EXPERTISE IN
THIS NICHE LAW BY KEEPING THE
HEARINGS WHERE THAT EXPERTISE
ALREADY EXISTS, RATHER THAN
DISPERSING IT ACROSS
CALIFORNIA'S 58 COUNTIES,
ASSESSMENT OF DANGEROUSNESS IS
THE MOST COMPLEX AND SUBJECTIVE
ASPECT OF THE EVALUATIONS, AND
SO IT'S WHERE WE SEE THE MOST
DISCREPANCY BETWEEN EXPERT
OPINIONS. DIFFERENT EVALUATORS
ON THE SAME CASE OFTEN DO NOT
HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME SOURCES
OF DATA, AND EVALUATORS MAY
APPLY DISPARATE METHODS FOR
ANALYZING THAT DATA. THE CASE
THAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THIS
BILL DEMONSTRATES HOW CONFUSING
IT CAN BE FOR THE TRIER. OF
FACT, WHEN EVALUATORS USE
INCOMPATIBLE METHODS TO ASSESS
DANGEROUSNESS, LEADING TO AN
APPLES TO ORANGES COMPARISON
BETWEEN EXPERT OPINIONS. THE
BEST METHOD FORENSIC EVALUATORS
CURRENTLY HAVE FOR ASSESSING
FUTURE RISK IS A PROCESS CALLED
STRUCTURED PROFESSIONAL
JUDGMENT, IN WHICH AN EVALUATOR
EXAMINES A SET OF FACTORS THAT
ARE EMPIRICALLY LINKED TO THE
TYPE OF RISK BEING ASSESSED,
AND USE THAT SET OF FACTORS TO
STRUCTURE THEIR CASE
CONCEPTUALIZATION. IF THERE WAS
AN EXISTING STRUCTURED
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT TOOL THAT
EXAMINES THE NARROW QUESTION OF
WHETHER A PERSON, BY REASON OF
THEIR SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH
DISORDER, REPRESENTS A
SUBSTANTIAL DANGER OF PHYSICAL
HARM TO OTHERS. EVALUATORS
WOULD USE IT, BUT THERE'S NOT.
THERE ARE, HOWEVER, EVIDENCE
BASED FACTORS THAT CAN ASSIST
IN ANSWERING THE PSYCHO LEGAL
QUESTION. AB 1897 IMPROVES UPON
EXISTING LAW BY ESTABLISHING A
BASIC FRAMEWORK FOR THE
DANGEROUSNESS PRONG OF
EVALUATIONS. THE RUBRIC ITEMS
CONTAINED IN AB 97 ARE A
COMBINATION OF THE MOST SALIENT
AND EMPIRICALLY SUPPORTED
FACTORS, AS WELL AS FACTORS
THAT PRIOR CASE LAW HAS
DETERMINED SHOULD BE INCLUDED
IN THE ASSESSMENT OF
DANGEROUSNESS FOR ALL MDS.
HAVING A UNIFIED BASIC
FRAMEWORK FOR THESE EVALUATIONS
WILL ASSIST THE TRIER OF FACT
IN DISPUTED CASES BY
FACILITATING AN APPLES TO
APPLES COMPARISON BETWEEN
DIFFERING EXPERT OPINIONS,
WHICH WILL HELP REVEAL ANY
DIFFERENCES IN THE QUALITY OF
THE DATA THAT THE EXPERT RELIED
UPON AND THE QUALITY OF THE
ANALYSIS. THE EXPERT APPLIED TO
THAT DATA, AND FOR THOSE
REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR SUPPORT FOR AB 1897. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR.
OVER HERE NOW. THAT CONCLUDES
THE SUPPORT TESTIMONY. ANYONE
THAT WOULD LIKE TO JOIN ON. OH
YEAH, I WAS I WAS GOING TO SAY
I HEARD HER. OKAY. YES, PLEASE
COME FORWARD. MADAM CHAIR, DAN
FELIZARDO, ON BEHALF OF THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR. I. VÆ
FITZPATRICK, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION AND THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. IS THERE IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT? SEEING NONE.
TESTIMONY IN OPPOSITION. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MARK GEORGE, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S ASSOCIATION, MADAM
CHAIR TABLE, IF YOU'D LIKE.
THANK YOU. I THINK THIS WILL BE
SUFFICIENT, THOUGH. WE HAVE
SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE
BILL. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH
THE AUTHOR AND THE COMMITTEE.
THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
CURRENTLY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE
AUTHOR AND PROPOSED BY THE
COMMITTEE ARE NOT CONSISTENT
WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT CAME
OUT OF ASSEMBLY PUBLIC SAFETY.
WE HOPE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO
RESOLVE THOSE DIFFERENCES WITH
CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS. THANK
YOU. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. HI.
LIZ GUTIERREZ, EXPRESSING
SIMILAR CONCERN AS MY COLLEAGUE
ON BEHALF OF SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA, REVIEWING THE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. IV RODRIGUEZ
ALIGNING OUR COMMENTS WITH THAT
OF THE CPDA ON BEHALF OF ACLU,
CAL ACTION AND SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION? SEEING NONE. I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. AND
IT'S ME, SO I. THIS IS A
COMPLICATED AREA, BUT IT'S IT
IS A. IT'S COMPLICATED BECAUSE
OF THE NATURE OF THE INQUIRY.
AND IT IS DIFFICULT AT BEST TO
PREDICT WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO DO. AND WITH A MENTAL
ILLNESS, IT'S EVEN HARDER TO
PREDICT. BUT WE WANT TO GET IT
RIGHT. AND SO I APPRECIATE THE
WORK YOU'RE DOING ON THIS, AND
I ASSUME YOU'LL CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION. AND
WITH THAT, I ALLOW YOU TO
CONCLUDE, AND WE'LL TAKE UP A
MOTION WHEN WE GET SOME MORE
MEMBERS. AND I AND I DO HAVE TO
SAY THAT THERE ARE I'M SUPPOSED
TO BE IN TWO OTHER COMMITTEES.
AND SO PEOPLE ARE PRESENTING
BILLS AND THEN THEY'RE SERVING
ANOTHER COMMITTEE. SO THAT'S
WHY YOU SEE PEOPLE COMING IN
AND OUT. IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE
NOT INTERESTED. THEY HAVE A
MULTIPLE THINGS TO DO. SO I'LL
ALLOW YOU TO CONCLUDE. THANK
YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE BEEN, AS YOU
SAID, WORKING, WORKING TO TRY
TO GET THIS RIGHT. WE HAD WE
HAD CHOSEN AN ASSESSMENT TOOL.
AND THEN THERE WAS SOME DIALOG
ABOUT HOW IT WAS BETTER TO HAVE
A SET OF FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED. SO FOLKS WEREN'T
LOCKED IN IN THAT WAY. WE JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS
SOME CONSISTENCY, SOME CLARITY
ON THE FACTORS THAT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED, THAT WILL PROTECT
BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR
RIGHTS, AND ALSO MAKE SURE THAT
WE PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY. AND
WE WILL, OF COURSE, CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION TO TO
TRY TO ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE
CONCERNS AND GET THIS RIGHT FOR
EVERYONE. WITH THAT AT THE
RIGHT TIME, RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
BEING HERE AND FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ASSEMBLY
MEMBER LOWENTHAL. YOU ARE UP.
OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM
CHAIR. SENATORS. EXCUSE ME. IT
IS MY PLEASURE TO PRESENT AB
2384. THIS BILL PROVIDES A
PATHWAY FOR INDIVIDUALS TO SEEK
A COURT ORDER SEALING OF THEIR
CRIMINAL RECORD, PROVIDED THAT
THEY SATISFY CLEARLY DEFINED
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. UNDER
CURRENT LAW, CONVICTIONS OTHER
THAN THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN
VACATED ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
SEALING ONLY EXPUNGEMENT. WHEN
EXPUNGEMENT IS GRANTED, THE
GUILTY PLEA IS WITHDRAWN, THE
CASE IS DISMISSED AND THE
INDIVIDUAL MOVES FORWARD
WITHOUT A CONVICTION.
CONVICTION ON RECORD IN
CALIFORNIA BEFORE THE RISE OF
THE DIGITAL ERA, AN EXPUNGEMENT
CARRIED NEARLY THE SAME
PRACTICAL WEIGHT AS SEALING A
RECORD, BUT THAT IS NO LONGER
THE CASE. EXPUNGEMENT ALONE IS
NO LONGER ENOUGH. THIRD PARTY
DATA BROKERS, COMMERCIAL
BACKGROUND SCREENING SERVICES
AND ONLINE ARCHIVES CONTINUE TO
SPREAD CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORDS
WITHOUT LIMIT OR END WITH A
BASIC ONLINE SEARCH. CHARGES
FROM DECADES AGO CAN APPEAR IN
MOMENTS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER
A RECORD HAS BEEN EXPUNGED.
SEALING FILLS THIS VOID THAT
EXPUNGEMENT LEAVES BEHIND,
BRIDGING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN
WHAT THE LAW OFFERS AND WHAT
PEOPLE EXPERIENCE, GIVING
INDIVIDUALS THE OPPORTUNITY TO
SEAL THEIR RECORDS ALLOWS THEM
TO REENTER SOCIETY WITH THEIR
CIVIL RIGHTS, PUBLIC BENEFITS,
AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
RESTORED. WITHOUT IT, THEY
REMAIN LOCKED OUT OF STABLE
HOUSING, CONSTRAINED IN WHERE
THEY CAN GO AND WHAT THEY CAN
DO. CUT OFF FROM THE CIVIC AND
ECONOMIC LIFE THAT OTHERS MOVE
THROUGH FREELY. SPECIFICALLY,
THIS BILL OPENS THE DOOR FOR
INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF
ELIGIBLE OFFENSES TO BRING A
PETITION BEFORE THE COURTS
SEEKING SEALING AND DESTRUCTION
OF THE RECORD, SO LONG AS AT
LEAST FOUR YEARS HAVE ELAPSED
SINCE THE DATE OF THEIR ARREST,
OR SINCE THE COMPLETION OF ANY
SENTENCE. PROBATION, MANDATORY
SUPERVISION, POST-RELEASE
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION OR PAROLE
TIED TO THAT RECORD, WHICHEVER
IS LATER, AND THE PERSON HAS
REMAINED FREE OF NEW
CONVICTIONS THROUGHOUT THIS
PERIOD. NO PERSON SHOULD CARRY
A LIFETIME OF OBSTACLES TO JOBS,
TO HOUSING AND FULL
PARTICIPATION IN THEIR
COMMUNITY SIMPLY BECAUSE OF
PAST CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS
ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THIS BILL DOES NOT CREATE ANY
AUTOMATIC PROCESS. NO PETITION
IS TRIGGERED AND NO RECORD IS
SEALED WITHOUT ACTION. WHAT IT
DOES IS EXTEND TO THE
INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO BRING
THEIR CASE TO A COURT. FROM
THERE, THE COURT RETAINS FULL
AUTHORITY TO GRANT RELIEF ONLY
WHERE IT DETERMINES THAT DOING
SO SERVES THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE. THE BURDEN OF PROOF
RESTS ENTIRELY WITH THE
PETITIONER TO DEMONSTRATE WHY
THAT RELIEF IS WARRANTED, A
CRIMINAL CONVICTION STRIPS AWAY
CIVIL RIGHTS, CUTS OFF ACCESS
TO PUBLIC BENEFITS, FORECLOSES
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES,
LIMITS HOUSING OPTIONS AND
REMOVES THE ABILITY TO LIVE AND
WORK WITHOUT CONSTANT
RESTRICTION. THESE ONGOING
PENALTIES AND RESTRICTIONS DO
NOT STOP AT THE INDIVIDUAL.
THEIR EFFECTS RIPPLE OUTWARD TO
THE BROADER COMMUNITY WHEN
PEOPLE ARE CUT OFF FROM
EMPLOYMENT, FROM EDUCATION,
FROM FAMILY STABILITY AND CIVIC
LIFE, THE WELL-BEING OF THE
ENTIRE COMMUNITY SUFFERS. THE
MOST EFFECTIVE TOOL WE HAVE TO
COMBAT THAT CYCLE OF EXCLUSION
IS TO SEAL THOSE RECORDS. I'M
VERY GRATEFUL TO BE JOINED
TODAY BY ED LITTLE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE, WHO WILL TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. I SHOULD
ALSO NOTE MY BROTHER, JUDGE DAN
LOWENTHAL, WAS HERE TO TESTIFY
AS WELL. BUT HE'S IN THE MIDDLE
OF A MURDER TRIAL AND
UNFORTUNATELY COULDN'T MAKE IT.
MR. LITTLE, WELCOME. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR. MY NAME
IS ED LITTLE AND I'M A
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER WITH
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND PROUD CO-SPONSOR OF
2384, A RECORD, NO MATTER HOW
MINOR OR HOW MUCH TIME HAS
PASSED, CAN TRIGGER A WEB OF
LEGAL RESTRICTIONS, REDUCE
PROSPECTS AND ECONOMIC
INSTABILITY. WHILE CALIFORNIA'S
EXPUNGEMENT LAWS CRITICALLY
REMOVE RECORDS FROM PUBLIC
ACCESS THAT CAN STILL BE VIEWED
AND ACT AS BARRIERS TO CERTAIN
LICENSING AND CAREER
OPPORTUNITIES, THIS BILL
CREATES A NEW PATHWAY FOR
PEOPLE WITH ELIGIBLE PAST
ARRESTS AND LOW LEVEL
CONVICTIONS TO PETITION THE
COURT TO SEAL THEIR RECORDS,
OFFERING A TRUE AND COMPLETE
CLEAN SLATE. THIS STRONGER,
MORE COMPREHENSIVE SEALING
REMEDY WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE
FOR NON-CONVICTION ARRESTS AND
LOW LEVEL CONVICTIONS AFTER A
FOUR YEAR CRIME FREE WAITING
PERIOD. RELIEF WILL ALSO NOT BE
GRANTED IN. EACH PETITION WILL
BE JUDGED ON A CASE BY CASE
BASIS. STATES AROUND THE
COUNTRY LIKE VERMONT,
CONNECTICUT AND NEW YORK, HAVE
TAKEN A SIMILAR APPROACH TO
RECORD RELIEF, A CHANCE AT TRUE
CLEAN SLATE FOR A LIMITED
CATEGORY OF RECORDS AT THE
DISCRETION OF A JUDGE, WE
BELIEVE STRIKES THE APPROPRIATE
BALANCE BY CREATING A PATHWAY
FOR RECORD SEALING. THIS BILL
PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
PEOPLE WITH PAST LOW LEVEL
RECORDS TO TRULY AND FULLY MOVE
BEYOND THE LIFELONG
DISENFRANCHISEMENT THAT COMES
WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD. FOR
THESE REASONS, WE ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE ON AB 2384. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW IS THE
TIME FOR ANYBODY THAT WOULD
LIKE TO SUPPORT THE BILL TO
PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR
NAME FOR THE RECORD. MALCOLM
ROOKS, ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
LIZ GUTIERREZ, SMART JUSTICE
CALIFORNIA AND PROUD SUPPORT.
MARCO GEORGE ON BEHALF OF
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, ERIC HENDERSON,
ON BEHALF OF THE ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AUDREY
RODRIGUEZ REGISTERING PROUD
SUPPORT FOR ACLU, CAL ACTION
AND SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
DEFENDER'S OFFICE. THANK YOU,
SUE KIM, WITH UNCOMMON LAW AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. HOW ABOUT TESTIMONY
IN OPPOSITION? ANYBODY WANT TO
TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION? SEEING
NO ONE MOVING, HOW ABOUT JUST A
ME TOO IN OPPOSITION? I DIDN'T
SEE ANY REGISTERED. JUST WANT
TO CHECK. WELL, CONGRATULATIONS.
THERE'S NO OPPOSITION. THE NEXT
STEP IS TO BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE. AND IT'S ME RIGHT
NOW. SO LET ME JUST SAY THAT I
REALLY LIKE THIS BILL. AND THE
EASIER WE CAN MAKE THE PROCESS,
THE BETTER IT'S GOING TO BE.
IT'S REALLY DIFFERENT.
DIFFICULT TO GET AN EXPUNGEMENT
RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, YOU ALMOST
HAVE TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY
BECAUSE THE PROCESS IS NOT EASY.
SO THE MORE THAT WE CAN
STREAMLINE THAT, THE BETTER,
BETTER WILL BE. SO WITH THAT,
I'LL LET YOU CONCLUDE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE,
SENATOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
SO MUCH. THE CHAIR HAS A
RECOMMENDATION. SO WHEN WE GET
A QUORUM, WE'LL WE'LL TAKE UP A
VOTE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU FOR BEING HERE. OKAY. WE'RE
GOING TO MOVE ON TO ASSEMBLY
MEMBER NGUYEN. WELCOME. YOU
HAVE ONE BILL THAT IS ON
CONSENT. WE HAVE PASSED CONSENT
SO THAT ONE IS OUT. AND
CONGRESSMAN, BEFORE I FORGET, I
WANTED TO SAY WELCOME TO THE
CALIFORNIA SENATE AND IT'S GOOD
TO SEE YOU. IT'S GOOD TO SEE.
YEAH, YEAH. WELCOME. ANYTIME.
THANK YOU. SO WE'RE WE'RE ON A
B 2727. YES. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. I'M HERE TO PRESENT AB
2727, A BILL THAT HELPS
PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF
CALIFORNIA'S ELDERLY PAROLE
PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM SERVES AS
AN IMPORTANT PURPOSE, BUT WHEN
IT COMES TO THE MOST SERIOUS
VIOLENT SEXUAL OFFENSES, WE
HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE
SURE THE LAW REFLECTS THE
SEVERITY OF THOSE CRIMES. CASES
LIKE DAVID FUNSTEN RAISE
SERIOUS QUESTIONS FROM WHETHER
THE CURRENT LAW STRIKES THE
RIGHT BALANCE FOR VICTIMS WITH
THEIR FAMILIES. THE IMPACT OF
THESE CRIMES DOESN'T END WITH
THE CONVICTION IT LASTS A
LIFETIME. THIS BILL FOCUSES ON
INDIVIDUALS SERVING LIFE
SENTENCES FOR SOME OF THE MOST
SERIOUS VIOLENT SEXUAL OFFENSES,
INCLUDING AGGRAVATED SEXUAL
ASSAULT OF A CHILD AND SPECIFIC
SEXUAL OFFENSES AGAINST
CHILDREN AGES TEN AND YOUNGER.
CURRENT LAW ALLOWS CERTAIN
OFFENDERS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR
PAROLE AT AGE 50 AFTER SERVING
20 YEARS. AB 2727 RAISES THE
THRESHOLD TO AGE 65 AND AT
LEAST 25 YEARS SERVE. THIS BILL
ALSO STRENGTHENS THE REVIEW
PROCESS BY ENSURING INDIVIDUALS
SERVING LIFE SENTENCES FOR
SEXUAL VIOLENCE. SEXUAL
OFFENSES ARE INCLUDED IN THE
SCREENING PROCESS BEFORE
RELEASE AND CAN BE REFERRED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HOSPITALS FOR EVALUATION AS
SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS WHEN
APPROPRIATE. PRESERVING THE
INTEGRITY OF THE ELDERLY PAROLE
PROGRAM MEANS RECOGNIZING THAT
THE MOST SERIOUS CRIMES DESERVE
A GREATER SCRUTINY BEFORE
SOMEONE IS CONSIDERED FOR
RELEASE. I BELIEVE THIS BILL
STRIKES A BALANCE WHILE KEEPING
PUBLIC SAFETY AND VICTIMS AT
THE FOREFRONT. MADAM CHAIR, I
WANT TO ALSO SAY THAT I HAD A
VICTIM THAT WAS GOING TO
TESTIFY, A WITNESS THAT WAS
GOING TO TESTIFY, BUT HAD A
FAMILY EMERGENCY. AND SO SHE
SHE COULDN'T BE HERE. AND I
WISH THAT SHE WAS HERE SO THAT
SHE CAN SHARE HER STORY AND
THAT I THINK IT'S REALLY
IMPORTANT THAT INDIVIDUALS LIKE
THAT GET TO SHARE SUCH STORIES
SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT
THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH. AND SO
OUR THOUGHTS ARE WITH HER AND
HER FAMILY, AND WE HOPE THAT
EVERYTHING IS OKAY. BUT WITH ME
TODAY TO TESTIFY IS SACRAMENTO
DISTRICT ATTORNEY TIM HÌ. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
MAKE SURE THE MIC IS ON. YES,
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I ALSO
WANT TO THANK ASSEMBLY MEMBER
STEPHANIE NGUYEN FOR BRINGING
FORWARD THIS MEASURE BALANCED
AND NECESSARY BILL. AT ITS CORE,
AB 2727 IS ABOUT KEEPING OUR
COMMUNITY SAFE AND HONORING THE
PROMISE WE MAKE TO VICTIMS AND
SURVIVORS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW,
THOSE PROMISES ARE BEING BROKEN
WHEN WE PROSECUTE VIOLENT SEX
SEXUAL OFFENDERS, VICTIMS, THEY
STEP FORWARD, THEY TESTIFY,
THEY RELIVE THEIR TRAUMA. THEY
ENDURE HOURS OF
CROSS-EXAMINATION DURING THE
TRIAL. AND WHEN THE SENTENCE IS
FINALLY HANDED DOWN, THEY TRUST
THAT THAT SENTENCE MEANS
SOMETHING. THEY BELIEVE THAT
THE PERSON WHO HARMED THEM WILL
REMAIN BEHIND BARS FOR DECADES.
BUT WHEN THE SENTENCE IS
PREMATURELY SHORTENED THROUGH
ELDERLY PAROLE, THAT TRUST IS
SHATTERED. AND THE DAMAGE IS
NOT ABSTRACT. IT IS REAL, IT IS
PERSONAL, IT IS LASTING, AND IT
UNDERMINES THE CONFIDENCE IN
THE VERY SYSTEM OF JUSTICE THAT
WE WORK IN AND THAT WE UPHOLD.
AND I'VE HEARD DIRECTLY FROM
VICTIMS WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY
WERE FINALLY SAFE, ONLY TO
LEARN THAT THE PERSON WHO HAD
HARMED THEM AND ASSAULTED THEM
IS NOW BEING RELEASED YEARS, IF
NOT DECADES, EARLY. AND THAT IS
NOT JUSTICE. THERE'S ALSO A
PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE HERE. MANY
OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE
BEING RELEASED HAVE NOT
COMPLETED PROGRAMS THAT
MEANINGFULLY REDUCE THE RISK OF
HARM AND RECIDIVISM. AND IN
MANY CASES, THOSE PROGRAMS
SIMPLY DON'T EXIST AT THIS TIME.
AB 2727 ADDRESSES THAT BY
RAISING THE ELDERLY PAROLE AGE,
THE AGE OF 65 AND REQUIRING 25
YEARS SERVE, IT EXPANDS ALSO,
THE ELIGIBILITY OF SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATOR DESIGNATION.
THE BILL ENSURES THAT THE MOST
DANGEROUS INDIVIDUALS REMAIN IN
CUSTODY, AND IT CLOSES THOSE
GAPS. AND LET ME PROVIDE A VERY
REAL EXAMPLE. DAVID FUNSTON AND
GREGORY VOGELSANG. GREGORY
VOGELSANG IS AN INMATE WHO WAS
SENTENCED TO 355 YEARS FROM A
CASE THAT MY OFFICE PROSECUTED.
HE MOLESTED FIVE LITTLE BOYS
BETWEEN THE AGES OF FIVE AND
NINE. HE WAS SENTENCED TO 355
YEARS AND GOT OUT ESSENTIALLY
OVER 300 YEARS EARLY. WE WERE
ABLE TO STOP THAT PAROLE FROM
HAPPENING. BUT WE NEED A BILL
LIKE THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT HE
IS DESIGNATED AS A SEXUALLY
VIOLENT PREDATOR. THIS BILL IS
ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY. IT'S
ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. IT'S ABOUT
KEEPING OUR WORDS TO VICTIMS.
AND WITH THAT, I WOULD
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO ADD ON. MADAM CHAIR, ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE AND THE CRIME VICTIMS
ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
MADAM CHAIR. I. VÆ FITZPATRICK,
ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION
AND THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH, AUDREY. ON
BEHALF OF THE ORANGE COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND
SUPPORT. ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE SHERIFFS
ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS THE
CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS OF
CALIFORNIA AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT?
NOW WE'RE GOING TO TURN TO THE
OPPOSITION. IF YOU COULD PLEASE
COME FORWARD. PARDON ME. YES.
THE FLOOR IS YOURS. GLEN
BACCHUS ON. GOOD AFTERNOON.
GLEN BACCHUS, ON BEHALF OF THE
ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS, FOR MYSELF AND THE ELLA
BAKER CENTER, WE HAVE
TREMENDOUS EMPATHY FOR
SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE, AND WE'D
LIKE TO INVEST IN VICTIM
SERVICES AND CRIME PREVENTION
STRATEGIES THAT PREVENT THAT
VIOLENCE. WE WOULD LIKE TO
REMIND THE COMMITTEE OF THE
LARGER CONTEXT THAT WE HAVE AN
ELDER PAROLE PROCESS IN
CALIFORNIA AS A RESPONSE TO A
HUMANITARIAN CRISIS. PEOPLE
WERE DYING IN OUR PRISONS. THEY
WERE DYING BECAUSE OUR PRISONS
WERE GROTESQUELY OVERCROWDED
DUE TO RUNAWAY SENTENCING,
INFLATION BY THE LEGISLATURE
AND GOVERNORS IN THE 80S AND
90S, THEY DIED EVEN THOUGH THEY
ENJOYED PROTECTIONS UNDER THE
US CONSTITUTION, WHICH
GUARANTEES THAT WHEN THE STATE
DEPRIVES A PERSON OF THEIR
LIBERTY, THE STATE ASSUMES THE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR
MEDICAL CARE. CALIFORNIA STATE
GOVERNMENT FAILED TO MEET THE
HUMANITARIAN AND CONSTITUTIONAL
STANDARD, AND WAS FOUND BY THE
U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HAVE
VIOLATED PROTECTIONS AGAINST
CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT.
IN 2014, A THREE JUDGE PANEL
EMPOWERED BY THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT ORDERED THE STATE TO
IMPLEMENT AN ELDER PAROLE
PROCESS FOR PEOPLE 60 YEARS OF
AGE WHO HAD SERVED A MINIMUM OF
25 YEARS. THIS BILL SEEKS TO
VIOLATE THE COURT ORDERED
REQUIREMENT, SETTING THE
MINIMUM AGE AT 65 FOR CERTAIN
OFFENSES, NOT 60. SO IF THE
BILL IS SIGNED AS DRAFTED, IT
LIKELY CANNOT GO INTO EFFECT.
THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS
INCREDIBLY CONSERVATIVE AND
SAFE. IT'S VERY HARD TO EARN
RELEASE UNDER CALIFORNIA'S
ELDER PAROLE. FOR THOSE WHO ARE
GRANTED PAROLE AND SUBJECT TO
CONDITIONS, THEY ARE SUBJECT TO
CURFEWS, TIME AND PLACE
RESTRICTIONS, POLYGRAPH TESTS
AND MORE. THIS VERY TIGHT
PROCESS OF REVIEW OF
SUPERVISION, AND THE FACT THAT
OLD PEOPLE DON'T COMMIT CRIMES
VERY MUCH, MAY EXPLAIN WHY THE
OFFENSE RATE AGAINST ANOTHER
PERSON IS LESS THAN 1%, LESS
THAN 1%, APPROXIMATELY 0.6%
COMPARABLE TO THE GENERAL
PUBLIC. THE BOARD IS DOING A
GOOD JOB OF PROTECTING PUBLIC
SAFETY. THE LEGISLATURE IS WELL
ADVISED TO LET THEM DO THEIR
JOB. ELDER PAROLE IS A SAFETY
VALVE TO ADDRESS HUMANITARIAN
AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS SUE KIM,
AND I'M A POLICY DIRECTOR AT
UNCOMMON LAW, WHERE FOR OVER 20
YEARS WE HAVE REPRESENTED
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE IN
CALIFORNIA PAROLE HEARINGS.
THIS BILL IS BASED ON THE FALSE
NOTION THAT ELDERLY PAROLE IS
TOO PERMISSIVE OR RISKY. BUT IN
REALITY, OUR ELDERLY PAROLE
PROGRAM IS ONE OF THE SAFEST
RELEASE PROGRAMS IN THE WHOLE
COUNTRY, WITH A RECIDIVISM RATE
OF UNDER 2% AND JUST 0.6% FOR
FELONIES AGAINST A PERSON.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A
DOCUMENTED SEXUAL RE-OFFENSE
AMONG PEOPLE RELEASED FROM THIS
PROGRAM. THE PUBLIC SAFETY
OUTCOMES ARE EXCEPTIONAL BY ALL
MEASURES, AND THIS IS BY DESIGN.
THOSE ELIGIBLE ARE THOSE LEAST
LIKELY TO REOFFEND, ELDERS WHO
HAVE SERVED DECADES, AND THEY
MUST STILL GO THROUGH ONE OF
THE TOUGHEST PAROLE EVALUATIONS
IN THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING
FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL
EVALUATIONS, SPECIALIZED SEX
OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS WHEN
APPLICABLE. AND IT'S WORTH
NOTING THAT THESE ARE THE EXACT
SAME ASSESSMENTS USED IN THE
SVP EVALUATION AND EXTENSIVE
PAROLE HEARING LEGAL REVIEW
REVIEW BY THE GOVERNOR, A FULL
BOARD REVIEW, AND EVEN A
REHEARING IF NECESSARY, AND
INTENSIVE SUPERVISION IF
RELEASED. FOR PEOPLE WITH SEX
OFFENSES. THEY ARE MONITORED ON
THE CONTAINER MODEL. IN THE
CONTAINMENT MODEL MENTIONED BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER PATTERSON AS
VERY EFFECTIVE, A PERSON IS
ONLY RELEASED WHEN IT'S CLEAR
THEY NO LONGER POSE A RISK, AND
ONLY ABOUT 1 IN 10 IN THIS
PROCESS IS ACTUALLY GRANTED
PAROLE. ON AVERAGE, IT WOULD
TAKE THEM SIX HEARINGS OVER 10
TO 20 YEARS TO BE GRANTED.
PAROLE IS NOT RELEASED. JUST
GIVE SOMEONE A CHANCE TO START
ON THAT LONG JOURNEY. THE
AVERAGE AGE OF DEATH IN OUR
PRISONS IS 64. SO WHEN WE
PAROLE ELIGIBILITY TO 65, WE
ASK MORE PEOPLE TO DIE IN
PRISONS. WHEN OUR PRISONS
ALREADY FUNCTION AS THE STATE'S
MOST EXPENSIVE NURSING HOMES,
WE SHOULD NOT BE USING PRISONS
AS AN END OF LIFE FACILITY,
ESPECIALLY FOR THE PEOPLE LEAST
LIKELY TO REOFFEND IN
CALIFORNIA SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD
IT. THE LEGISLATURE HAS
ESTIMATED THAT DELAYING PAROLE
FOR 100 PEOPLE FOR A YEAR COSTS
$30 MILLION. CDC REPORTS THAT
HEALTH CARE COSTS APPROACH HALF
$1 MILLION PER PERSON, PER YEAR.
FOR SOME OF THE OLDEST AND
SICKEST IN PRISON, THESE ARE
TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT COULD
SUPPORT UNDERFUNDED SURVIVOR
AND VICTIM SERVICES AND MUCH
NEEDED SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT
PROGRAMS IN PRISON AND IN OUR
COMMUNITIES. IF WE'RE SERIOUS
ABOUT SAFETY, LET'S FUND THE
PROGRAMS THAT ACTUALLY MAKE A
DIFFERENCE. THIS LEGISLATURE
MUST BE GUIDED BY FACTS, AND WE
SHOULD NOT BE WASTING HUNDREDS
OF MILLIONS TO SOLVE A PUBLIC
SAFETY PROBLEM. THE EVIDENCE
SHOWS, SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST.
WE RESPECTFULLY URGE A NO VOTE,
AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PAROLE
HEARING PROCESS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW IS THE
OPPORTUNITY TO ADD ON IN
OPPOSITION. AUBRY RODRIGUEZ
REGISTERING OPPOSITION FOR ACLU
CAL ACTION IN SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. THANK
YOU. REVEREND MCCULLOUGH, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR WOMEN, PRISONERS
AND STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. MARCO GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. LUIS GUTIERREZ,
SMART JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN
OPPOSITION SEEING NO FURTHER?
BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS. COMMENTS.
CONCERNS. SENATOR CIERTO. THANK
YOU. I'LL BE SUPPORTING YOUR
BILL TODAY, WHICH IS CONSISTENT
HOW I VOTED ON THIS AND OTHER
BILLS THAT ARE SIMILAR, PUSHING
THE AGE FROM 50, WHICH IS
ABSURDLY NOT ELDERLY TO AT
LEAST 60, WHICH IS STILL NOT
ELDERLY ANYMORE. YOU KNOW, SOME
THE OFFENSES THAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT ARE PRETTY NARROW.
AND WHEN WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY
THAT COMMITS A CRIME AGAINST A
CHILD, LIKE MAYBE STRANGLING
AND RAPING THEM OR TRYING TO
RAPE THEM FIRST AND THEN
STRANGLING THEM AND, AND THEN
YOU GET YOUR 25 YEARS TO LIFE.
BUT IN 25 YEARS, YOU'RE A
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER BECAUSE
YOU'RE 26 AND APPARENTLY YOUR
BRAIN HASN'T DEVELOPED. YOU CAN
PLAY FOOTBALL AND DO ALL THOSE
THINGS, BUT YOU CAN'T, YOU
CAN'T. YOU CAN'T BE HELD
RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR DOING A
HEINOUS CRIME LIKE THIS. YOU
KNOW WHAT, SOMEWHERE IN THIS
WORLD, WE NEED TO START
THINKING ABOUT THE FAMILIES. I
AM SORRY THAT SOMEBODY DID THIS
TO THIS POOR CHILD, BECAUSE I
FEEL BAD FOR THE CHILD. I FEEL
BAD FOR THE PARENTS. THE THE
THE GUY WHO PERPETRATED THIS ON
THEM. I DON'T FEEL BAD FOR HIM.
I REALLY DON'T YOU KNOW, HE'S
53. HE'S GOTTEN THREE PAROLE
HEARINGS, ONE FOR BEING YOUTH
AND ONE FOR BEING OR TWO FOR
BEING OLD. AND IT'S ABSURD THAT
WE THINK THAT THAT'S OLD. THEY
ARE STILL A PUBLIC SAFETY
HAZARD. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? THEY
JUST HAVEN'T PAID FOR? THEY'RE
THEY'RE THE PRICE. THERE IS NO
PRICE. WHEN YOU TELL A PARENT
THAT THEIR THEY HAVE LOST THEIR
CHILD FOREVER, THERE IS NO
PRICE THAT SOMEBODY CAN GO AND
PAY AND WE'LL CALL IT GOOD. SO,
YOU KNOW, I'M JUST ONE OF THOSE
PEOPLE THAT BELIEVE THAT WHEN
SOME THERE ARE SOME LIFE
CHOICES YOU MAKE THAT WILL
FOLLOW YOU THE REST OF YOUR
LIFE. AND IF YOU DIE IN PRISON,
YOU DIE IN PRISON. SO ANYWAY,
WITH THAT, I'LL BE SUPPORTING
YOUR BILL BECAUSE I THINK IT
MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU. ANY
FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
SEEING NONE WILL ALLOW YOU TO
TO CONCLUDE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU,
SENATOR, FOR YOUR WORDS. I
STOLE THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH.
AS LEGISLATORS, WE DO WHAT WE
CAN TO COME UP WITH GOOD POLICY.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE A PARENT AND
YOU HAVE KIDS, YOU ALWAYS THINK
ABOUT THE CHILDREN. WHEN A
GROWN MAN TAKES HIS PENIS AND
SHOVES IT UP A LITTLE BOY, NOT
JUST ONE LITTLE BOY, BUT
MULTIPLE LITTLE BOYS OVER AND
OVER AGAIN. THAT LITTLE BOY IS
GOING TO LIVE WITH THAT TRAUMA
FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. AND
WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS TRYING
TO PROTECT LITTLE KIDS FROM
EVER HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT
AGAIN, EVER. AND WE DO THE BEST
THAT WE CAN IN OUR ROLES, AND
EVEN 1% IS TOO MUCH. WHEN YOU
HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE
LURING LITTLE GIRLS, AGES SEVEN
INTO THEIR CARS WITH CANDY AND
TOYS ONLY SO THEY CAN RAPE THE
OUT OF THEM, THAT SHOULDN'T SIT
WELL WITH YOU OR ANYBODY. IT IS
OUR JOB TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO
PROTECT THESE LITTLE KIDS. AND
THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL IS GOING
TO DO. IF YOU READ IT, YOU'LL
SEE THAT I'M GOING AFTER
INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE SEXUALLY
VIOLENT TO TEN YEARS OLD AND
UNDER TEN YEARS OLD. TEN YEARS
OLD. I REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED
TO ME AT TEN YEARS OLD, AND I
WOULD LIVE WITH SOMETHING LIKE
THAT FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE,
EVEN WHEN I'M IN MY 50S OR 60S,
I'M THINKING ABOUT THE VICTIMS
THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED TO. THEY
WOULD BE LIVING WITH THEIR SLY,
KNOWING THAT AN INDIVIDUAL THAT
WAS SENTENCED TO 300 YEARS OR
MORE THINKING THEY WOULD NEVER
BE RELEASED, BUT HAVING TO COME
BACK AND RELIVE THAT TRAUMA
AGAIN AND AGAIN. WE HAVE TO DO
BETTER WITH THAT. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
WHEN THE TIME IS APPROPRIATE,
AND I APOLOGIZE. AS A MOM, I
CAN ONLY THINK OF. I CAN ONLY
THINK OF WHAT'S HAPPENING TO
THE LITTLE KIDS OUT THERE. AND
I WOULD NEVER WANT SOMETHING
LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN TO MY GIRLS,
OR ANY OF YOUR CHILDREN OR YOUR
GRANDCHILDREN, AND YOU SHOULD
NOT WANT ANY OF THAT TO HAPPEN
AS WELL EITHER. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE
YOUR PASSION AND THE PAIN
THAT'S INVOLVED IN IN CHILD
SEXUAL ABUSE. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR BEING HERE, AND THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY,
EVERYBODY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY. NOT AN EASY SUBJECT.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. SO
MOVED. THERE'S A MOTION. PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. ÁP 2727 NGUYEN
MOTION IS DUE. PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. AGAIN. THEY ARE,
I SATO A CABALLERO, A CABALLERO,
A CORTEZ. PEREZ. WIENER WIENER
A. OKAY, WELL, WE'RE. NEXT UP
IS ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER-KAHAN.
I DO APOLOGIZE TO THE OTHER
ASSEMBLY MEMBERS THAT THAT WERE
HERE BEFORE HER, BUT, YOU KNOW,
SHE KIND OF SNUCK IN, I THINK
MY THIRD VISIT TO THE ROOM
TRYING TO GET IN. SO I
UNDERSTAND, I KNOW. SO YOU ARE
HERE ON A B 2047. THAT IS RIGHT.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR IS YOURS.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS, I WANT TO START BY
THANKING COMMITTEE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK ON THE BILL AND
CONFIRMING THAT I'LL BE
ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENTS FROM
THE COMMITTEE TO REMOVE THE
CRIMINAL PENALTIES FROM THE
BILL. I'M PROUD TO PRESENT AB
2047, ALONG WITH MY SPONSORS,
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY. OVER
MANY YEARS, CALIFORNIA HAS SET
THE STANDARD AND TAKING AN
ACTIVE ROLE TO PROTECT OUR
COMMUNITIES AGAINST GUN
VIOLENCE. AND THE CHAIR OF THIS
COMMITTEE, SENATOR ARAGON, HAS
LED THE WAY ON THIS, AND I WANT
TO THANK HIM FOR HIS INCREDIBLE
WORK. AB 2047 BUILDS ON PRIOR
LEGISLATION TO ADDRESS THE
NEWEST FIREARM THREAT, WHICH IS
3D PRINTED WEAPONS. NUMEROUS
REPORTS FROM THE DOJ AND
NONPROFITS HAVE EMERGED
DEMONSTRATING THE PROLIFERATION
OF THESE 3D PRINTED FIREARMS.
JUST SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR,
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL 3D
PRINTED GUN BUSTS AND
RECOVERIES IN CALIFORNIA,
INCLUDING IN SAN JOSE, SAN
BERNARDINO AND SANTA ROSA. WE
CANNOT STAND BY WHILE THESE
FIREARMS CONTINUE TO FLOW INTO
OUR COMMUNITIES. AB 2047
CREATES AN UPSTREAM SOLUTION BY
REQUIRING THAT ALL THREE
DIMENSIONAL PRINTERS SOLD IN
CALIFORNIA ARE EQUIPPED WITH
FIREARM BLOCKING FEATURES. TO
PROHIBIT THE PRINTING OF
DANGEROUS GUN PARTS. WE WILL
NOT BE THE FIRST IN THE NATION
TO DO THIS. NEW YORK HAS
ALREADY PASSED THIS POLICY
EARLIER THIS YEAR, AND IT WAS
SIGNED INTO LAW. AT ITS CORE,
THIS IS ABOUT ENDING GUN
VIOLENCE. IT'S ABOUT KEEPING
OUR CHILDREN SAFE IN THEIR
SCHOOLS, OUR FAMILIES SAFE WHEN
THEY ATTEND WORSHIP SERVICE AT
THE MALL OR A CONCERT. AB 2047
IS SUPPORTED BY A UNIQUE
COALITION OF DOCTORS, PARENTS,
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND STUDENTS.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY WITNESS,
CRYSTAL CRYSTAL POLITO,
DIRECTOR OF POLICY ADVOCACY FOR
EVERYTOWN, AND CHRISTINA
CUNDARI, VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION. WELCOME. GOOD
AFTERNOON CHAIR. THERE YOU GO.
AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE,
OUR ACTING CHAIR. MY NAME IS
CRYSTAL, AND I SERVE AS POLICY
ADVOCACY DIRECTOR AT EVERYTOWN
FOR GUN SAFETY. TOGETHER WITH
MOMS DEMAND ACTION AND STUDENTS
DEMAND ACTION, WE ARE THE
LARGEST GUN VIOLENCE PREVENTION
ORGANIZATION IN THE NATION.
WE'RE PROUD SPONSORS OF AB 2047
AND GRATEFUL TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BAUER-KAHAN FOR BRINGING THIS
BILL FORWARD. AB 2047 IS THE
COMMON SENSE NEXT STEP IN
CALIFORNIA'S FIGHT AGAINST
GHOST GUNS. THIS COMMITTEE HAS
BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF
RECOGNIZING THE EXISTENTIAL
THREAT THAT 3D PRINTED FIREARMS
POSE TO CALIFORNIA'S GUN LAWS,
AND ADVANCING STRONG POLICIES
TO ADDRESS THIS NEXT WAVE OF
THE GHOST GUNS CRISIS. LAST
YEAR'S SB 704 CREATED ONE NEW
STEP TO BEGIN THWARTING DIY GUN
MAKERS WHO CAN'T PASS A
BACKGROUND CHECK. THIS
COMMITTEE WAS ALSO A KEY STOP
FOR 2022 AB 2156 AND 2023 AB
1089, WHICH MADE IT A CRIME TO
3D PRINT GUNS WITHOUT A FIREARM
MANUFACTURING LICENSE, AND THIS
COMMITTEE HELPED ADVANCE LAST
YEAR'S AB 1263, WHICH MADE IT
ILLEGAL TO AID, ABET OR
FACILITATE ANOTHER PERSON
MANUFACTURING FIREARMS WITH A
3D PRINTER. WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE
US WITH AB 2047 IS DIFFERENT.
IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD A
NEW, TRULY PREVENTATIVE LAYER
ON TOP OF THOSE EXISTING
PROSECUTION FOCUSED PUBLIC
SAFETY LAWS, WE CAN STOP GUN
PRINTING AT THE SOURCE.
TECHNOLOGY NOW EXISTS TO BLOCK
THE PRINTING OF FILES THAT HAVE
BEEN SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS
FIREARM DESIGN FILES, ENSURING
THAT TECHNOLOGY IS EQUIPPED ON
ALL PRINTERS SOLD TO RETAIL
CONSUMERS IN CALIFORNIA IS A
NEW AND PREVENTATIVE WAY TO
EFFECTUATE OUR EXISTING LAWS.
TO BE CLEAR, THERE IS SO MUCH
POSITIVE CREATIVITY AND
INNOVATION HAPPENING AS 3D
PRINTING BECOMES MORE
ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE. WE
CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT. THIS
BILL WON'T STIFLE OR THREATEN
IT, AND IT INCLUDES A CAREFUL
THREE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS. TO BE SURE, THE
TECHNOLOGY IS MINIMALLY
DISRUPTIVE TO LEGAL PRINT JOBS,
BUT WE NEED TO PASS THIS BILL
AND START THAT IMPLEMENTATION
PROCESS NOW TO STOP THE
FLOODGATES OF 3D PRINTED GUNS
BEFORE IT GETS OUT OF CONTROL.
THANK YOU. WE ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SORRY. MY
NAME IS CHRISTINA CUNDARI AND
I'M A VOLUNTEER AND THE LOCAL
GROUP CO-LEAD FOR THE SAN
FRANCISCO MOMS DEMAND ACTION
GROUP. I TEACH COUTURE
EMBROIDERY AT AN ART SCHOOL,
AND WE HAVE MULTIPLE 3D
PRINTERS ON OUR CAMPUS. WE
ENCOURAGE OUR STUDENTS TO USE
THEM IN THEIR CLASSES AND
ACTIVITIES. IN MY CLASSES,
STUDENTS CAN USE 3D PRINTERS TO
CREATE THEIR OWN SEQUINS, BEADS,
AND OTHER COMPONENTS THAT THEY
USE IN THEIR FASHION DESIGN
PROJECTS. AS AN EDUCATOR, I'M
CONSTANTLY AMAZED AT WHAT MY
STUDENTS CREATE WITH THEIR 3D
PRINTING AND 3D PRINTERS HAVE
BROADENED THEIR HORIZONS AND
CREATED SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THEM. BUT WITH THOSE
OPPORTUNITIES COMES A
TERRIFYING REALITY THAT THEY
CAN USE THOSE TO PRINT A GUN.
THIS IS NOT HYPOTHETICAL. THIS
IS HAPPENING ALL AROUND OUR
STATE. AND IN THE LAST YEAR
ALONE, A TEENAGER IN SAN JOSE
WAS ARRESTED WITH 27 3D PRINTED
GUNS, INCLUDING GUNS MODIFIED
TO FUNCTION LIKE A MACHINE GUN.
SANTA ROSA POLICE ARRESTED AND
CHARGED A TEENAGER FOR USING 3D
PRINTERS IN AN ILLEGAL FIREARM
MAKING OPERATION, AND A
TEENAGER IN SAN DIEGO WAS
ARRESTED FOR BRINGING A LOADED
FIREARM TO SCHOOL. AFTERWARDS,
POLICE DISCOVERED MULTIPLE 3D
PRINTED FIREARM FRAMES AND 3D
PRINTED CONVERSION DEVICES IN
HIS HOME. THERE IS SO MUCH
POTENTIAL AND PROMISE FOR 3D
PRINTING. I SEE IT EVERY DAY
WITH MY OWN STUDENTS. BUT WHEN
A FULLY OPERABLE FIREARM IS
DEADLY AS A STORE BOUGHT WEAPON
CAN BE MANUFACTURED BY A
TEENAGER OR ANYONE ELSE WHO
WANTS TO SKIP A BACKGROUND
CHECK, 3D PRINTERS PRESENT A
DANGEROUS REALITY, WHICH IS
ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE IF WE
DON'T ACT. THE LAW CAN BALANCE
RESPECT FOR INNOVATION
ALONGSIDE THE NEED TO KEEP OUR
COMMUNITY SAFE, AND THIS BILL
DOES. THIS LAW DOESN'T BAN 3D
PRINTERS. IT JUST REQUIRES
PRINTERS TO HAVE A SAFETY
FEATURE THAT STOPS THEM FROM
PRINTING ILLEGAL GUNS. AS AN
EDUCATOR, A PARENT, AND A
VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT
GUARDRAILS IN PLACE TO PROTECT
OUR KIDS. ONE CHILD'S LIFE
RUINED FROM A 3D PRINTED
FIREARM IS ONE TOO MANY. FOR
THIS REASON, I URGE A VOTE YES
ON AB 2047. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR
BEING HERE. ANYONE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN SUPPORT,
PLEASE COME FORWARD. CHLOE KING
WITH POLITICAL SOLUTIONS ON
BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
OF PEDIATRICS AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KATIE
KIRK ON BEHALF OF MOMS DEMAND
ACTION. AND I ADVOCATE FOR. IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
LESLIE RUIZ ON MOMS DEMAND
ACTION IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
BRIDGET JAKOBOVITS, PUBLIC
SCHOOL TEACHER IN PLEASANTON,
CALIFORNIA. AND MOMS DEMAND
ACTION VOLUNTEER IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JANIE
DOBBS, PLEASANTON, VOLUNTEER
WITH MOMS DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN
SENSE IN AMERICA. AND I FULLY
SUPPORT AB 2047. THANK YOU. JA
ET AL. VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION, FORMER NANNY AND
FORMER PRESCHOOL TEACHER IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
CHARLES ALLEN ON BEHALF OF
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY. PROUD
SPONSORS AND STRONG SUPPORT FOR
2047. THANK YOU. LINDA GAYLE,
SAN FRANCISCO RESIDENT AND I AM
A VOLUNTEER WITH MOMS DEMAND
ACTION AND I FULLY SUPPORT AB
2047. THANK YOU. BRENDA NIXON,
RETIRED EDUCATOR AND MOMS
DEMAND ACTION VOLUNTEER IN
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. SARAH
BURGER MOMS DEMAND ACTION
VOLUNTEER AND PUBLIC SCHOOL
PARENT AND SUPPORT. RACHEL.
RACHEL WITH MOMS DEMAND ACTION
IN SUPPORT. MARY Dð, GUN
VIOLENCE SURVIVOR AND VOLUNTEER
FOR NOR-CAL GUN VIOLENCE
PREVENTION. THANK YOU. MAX
PERRY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT. THANK
YOU. JANET SURRATT, MOMS DEMAND
ACTION. VOLUNTEER IN SUPPORT.
MARIAH HODGE, MOMS DEMAND
ACTION VOLUNTEER AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CLAIRE
SANTANA, MOMS DEMAND ACTION
VOLUNTEER IN A GUN VIOLENCE
SURVIVOR. SUPPORT. COOPER
HOWARD. MOMS DEMAND ACTION.
VOLUNTEER IN SUPPORT. ELIZABETH
CARPENTER. MOMS DEMAND ACTION.
VOLUNTEER IN SUPPORT. GOOD
AFTERNOON, DONALD STURKEY MOMS
DEMAND ACTION VOLUNTEER AND I
SUPPORT SHOULD BE MOMS AND DADS.
MITCH STEIGER WITH CFT. A UNION
OF EDUCATORS AND CLASSIFIED
PROFESSIONALS ALSO IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON,
CHAIR MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTORS. ALLIANCE IN
SUPPORT. JAMIE MINER ON BEHALF
OF GIFFORDS. PLEASED TO SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYONE ELSE IN SUPPORT? NOW
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE OVER TO
OPPOSITION. WELCOME. CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS AUBRY
RODRIGUEZ. I'M A JUDGE ADVOCATE
WITH ACLU, CAL ACTION. WHILE WE
ARE APPRECIATIVE OF THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, WE
CONTINUE TO HAVE STRONG
CONCERNS WITH AB 2047. TO START.
THIS BILL POSES GRAVE RISKS TO
MANY USERS OF 3D PRINTERS AND
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. JUST
YESTERDAY, THE SUPREME COURT
REAFFIRMED AN INDIVIDUAL'S
RIGHT TO REASONABLE EXPECTATION
OF PRIVACY IN THE UNITED STATES.
IN A CONCURRING OPINION,
JUSTICE GORSUCH WROTE THAT ONCE
PAPERS OR EFFECTS WAS
UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME OF THE
FOURTH AMENDMENT ADOPTION TO
EMBRACE MOST OF ANY KIND OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY. THIS
UNEQUIVOCALLY INCLUDES ONE 3D
PRINTER, AND EVERY OWNER OF 3D
PRINTER HOLDS THE RIGHT TO
REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY WHEN PRINTING IN THEIR
OWN HOME. AND IF THE GOVERNMENT
SUSPECTS AN INDIVIDUAL
VIOLATING THE LAW BY 3D
PRINTING GHOST GUNS, THEY CAN
OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT. RATHER
THAN MANDATING A DYSTOPIAN
SCANNING TOOL THAT CONSTANTLY
MONITORS WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THE
PRIVACY OF THEIR OWN HOMES,
THIS NEWLY ACQUIRED ALGORITHM
CONTAINS TROUBLING SIMILARITIES
TO EFFORTS BY GOVERNMENTS AND
CORPORATIONS TO EITHER BREAK
END TO END ENCRYPTION, OR
INCLUDE CONTENT SCANNING
TECHNOLOGY ON PEOPLE'S
ELECTRONIC DEVICES. AT THE ACLU,
WE WARNED OF THE DANGERS THAT
THIS TECHNOLOGY BRINGS AND HOW
IT MAY BE EXPLOITED TO CONDUCT
FAR REACHING SURVEILLANCE,
MANDATING AN ALGORITHM THAT
SCANS FOR POSSIBLE PRINTING OF
A GHOST GUN POSES SIMILAR RISK.
AND THE QUESTION IS, WHERE WILL
THIS CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE
MONITORING OUR EVERY MOVE END?
ONCE THIS SCANNING ALGORITHM IS
IN PLACE, IT COULD BE ABUSED BY
GOVERNMENTS OR CORPORATIONS TO
PREVENT SOCIALLY OR POLITICALLY
SENSITIVE 3D PRINTED DESIGNS
INFRINGING ON OUR CIVIL
LIBERTIES. THIS TYPE OF
SOFTWARE CREATES A PERMANENT
BACKDOOR INTO THE PRIVACY OF
OUR OWN HOMES, RIPE FOR
EXPLOITATION. AND ONCE THIS NEW
INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS, IT IS A
SIMPLE SOFTWARE UPDATE AWAY
FROM TRACKING POLITICAL
DISSENTS OR PREVENTING 3D
PRINTED DESIGNS DEEMED
INAPPROPRIATE. WE REMAIN
SKEPTICAL OF ANY SOFTWARE THAT
CONTAINS A CLIENT SIDE SCANNING
SYSTEM THAT IS PURPORTEDLY ONLY
DESIGNED TO CAPTURE SPECIFIC
FILES, AS A SOFTWARE INVADES
THE PRIVACY OF USERS WITH 3D
PRINTERS, WHO WILL BY NECESSITY
HAVE EVERYTHING THEY PRINT
SCANNED AND APPROVED BY AN
OPAQUE ALGORITHM. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE A
STRONG NO VOTE ON THIS BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, I'M
DAVID TOBIN, I AM. OH, THERE WE
GO. GOOD MORNING. I'M DAVID
TOBIN, I'M THE EXECUTIVE
PRODUCER OF THE SHOW 3D
PRINTING NERD. I'M ALSO THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
COMMUNITY MANUFACTURING
INITIATIVE, AND I WANT TO SAY
HELLO TO EVERYONE WATCHING ON
THE LIVE STREAM. AND THANK YOU
FOR COMING. WE BROADCAST THIS
TO ALL THE EDUCATORS THROUGHOUT
THE STATE TO MAKE SURE THEY
WERE ALL AWARE OF WHAT WAS
GOING ON, ALL THE SMALL
BUSINESSES AND ALL THE BIG
BUSINESSES THAT USE THIS. ALL
OUR FRIENDS OVER THERE ARE
WONDERFUL AND, YOU KNOW, JPL
SPACE, EVERYONE DOWN IN
LIVERMORE AND ALL THE OTHER
SMALL BUSINESSES ACROSS TO MAKE
SURE THEY ALL SAW WHAT WAS
GOING ON HERE TODAY. AND
BECAUSE LAST WEEK, EVERYONE HAS
ONE COLLECTIVE QUESTION FOR THE
COMMITTEE IS THE ONLY REASON
THIS BILL IS GOING FORWARD IS
BECAUSE FIREARM IS IN THE TITLE,
BECAUSE THIS IS A TECH BILL.
THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT FIREARM
PROTECTION IN HERE IN ANY
CAPACITY. THERE'S ONE COMPANY
ON THE PLANET THAT SUPPORTS
THIS TECHNOLOGY, AND IT'S
CALLED NHÀ. THEY BROUGHT THEIR
SALESMAN HERE LAST WEEK TO TALK
TO YOU ABOUT IT. WE'VE ALL USED
THEIR TECHNOLOGY. IT DOES NOT
WORK AND DO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
IT DOES. WE'VE WE'VE USED THIS
IN THIS SPACE AND IT COMES DOWN
TO THE CORE THING. THERE'S A
PEN ON YOUR DESKS THAT'S AN
OBJECT THAT DOES NOT HAVE
INTENT. NO OBJECT HAS INTENT.
WE INSTILL INTENT. THAT COULD
BE A PEN. IT COULD BE A
TRACHEOTOMY TOOL. IT'S A TUBE.
AND THE OTHER THING IS, LAST
WEEK, THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL
SAID THAT IF THIS TECHNOLOGY
WAS POSSIBLE, IT WOULD NOT BE
FOOLPROOF. ALSO, SHE SAID THAT
THE GHOST GUN MAKING IS ILLEGAL
ALREADY. IT'S ALREADY A CRIME
TO DO THIS, SO THIS ISN'T
REALLY ADDING ANYTHING NEW TO
IT. AND THEN BRINGING UP NEW
YORK, IT HAS NOT GONE INTO
EFFECT IN NEW YORK. NEW YORK
HAS AN AMENDMENT IN THEIR BILL
THAT SAYS, IF THIS TECHNOLOGY
IS PROVEN NOT TO BE POSSIBLE,
WHICH IT'S NOT, THEY DON'T HAVE
TO GO FURTHER DOWN THE LINE ON
IT. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT
AMENDMENT IN HERE TO GET OUT OF
IT IN ANY CAPACITY. SO THAT'S
WHERE I WANT TO LEAVE IT AT.
AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOUR
TIME, AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY VOTE
NO ON THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO TESTIFY IN OPPOSITION
OR GIVE TESTIMONY? YES. MY NAME
IS STEVE PETERSON. I'M A MEMBER
OF THE DESIGN TEAM REPRESENTING
THE WIDER OPEN SOURCE HOBBYIST
3D PRINTER COMMUNITY. AND I
JUST WANT TO ADD ON RECORD THE
FOLLOWING ADDITIVE
MANUFACTURING PROFESSIONALS,
EDUCATORS AND STAKEHOLDERS.
PRUSA RESEARCH PRINTED SOLID
POLY MAKE MAGAZINE, MAKER FAIRE
WEST 3D, NIKO INDUSTRIES, 3D
PRINTING NERD, COCOA PRESS,
MICRO SWISS GREEN GATE, 3D, LDO
MOTORS. PROTO PLANT MAKERS OF
PROTO PASTA MAKE GOOD 3D FUEL.
PSORIATIC MONSTER CITY STUDIOS
SLICE WORKS THINGS 3D
ZELLERFELD FULLER FOUNDATION
REPAIR, PRESERVATION GROUP,
REPAIR PRESERVATION GROUP
ACTION FUND OCH CREATE OCK
MAKER FOUNDATION, MATTERHACKERS
POLY MAKER, BIG B QUÊ BIG TREE
TECH DOCTOR ADRIAN BREWER,
JOSEPH PRUSA. DALE DOUGHERTY,
MAXIM ZOLAN, JOEL TELLING,
CLAYTON PARKER, BILL DORAN,
GRANT POSNER, THANK YOU. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. AIDEN SANABRIA,
DISABILITY ADVOCATE I THINK
THERE'S A REAL POSSIBILITY FOR
THIS BILL TO HAVE DISASTROUS
CONSEQUENCES FOR DISABLED
PEOPLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO SPARE
PARTS, TO REPAIR THEIR
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. HELLO, EVERYONE.
MY NAME IS CLAIRE ARMOR. I AM
THE LEAD CHASSIS DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEER FOR THE HORNET RACING
TEAM AT SACRAMENTO STATE
UNIVERSITY, WHERE WE DEVELOP A
NEW INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE
OPEN WHEEL RACE CAR EVERY YEAR.
3D PRINTING TECHNOLOGY IS
CRUCIAL TO MY WORK. SORRY, THIS
IS A TIME I APOLOGIZE. I SHOULD
HAVE SAID AT THE BEGINNING, BUT
THIS IS THE TIME ONLY FOR YOUR
NAME AND YOUR AFFILIATION AND
WHETHER YOU'RE IN SUPPORT OR
OPPOSED TO THE BILL. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
MY NAME IS JOE. I'M WITH K¾T
CONSULTING AND GÒM HAM RADIO
CLUB AND PRINCIPAL OF NATIONAL
SECURITY. I OPPOSE. THANK YOU.
HI. MY NAME IS SERGEY SMALL,
BORN AND RAISED SACRAMENTO. I'D
I Y AND I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF
MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO COULD
NOT ATTEND. I AM OPPOSED TO
THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. HELLO,
MY NAME IS DANIEL NASSER. I
RESEARCH THE 3D PRINTING OF
ORGANS FOR MEDICINE AND I
DEEPLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. HI, MY NAME IS ALAN AND
I'VE BEEN WORKING A DECADE IN
RAPID PROTOTYPING AND
COMMERCIAL RESEARCH. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL AS WRITTEN.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HI, MY
NAME IS VICTOR PIEDRA. I'M JUST
A PARENT AND RESIDENT OF DALY
CITY, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL FOR VARIETY OF
REASONS. I'VE ALREADY
EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS
CHRISTOPHER KEATON. I'M A
LENOVO SALES TRAINING AND
RELATIONSHIP SPECIALIST, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME IS SEN
LAURENCE HASTINGS. I'M A FREE
SOFTWARE AND OPEN SOURCE
HARDWARE ADVOCATE AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. JOEL SANCHEZ,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY RESIDENT AND
HOBBYIST, 3D PRINTER. I OPPOSE
THIS BILL. HI, I'M RACHEL
BHARADWAJ. I'M A RESIDENT OF
SAN FRANCISCO, AND I VEHEMENTLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME IS PAUL
ROTHSTEIN. I'M HERE AGAIN AFTER
LAST WEEK, AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL ON FOURTH
AMENDMENT GROUNDS, AT THE VERY
LEAST. HELLO. MY NAME IS TYLER
WOODWARD FROM BENICIA,
CALIFORNIA. AND FOR ALL THE
REASONS ALREADY LAID OUT, I
ALSO VERY STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
RILEY O'CONNOR. I'M AN ENGINEER
AND HOBBYIST. I AM OPPOSED TO
THIS BILL. HI, MY NAME IS IRISH
RANA, AND AS AN ENGINEERING
STUDENT, I DEEPLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. HI. MICHAEL
HEBERT, ENGINEER AND SACRAMENTO
COUNTY RESIDENT. AND I OPPOSE
THIS. MY NAME IS JUSTIN PITA,
SAC COUNTY RESIDENT AND LOCAL
MAKER. AND I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS
AIDAN SIMMONS. AS A HOBBYIST, I
DEEPLY OPPOSE THE BILL ON RIGHT
TO REPAIR AND PRIVACY GROUNDS.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ALEX
ROSELLA. I'M AN OPEN SOURCE
ADVOCATE. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ALEX AND
I'M AN OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPER.
AND I OPPOSE THIS BILL. MY NAME
IS JOSEPH JOEL, SACRAMENTO
RESIDENT. I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. MY NAME IS
CHRISTOPHER HEIZER. I'M AN
ENGINEER, PARENT AND RESIDENT
OF SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
ANTHONY GARCIA I WORK IN
PRODUCTION. I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. SEAN. I
OWN WARBIRD TECHNOLOGIES AND
INDUSTRIAL 3D PRINTER
MANUFACTURING COMPANY. MY
COMPANY IS EXEMPT FROM THIS
BILL GIVEN THE INDUSTRIES WE
SELL TO. WE OPPOSE THIS BILL
REGARDLESS. THANK YOU. HELLO.
AARON TURNER, ENGINEERING
STUDENT AT COLLEGE. AND I
OPPOSE THIS BILL. HI. GABRIEL
CHANG, SACRAMENTO CITIZEN, ON
THE GROUNDS OF THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT. I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. MY NAME IS JOHN
PENNELL. I'M A MEMBER OF THE
DESIGN GROUP AND GENERALLY OPEN
SOURCE COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS AN
ENGINEER AND EDUCATOR. I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
HELLO. MY NAME IS NATHAN GROVES.
I AM AN INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
STUDENT AT SAN FRANCISCO STATE
UNIVERSITY, AND A FORMER AIR
FORCE. STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. FOR THE SAKE OF MY FUTURE.
THANK YOU. HELLO, I'M BENJAMIN
NEVAREZ, PRIVATE CITIZEN, A
SACRAMENTO RESIDENT, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
MANUFACTURING CONTROL BILL ON
FOURTH AMENDMENT GROUNDS. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. HELLO. I'M
DOCTOR NATHANIEL DE LOS SANTOS.
I REPRESENT MYSELF AS A 3D
PRINTING HOBBYIST AND AUTHOR OF
OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE, NOT MY
EMPLOYER. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. HI. MY
NAME IS LOUIS ROSSMANN FROM
ROSSMANN REPAIR GROUP, FULLER
FOUNDATION REPAIR PRESERVATION
GROUP. AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. AND THE BILLIONAIRE
WHO'S BEEN FUNDING IT. HELLO.
MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER KRAMER.
I'M AN INSTRUCTOR. I'M AN
INSTRUCTOR AT MAKERSPACE, AND
I'M A STUDENT AT SACRAMENTO
STATE, PART OF AEROSPACE CLUB,
COMPETITIVE ROBOTICS CLUB AND
BAJA SEA CLUB. I'M A STUDENT
MEMBER OF SOCIETY OF
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS,
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
MANUFACTURING ENGINEERS, AND
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL
ENGINEERS. AND I STRONGLY
SUPPORT YOU SAYING NO TO THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
BLOOMBERG. APPARENTLY, MY NAME
IS BENJAMIN PHILLIPS. I'M A
HOBBYIST. I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. HI, LIZ
GUTIERREZ, REGISTERING
OPPOSITION ON BEHALF OF THE
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
AND OAKLAND PRIVACY. THANK YOU.
GO AHEAD. HI, MY NAME IS JOHN
HANNAH AND I'M A SACRAMENTO
NATIVE, AND FOR 30 YEARS I'VE
WORKED PROFESSIONALLY AS AN
EDITOR. AND SO I CAREFULLY READ
THIS BILL AND I CAREFULLY READ
ALL OF THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS
THAT CAME ALONG WITH THIS BILL.
AND I'M HOPING THAT YOU ALL
ALSO READ IT CAREFULLY. AND
WHAT I FOUND IS THAT THERE ARE
STATEMENTS OF FACT. IF YOU
COULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND
YOUR AFFILIATIONS AND WHETHER
YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE BILL,
I'M OPPOSED TO THE BILL DUE TO
THE FACT THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN
WRITTEN WITH CARE TOWARDS FACT
IN REPORTING. THANK YOU. HI, MY
NAME IS EVAN BUTTIMER. I'M A
PROFESSIONAL MUSICIAN. I PLAY
WITH THE SACRAMENTO
PHILHARMONIC AND THE STOCKTON
SYMPHONY, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. HI, MY
NAME IS ROLANDO JAVIER. I AM A
COMPUTER ENGINEER IN THE
ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY
AND IN SUPPORT OF PROTECTING
PRIVACY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS. I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. STEWART
HASTINGS, READING, RETIRED
COMPUTER ENGINEER. I'M OPPOSED.
HELLO. MY NAME IS KYLE MCKENNA.
I'M A ADVANCED MANUFACTURING
AND MECHATRONICS STUDENT AT
SIERRA COLLEGE. I OPPOSE THANK
YOU. HI. MY NAME IS JEREMY. I'M
HERE WITH MY DAUGHTER. I'M A
SOFTWARE ENGINEER AND A FORMER
FORMER CHILD CARE PROVIDER.
WE'RE VERY BUSY, BUT NOT SO
BUSY THAT WE CAN'T COME HERE
AND STATE OUR DISAPPROVAL OF
THIS BILL. PLEASE DO NOT
SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING YOUR DAUGHTER. MY NAME
IS JAMES WONG. I'M A MECHANICAL
ENGINEER, A USER OF 3D PRINTERS,
BOTH PROFESSIONALLY AND
PERSONALLY AND A DEMOCRAT. I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. KEN THOMAS. ON
BEHALF OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS
WHO VALUE THEIR PRIVACY, I
OPPOSE. THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME
IS WARREN AND I'M A RESIDENT OF
SACRAMENTO, AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. MY NAME IS
JUSTINE JOHNSON. I CAME OUT
HERE ALL THE WAY FROM PATTERSON,
CALIFORNIA, AND I CAME HERE TO
OPPOSE BILL 2047, AS I BELIEVE
IT IS AN INVASION OF PRIVACY
AND COULD BE VERY PROBLEMATIC
FOR BUSINESSES WHO USE UTILIZE
3D PRINTERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS
FINNEGAN ANDREWS. I AM AN IT
TECHNICIAN IN K-12 PUBLIC
SCHOOLS IN WASHINGTON STATE,
AND I AM HERE TODAY TO OPPOSE
AB 2047 FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH
IT WILL WEAKEN FIRST AND FOURTH
AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. HI. MY NAME IS
JOSEPH. I'M AN IT SPECIALIST.
AND ON BEHALF OF THE SECOND AND
FOURTH AMENDMENT, I OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
HELLO. KEVIN GUZMAN FROM
VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA. AND ON
BEHALF OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
AND RIGHT TO REPAIR, I OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. HOWDY,
Y'ALL. I AM JEFFREY COSIO, AND
I AM A SOFTWARE DEVELOPER. AND
I OPPOSE THIS BILL FOR THE
SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE FOURTH
AMENDMENT FOR A RIGHT TO REPAIR.
THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS
MICHAEL HOOSER. I'M FROM
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE AB 2047. THANK
YOU. HELLO EVERYONE. MY NAME IS
KOBE CLARK. I'M A VACAVILLE
RESIDENT AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
JASON NORTH, SACRAMENTO LOCAL
COLLEGE STUDENT, COMPUTER
SCIENCE MAJOR. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD EVENING.
I'M NICHOLAS TANK. I'M AN
ELECTRONICS TECHNICIAN AND A
LAW ABIDING 3D PRINTER USER.
AND I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
FLETCHER DUBAY, 16TH DISTRICT
CONSTITUENT, STRONGLY OPPOSE.
MY NAME IS HANSON DUBÉ. I'M AN
ANALYTICAL CHEMIST RESIDING IN
WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. I'M NICK. EXCUSE ME.
I'M NICHOLAS DORN. I'M CREATING
A 3D PRINTER ASSEMBLY COMPANY,
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL
FOR REASONS OF DESTRUCTION OF
MY COMPANY IN ADVANCE. THANK
YOU. MATTHEW CONNOLLY, FORMER
ARMY RANGER, CURRENT COMPUTER
ENGINEER AND ENTREPRENEUR.
OPPOSE. MY NAME IS NATHANIEL
LEWIS. I'M A SOFTWARE ENGINEER
RESIDING IN SAN FRANCISCO, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BRANDON
LANGDON, AND I, AS A 12 YEAR
PROFESSIONAL AND EXPERT IN
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING AT A
NATIONAL LAB, A SEVENTH
GENERATION LIVERMORE
CONSTITUENT AND VOTER FOR
ASSEMBLY MEMBER BAUER KHN
OPPOSED THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS JUSTIN LASHINSKY.
I'M A PRODUCT DESIGN CONSULTANT
AND INVENTOR IN PALO ALTO, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. MY
NAME IS SARAH WEST. I AM A
RESIDENT OF BERKELEY AND A
CONSTITUENT OF THE CHAIR. I AM
HERE WITH MY SON, CAITLYN, AND
WE ARE SMALL. MY. MY HUSBAND
AND I ARE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.
WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
IT WILL NOT MAKE OUR CHILDREN
SAFER. IT'S A. IT'S A WASTE OF
RESOURCES WITH NO HOPE OF
SUCCESS. IT WILL JUST CREATE
NEW PROBLEMS. MY NAME IS
CAITLYN WEST. I'M A RESIDENT OF
BERKELEY, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL BECAUSE I THINK IT
WILL CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN
IT HAS A CHANCE TO SOLVE. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. AN OAKLAND BASED
MANUFACTURING ENGINEER AND
BOARD MEMBER AT AN EDUCATION
NONPROFIT WORKING WITH OAKLAND
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO
TEACH 3D PRINTING TO
UNDERSERVED YOUTH. IF YOU CARE
ABOUT EDUCATION, YOU WILL JOIN
ME IN STRONGLY OPPOSING THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY.
COME ON. WHEN I STARTED, 3D
PRINTING MACHINES COST $200,000.
NOW MACHINES ARE BUILT FOR 200.
NOW KIDS ARE BUILDING MACHINES
FOR $200 FROM KITS, WHICH ALLOW
THEM TO BUILD THE SKILLS THEY
NEED TO REPAIR THEM, USE THEM,
AND DESIGN FOR THEM. THIS BILL
WILL BE THAT WAY. DON'T MAKE ME
USE THIS. PLEASE. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU. I
WILL USE MY PHONE. HELLO. I'M A
RETIRED GRANDMA AND I'M HERE TO
SUPPORT MY SON AND MY THREE
SONS. AND THEY'RE ALL IN THIS
TECHNOLOGY. AND I WOULD LIKE
VERY MUCH TO OPPOSE THIS BILL.
MY NAME IS MARY PASCOE. I'M
FROM ROCKLAND, CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MY NAME IS JASON GALDI. I
VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
AND THE TECHNOCRAT PARASITES
AND FINANCIERS WHO THINK THAT
THEY CAN SHAPE A PANOPTICON
TECH DYSTOPIA FOR ALL OF US.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS MILA MCCONLOGUE.
WHEN I WAS NINE YEARS OLD, I
BUILT MY FIRST 3D PRINTER, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY NAME IS
ANDREW CONSIGLIO. I 3D PRINT
FIDGET TOYS FOR MY AUTISTIC
WIFE, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS GLEN GILL. I AM TRYING TO
START A COMPANY THAT RELIES ON
3D PRINTING AND WOULD BE UNABLE
TO DO SO IF THIS BILL PASSES. I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS
AISHA BURNS. I'M A MEDICAL
PHYSICIST, AND I USE 3D
PRINTING TO TREAT CANCER, AND I
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. HELLO. MY NAME IS HUNTER
LIGETI AND I'M AN ASPIRING
MANUFACTURER, AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. MY NAME IS
TOM D'URSO. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
MY BUSINESS IS GOING TO BE
RELATED TO 3D PRINTING AND THE
DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MY NAME IS CHRISTOPHER MARTINEZ.
I'M A MATERIAL PHYSICIST AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ADRIN
MCCARTHY. I'M A SOFTWARE
ENGINEER FROM HAYWARD,
CALIFORNIA, AND A MEMBER OF THE
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HUNTERS
GROUP, AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS DANIEL WATSON. I'M FROM
FREMONT, CALIFORNIA, AND I DO
COMPUTER SCIENCE TUTORING AND
TEACH PEOPLE USING 3D PRINTERS
A LOT. AND I URGE YOU TO VOTE
AGAINST THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
MY NAME IS LUKE BISHAI
REPRESENTING WPM SOFTWARE
DESIGN, A KEYBOARD DESIGN
COMPANY IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
AND I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO
AGAINST THIS BILL. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
JACOB BERTRAND, RESIDENT OF
DAVIS AND UNCLE, AN ELECTRICAL
ENGINEERING STUDENT AND A
FORMER MEMBER OF A NATIONAL
LEVEL DAVIS BASED ROBOTICS TEAM,
WHICH RELIES ON FREE AND OPEN
SOURCE 3D PRINTING SOFTWARE.
AND I RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME
IS BECK FORTIER. I'M A
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENT
AT UC DAVIS, AND I REGULARLY
USE 3D PRINTING BOTH IN AND OUT
OF THE CLASSROOM SETTING. AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS
ATHENA ROWE. I'M A COMPUTER
SCIENCE STUDENT FROM WEST
SACRAMENTO, AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. MY NAME IS
MUSTAFA AZHAR. I'M A MONTEREY
COUNTY RESIDENT CONSTITUENT,
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL
ON FIRST AND FOURTH AMENDMENT
GROUNDS. THANK YOU. HELLO. MY
NAME IS ALEXANDER POPOV AND I
AM A PHYSICS STUDENT AND AN
OBSERVATORY VOLUNTEER THAT
RELIES ON 3D PRINTERS TO
MAINTAIN THEIR SCOPES. I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME IS OAN.
I'M A PRIVATE CITIZEN AND
RESIDENT OF HAYWARD AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. HI. HI, I'M JOHN
LINK FROM RESIDENT OF FREMONT,
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
HI, I'M CARMEN MAUK, RESIDENT
OF BRIONES. I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. HI. MY
NAME IS JAMES GRINDELL. I'M A
SOFTWARE DEVELOPER, YOLO COUNTY
RESIDENT, AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. HI, I'M JACOB KHÎI,
A RESIDENT OF SAN FRANCISCO
COUNTY. I'M AN ELECTRICAL
ENGINEER THAT WORKS IN THE
PHARMA INDUSTRY, AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. HELLO, MY
NAME IS LOGAN HORGA. I'M A
CONSTITUENT OF DIXON,
CALIFORNIA, AND A REGISTERED
DEMOCRATIC VOTER. AS A COMPUTER
SCIENCE STUDENT AND A SOFTWARE
LEADER OF COMPETITIVE ROBOTICS
AT SACRAMENTO STATE AND FOR
OTHER SMALL MAKERSPACES ACROSS
THE STATE THAT DON'T HAVE A
CUTOUT IN THIS BILL, I STRONGLY
OPPOSE. THANK YOU. HI, MY NAME
IS AMANDA GARCIA. I AM A
STUDENT AT SAC STATE AND A 3D
PRINTING ENTHUSIAST, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS. THANK YOU.
HI, I'M JONATHAN FREEMAN, I'M A
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE. THANK YOU.
HELLO. MY NAME IS SCOTT SEAVER.
I'M A MECHANICAL ENGINEER,
LIFELONG CALIFORNIA RESIDENT,
DEMOCRAT SUPPORTER OF EFFECTIVE
GUN CONTROL. AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. XAVIER PATTON,
SACRAMENTO NATIVE AND
ELECTRONICS ENGINEER. I'VE BEEN
INVOLVED IN THE SACRAMENTO
MAKER COMMUNITY SINCE I WAS A
LITTLE KID. I AM IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. HELLO. MY NAME IS.
I AM AN UNAFFILIATED SANTA
CLARA COUNTY RESIDENT AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ASHLEY
DRAGOO. I AM A SACRAMENTO
COUNTY RESIDENT AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. NICK HIRANO,
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA. 3D
PRINTING ENTHUSIASTS. I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL. HI,
I'M STEPHEN ESTES FROM MERCED,
CALIFORNIA, AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. AND HELLO,
SENATOR CABALLERO. HELLO. I'M
COURTNEY LACOUNT FROM RIPON,
CALIFORNIA. I'M AN ARCADE GAME
REPAIR TECHNICIAN AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. ANNIHILATE FROM
LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA,
MECHANICAL ENGINEER. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
HELLO. MY NAME IS HEDRICK. I
DROVE SEVEN HOURS FROM DIAMOND
BAR, L.A. COUNTY TO BE HERE TO
SAY I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BEING HERE. HELLO. MY NAME
IS BRANDON KENDRICK, A RESIDENT
OF CITRUS HEIGHTS, CALIFORNIA.
I'M A STAY AT HOME FATHER, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HELLO, I AM BEN WILHELM. I AM A
PARENT AND A TEACHER IN AMADOR
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. FOR THE
SAKE OF BOTH MY STUDENTS AND MY
SON. I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
BEING HERE. HELLO. MY NAME IS.
HELLO. MY NAME IS GIDEON, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HELLO. MY NAME IS ALEXANDER
MAUGER. I'M A ROBOTICS AND
AUTOMATION CONSULTANT
REPRESENTING REDWOOD
PROTOTYPING LLC, AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU. HI,
I'M DUANE MICHAEL, AND I DON'T
REPRESENT ANYONE, BUT I OPPOSE
THIS BILL AND I SUPPORT THE
BILL OF RIGHTS. MY NAME IS TED.
I REPRESENT THE AMERICAN RIVER
COLLEGE ENGINEERING CLUB, AND
WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL AS
WELL AS CONNOR, WHO HAD TO
LEAVE EARLY BUT WAS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE COMPETITIVE
ROBOTICS TEAM AT SAC STATE
UNIVERSITY AND ALSO OPPOSES
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. CHRIS SMITH,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY RESIDENT
FINANCE ACCOUNTING PROFESSIONAL.
I OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
HELLO. ERIC BEHRENS, SACRAMENTO
RESIDENT, CREATOR, FIXER AND
TINKERER. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. IAN MCCLELLAN. NOT
AN ENTHUSIAST, BUT A CONCERNED
COMPUTER ENGINEER. AND CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY RESIDENT. I OPPOSE
THIS BILL ON THE GROUNDS OF
SUPPORTING THE CORPORATE
INTRUSION INTO CREATIVITY AND
STRUGGLING THEREOF. THANK YOU.
HI, I'M HANNAH NELSON, A
STUDENT FROM SANTA BARBARA, AND
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. DYLAN, ORANGEVILLE
RESIDENT ARTIST. I OPPOSE THIS
BILL ON GROUNDS OF FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION. THANK YOU. HI, I'M
JAMES CANNON. I'M A BUSINESS
OWNER, AND FOR THE LAST 37
YEARS, I'VE BEEN AN IT
PROFESSIONAL. I STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL, AND I HOPE YOU GUYS
DO AS WELL. NØ S¼ J PATEL I
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MY NAME IS DANIEL MARTIN. I
DROVE 400 MILES TO BE HERE
TODAY FROM ORANGE COUNTY, AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSE. THANK YOU. MY
NAME IS CHASE ANDERSON VALLEJO,
RESIDENT, EMBEDDED SECURITY
DEVELOPER AND OPEN SOURCE
ADVOCATE. I OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. I'M AARON JAY, A
SOFTWARE DEVELOPER FOR TWO
DECADES AND MORE RECENTLY, A
SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. I'M ALSO
A CONSTITUENT OF THE BILL'S
AUTHOR IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
TECHNICALLY UNWORKABLE,
EXPENSIVE, AND INFEASIBLE BILL.
THANK YOU. HELLO, MY NAME IS
OMAR ABDULHADI. I'M A MEDICAL
DOCTOR AND AN ENGINEER WORKING
IN SACRAMENTO. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE THIS BILL BECAUSE IT
WOULD HAVE PREVENTED ME FROM
SAVING LIVES DURING THE COVID
PANDEMIC. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. HI, DAVID BULLOCK,
ON BEHALF OF THE SAN FERNANDO
VALLEY CHAPTER OF THE
CALIFORNIA PISTOL AND RIFLE
ASSOCIATION, WE ARE IN
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? IT
LOOKS LIKE WE ARE. WE HAVE I
WAS GOING TO SAY, EXHAUSTED THE
NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE,
BUT I. I LITERALLY MEAN
EXHAUSTED EVERYBODY. SO THAT
CONCLUDES OUR TESTIMONY FOR
TODAY. QUESTION. BRING IT BACK
TO THE COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS
OR. YES, SENATOR PEREZ. YES. SO
I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS,
AND I THINK IT'LL BE A MIX OF
QUESTIONS FOR BOTH THE AUTHOR
AS WELL AS LIKE THE SUPPORT AND
OPPOSITION. I FIRST WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS NOT A
SPACE THAT I HAVE A LOT OF
INFORMATION OR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT,
BUT ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS IN
THE WORLD, HER HUSBAND, IS VERY
ACTIVE IN THE KIND OF 3D
PRINTING COMMUNITY AND IS ALSO
A VERY STRONG SUPPORTER OF GUN
CONTROL. AND SO I KNOW THERE'S
SOME OPPOSITION HERE, THOSE
THAT ARE OPPOSING, YOU KNOW,
RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, TO Ã
ISSUES, VERY STRONG SUPPORTER
OF GUN CONTROL MYSELF. BUT
THERE'S OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE
HERE BECAUSE OF THESE
SURVEILLANCE PIECES AND
QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. AND SO I
THINK FIRST AND FOREMOST, JUST
IN TERMS OF HOW THIS BILL IS
GOING TO OPERATE, WE HAVE
INDIVIDUALS LIKE MY FRIEND'S
HUSBAND WHO ALREADY OWN 3D
PRINTERS. WE HAVE SCHOOLS,
LIBRARIES THAT ALREADY HAVE
THESE SYSTEMS IN PLACE. AND SO
WHAT IS THE KIND OF VISION FOR
INTRODUCING THIS SOFTWARE, YOU
KNOW, TO PEOPLE THAT ALREADY
OWN THIS TYPE OF MACHINERY?
WOULD IT BE EXPECTED THAT THEY
KIND OF DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE?
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY DID
NOT DO SO DUE TO NO FAULT OF
THEIR OWN? BECAUSE NOT
EVERYBODY KEEPS UP WITH THE
MONEY BILLS THAT WE'RE PASSING
UP HERE. AND SO IT JUST FIRST
LIKE TO START OFF BY JUST
HEARING LIKE A KIND OF
OPERATIONAL PERSPECTIVE. I
DON'T KNOW WHO'S CHAIRING. OKAY.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. YOU THREW
ME OFF. THANK YOU. THROUGH THE
CHAIR THANK YOU, SENATOR, FOR
THAT. AND I JUST WANT TO START
BY SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS BILL,
AND I KNOW AND IF YOU DON'T
MIND, TURN IT OVER TO MY
SPONSORS IN JUST A SECOND TO
ANSWER YOUR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.
AND THE LAW THAT WENT INTO
EFFECT IN NEW YORK, BY NO MEANS
DO WE IN THESE HERE IN
CALIFORNIA WANT TO STOP 3D
PRINTING ENTHUSIASTS FROM
PRINTING. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT
THE GOAL, WHICH IS WHY THE BILL
ACTUALLY SET STANDARDS USING
EXPERTS. BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT,
WE ARE NOT THE EXPERTS WHO CAN
MAKE SURE THIS IS MAXIMALLY
EFFECTIVE AND MINIMALLY
DISRUPTIVE, WHICH IS THE GOAL
OF THE BILL. AND AS SOMEONE WHO,
YOU KNOW, I WILL PUT ON THE
RECORD, ONE OF THE THINGS I DID
PRIOR TO GETTING THIS
LEGISLATURE WAS FIGHT TO OPEN
MAKERSPACES AT EVERY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL IN MY DISTRICT, BECAUSE
I THINK THESE KIND OF SKILLS
ARE ACTUALLY A CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT PART OF OUR ACADEMIC
INSTITUTIONS. AND SO THE BILL
IS CRAFTED IN A WAY THAT WOULD
ALLOW OUR 3D PRINTING
ENTHUSIASTS TO CONTINUE TO
PRINT AND JUST NOT PRINT THE
FILES THAT ARE FIREARMS. BUT
YOU HAVE VERY TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS. SO IF YOU DON'T MIND,
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY SPONSOR.
THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR
THE QUESTION, SENATOR. VERY
CLEAR ANSWER FOR FOLKS WHO
ALREADY HAVE 3D PRINTERS, EVEN
FOLKS WHO BUY 3D PRINTERS UP
THROUGH 2029 UNDER THE BILL,
THAT DOESN'T IMPACT THEM AT ALL.
THERE'S NO EXPECTATION THAT
THEY DOWNLOAD NEW SOFTWARE THAT
THEY UPGRADE, YOU KNOW, THE
PROPERTY THEY ALREADY HAVE.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO
RESELL PRINTERS THAT DON'T HAVE
FIREARM BLOCKING TECHNOLOGY
UNDER AN EXEMPTION THAT WE
AMENDED INTO THE BILL. THE BILL
IS REALLY FOCUSED AS A BUSINESS
REGULATION ON 3D PRINTER
MANUFACTURERS, TO BE SURE
THEY'RE INCORPORATING THIS
TECHNOLOGY INTO PRINTERS THAT
THEY'RE SELLING IN CALIFORNIA
AFTER 2029. SO THE BILL WOULD
ONLY APPLY TOWARDS BUSINESSES
THAT ARE OPERATING IN AND
UTILIZING 3D PRINTERS, OR IT
WOULD APPLY TO BUSINESSES
BUILDING 3D PRINTERS THAT ARE
SELLING THEM. JUST SO I'M CLEAR.
YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. SO ACTUAL
PRINTER MANUFACTURERS. SO, YOU
KNOW, REALLY IN THAT MARKET,
THERE'S A HANDFUL OF COMPANIES
THAT KIND OF HAVE THE MAJORITY
OF THE MARKET SHARE, YOU KNOW,
AS WELL AS REALLY ANY OTHER 3D
PRINTER MANUFACTURER THAT'S
GOING TO SELL THROUGH, YOU KNOW,
THE RETAIL PROCESS IN
CALIFORNIA. OKAY. I HEARD SOME
OF THE FOLKS THAT CAME UP IN
OPPOSITION MENTIONED THIS WHO
KIND OF SMALL BUSINESSES IN
THIS SPACE. AND THIS WAS ALSO A
QUESTION THAT CAME UP FROM, AS
I MENTIONED, A CONSTITUENT THAT
COST CONCERNS HOW THIS MIGHT BE
COST PROHIBITIVE FOR THIS,
THESE MAKER SPACES OR THESE ARE
STARTUP VENTURES. AND IN MANY
CASES, THESE ARE SMALL BUSINESS
OWNERS. AND THIS KIND OF
PREVENTING AND STIFLING THE
ABILITY OF SOMEBODY WHO MAYBE
WANTS TO GET STARTED IN THIS
SPACE, BECAUSE THERE ARE COSTS,
CHALLENGES WITH IMPLEMENTING
THE SOFTWARE. I HAVE NO IDEA
HOW MUCH THIS COSTS, AND I
DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE LIKE
ISSUES WITH THAT OR IF THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE TALKED
THROUGH. AND I'M NOT SURE IF
OPPOSITION HAS ANY COMMENTARY
ON THAT TOO, BUT JUST HOW TO
KIND OF NAVIGATE SOME OF THOSE
COST CHALLENGES FOR MAYBE
SOMEBODY THAT'S WANTING,
THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN
PRINTING GUNS, BUT WANTS TO DO
THE RIGHT THING, IS TRYING TO
CREATE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
AND ALLOWING THEM TO BE ABLE TO
DO THAT. MR. CHAIR, CAN I YES.
THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOT SORT OF
PRESUPPOSE THAT THERE'S GOING
TO BE HIGH COSTS ASSOCIATED
WITH THIS. ULTIMATELY, WE NEED
TO THINK ABOUT WHAT ARE THE
INCENTIVES THAT THE 3D PRINTER
MANUFACTURERS HAVE. THEY WANT
TO GET PRINTERS OUT TO AS MANY
PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. WE HAVE
SEEN THE PRICE POINT OF
PRINTERS DROPPING, WHICH IS
FANTASTIC. IT'S MAKING THIS,
YOU KNOW, A, AN AVENUE FOR
CREATIVITY, FOR INNOVATION
THAT'S OPEN TO MORE PEOPLE. I
DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON
TO NECESSARILY ASSUME THAT
BLOCKING TECHNOLOGY THAT'S
GOING TO BE DEPLOYED AT SCALE
DEVELOPED OVER MANY, MANY YEARS
HERE WITH VERY, YOU KNOW,
FLEXIBLE, DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR
HOW MANUFACTURERS INCORPORATE
IT. THE BILL SETS OUT SETS
FORTH KIND OF A VARIETY OF WAYS
THAT IT CAN BE INCORPORATED,
DIFFERENT DESIGN FORMS TO
REALLY GIVE MANUFACTURERS
MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY TO FIND THE
TECHNOLOGY THAT'S GOING TO BE,
YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY THE
CHEAPEST AND EASIEST FOR THEM
TO INCORPORATE INTO THEIR
MACHINES SO THAT THOSE PRICE
POINTS DON'T GO UP. CERTAINLY,
YOU KNOW, INCREASING COSTS TO
SMALL BUSINESSES, MAKERSPACES
EDUCATORS IS NOT A GOAL OF THE
BILL. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE
ALL WANT TO PROTECT AGAINST. SO
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOT
MOVE FORWARD WITH, YOU KNOW,
THE NEGATIVE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT
WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN HERE WHEN WE
KNOW THE ECONOMICS OF THE
MANUFACTURERS IS GOING TO BE TO
COST AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. CAN I
COMMENT ON THE ECONOMICS? NO,
ONLY IF A MEMBER ASKS YOU A
QUESTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. DID
YOU ASK DO YOU WANT TO ASK HIM?
YEAH, SURE. I WOULD LOVE TO
HEAR FROM. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M
SORRY ABOUT THAT. THAT'S NOT
HOW THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS.
UNFORTUNATELY. IT'S THE
FUNDAMENTAL CORE OF THE
TECHNOLOGY. AND AS YOU HEARD
THE LIST, THE MANUFACTURERS OF
THESE MACHINES ALL HAVE SAID
THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE. THEY
SPOKE UP ABOUT THIS. THEY'VE
BEEN WRITING TO EVERYONE HERE
THAT THE TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT
WORK IN THIS MANNER IN ANY
CAPACITY. THERE ARE TONS OF
DIFFERENT PRINTERS. AND THE
WONDERFUL THING ABOUT 3D
PRINTERS IS IT'S OPEN SOURCE.
YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN. I CAN
MAKE MY OWN AND MAKE IT DO
WHATEVER, BUT ADDING SOFTWARE
TO SOMEONE ELSE'S PLATFORM THAT
DOESN'T WORK WITH YOURS IS NOT
COMPATIBLE. IT WOULDN'T WORK.
IT'D BE LIKE ME PUTTING AN APP
FOR AN ANDROID ON YOUR IPHONE.
IT DOESN'T COMPAT, IT WOULD NOT
WORK. AND THE OTHER THING IS,
WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE IN THIS TO
BLOCK THE SOFTWARE, TO BLOCK
SHAPES, TO BLOCK OBJECTS.
OBJECTS DON'T HAVE INTENT. AND
THE WAY THE SOFTWARE WORKS AND
WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT
DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. IT'S
LINES OF CODE. IT'S G CODE,
JUST LIKE THIS EYEBALL I HAVE
HERE FROM THE MAYO CLINIC. THIS
WOULD BE CONSIDERED. I'M NOT
KIDDING. THIS WOULD BE
CONSIDERED A FIREARM PART BASED
ON EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE.
BECAUSE OF THE MOUNTING PIECE
IN THE BACK, THE CYLINDER HOLE
IN THE BACK WOULD SHOW UP
EXACTLY AS THIS. AND THE
COMPANY THAT THEY'RE WORKING
WITH, NHÀ, I'VE USED THEIR
TECHNOLOGY. EVERYONE IN THE
INDUSTRY HAS USED THEIR
TECHNOLOGY. IT DID NOT WORK,
AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS TAKEN OUT
OF THINGS. THE EXECUTIVE OF
THINGS WAS HERE AND SHAPEWAYS
LAST WEEK AND SPOKE TO THIS,
AND WE ALL ARE FOR GUN SAFETY
AND ALL SORTS OF STUFF LIKE
THIS. AND THIS ISN'T A FIREARM
BILL, BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH FIREARMS.
YOU CAN'T MAKE. THERE'S ALSO
BEEN NO DEATHS OF 3D PRINTED
GUNS EVER, FROM THE DODD OR ATF
OR ANYONE, BECAUSE IT'S PLASTIC.
NO ONE MAKES THESE BECAUSE IT
IS PLASTIC. THE INDUSTRIAL
MATERIALS, THOSE COME FROM
MACHINES THAT COST $1 MILLION.
AND THE MATERIALS THEMSELVES
COST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
DOLLARS IN POWDER FORM TO MAKE
METAL, AND YOU CAN DO WAM AND
OTHER STUFF LIKE THAT. I WON'T
GET INTO THE THE ALL OF THAT.
BUT THAT'S NOT HOW THE
TECHNOLOGY WORKS FUNDAMENTALLY.
AND TO SAY, OH, DRAMATIC EFFECT.
I THINK THAT MEANS IT'S TIME
FOR YOU TO FINISH YOUR COMMENTS.
I'LL FINISH UP. YEAH, JUST
FUNDAMENTALLY THE TECHNOLOGY. I
MEAN, I WORK WITH EVERYONE
AROUND THE PLANET. I'VE BEEN
WORKING IN THIS INDUSTRY FOR
OVER SEVEN YEARS, TRAVELING
AROUND THE PLANET, WORKING WITH
EVERYONE, EVERYONE. THE
TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY
WORK THE WAY THEY'RE ASKING.
THANK YOU FOR, FOR THAT CONTEXT.
AND JUST SO I'M CLEAR, ASSEMBLY
MEMBER IS YOUR YOUR BILL IS
APPLYING TO ALL 3D PRINTERS,
RIGHT? SO THOSE THAT PRINT IN
PLASTIC, METAL, SUGAR, ETCETERA.
SO IF. YES, SORRY, I'M TRYING
TO KEEP PROTOCOL HERE. SO CAN I.
YEAH, LET ME ANSWER THAT IN ONE
SECOND. AND THEN I JUST WANT TO
SAY A COUPLE THINGS. ONE IS, AS
YOU WILL NOTE IN THE SYSTEM AND
IN THE ANALYSIS, THE MAJOR 3D
COMPANIES, PRINTING COMPANIES
ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS, WHICH
I THINK CAN INSTRUCT US THAT
THEY DON'T THINK THIS IS
IMPOSSIBLE. I THINK THAT'S
THAT'S INCORRECT. OKAY. EXCUSE
ME. OKAY. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO
SPEAK UNLESS A MEMBER ASKS YOU
A QUESTION. WE'RE NOT GOING TO
TOLERATE ANY OUTBURSTS. PLEASE
EXERCISE DECORUM OR I'LL HAVE
TO ASK YOU TO LEAVE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBERS. BAUER-KAHAN
HAS THE FLOOR, PLEASE. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THEN
SECONDLY, I WOULD NOTE, AS WAS
NOTED IN THE OPENING TESTIMONY
FROM MY WITNESSES, AND WE
ACTUALLY HAVE SEEN RATES OF
THESE GUNS THAT ARE BEING
PRINTED IN CALIFORNIA. SO I
WANTED TO CORRECT THE RECORD
THERE AS WELL. THIS IS I'M NOT
MAKING UP A PROBLEM. THERE IS A
PROBLEM HERE. AND THEN IF I CAN
TURN IT OVER ON THE TECHNICAL
QUESTIONS TO MY WITNESSES.
CERTAINLY I CAN UNDERSCORE ON
THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM AND
THE IMPACT THAT THE SORT OF
ACCELERATION OF FINDING 3D
PRINTED GUNS HAS BEEN HAVING.
WE'VE SEEN NUMEROUS INSTANCES
IN CALIFORNIA JUST IN THE LAST
SIX MONTHS. SO I THINK ONE OF
THE THINGS THAT HAS COME UP
FROM THE OPPOSITION HAS BEEN
IT'S ALREADY ILLEGAL. AND AND
IN FACT, I ACTUALLY THINK SOME
OF THE OPPOSITION MAYBE IS A
LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE FACT
THAT IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO
EVEN, YOU KNOW, TRANSFER FILES
AND THINGS LIKE, LIKE GUN FILES
ARE ILLEGAL IN CALIFORNIA
ALREADY. SO, YOU KNOW, REALLY
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE
IS THE ACTUAL PREVENTIVE
SOLUTION, THE UPSTREAM SOLUTION
THAT STOPS THE GUNS FROM BEING
PRINTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. ON
THE TECHNICAL QUESTION, IF YOU
COULD ACTUALLY JUST REPEAT AND
THERE WAS A LOT SAID THERE, I'M
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFICS.
YEAH, NO, I JUST I'M VERY
SPECIFIC. JUST DOES THE BILL
APPLY TO ALL TYPES OF 3D
PRINTERS? SO THOSE PRINTED
PLASTIC, METAL, SUGAR, ETC. SO
IT WOULD DO EVERYTHING AS
WRITTEN. THERE'S NO
SPECIFICATION ACROSS THAT. I
DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER, BUT I'M SURE
IF THERE WERE AN INVITATION TO
AMEND TO NOT ADDRESS A 3D
PRINTED CHOCOLATE OR SUGAR OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S
ABSOLUTELY THE KIND OF POLICY
CHANGE THAT I THINK WE'D BE
OPEN TO CONSIDER. BUT THE, YOU
KNOW, MATERIALS THAT THAT 3D
PRINTERS WORK WITH ARE GETTING
INCREASINGLY STRONG. WE ARE
SEEING, YOU KNOW, THE CORE
FRAMES AND RECEIVERS OF GUNS
ARE CAPABLE OF BEING PRINTED
WITH 3D PRINTERS. THERE ARE NOW,
YOU KNOW, THANKS TO SORT OF
VERY ACTIVE COMMUNITIES OF
ONLINE EXTREMISTS WHO HAVE BEEN
PURPOSEFULLY TRYING TO REFINE
THESE FILES SO THAT THEY CAN BE
INCREASINGLY EFFECTIVE 3D
PRINTED FIREARMS. WE ARE SEEING
SOME THAT ONLY NEED, YOU KNOW,
A, A REALLY SCREW OR A RUBBER
BAND. IT'S GETTING MORE
SOPHISTICATED. SO WE NEED THIS
BLOCKING TECHNOLOGY TO BE
INSTALLED SO WE CAN GET AHEAD
OF THE PROBLEM. OKAY. I'M SORRY.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
BECAUSE I HAD ONE LAST QUESTION.
SO YOU KIND OF STARTED
MENTIONING THIS AND I, I JUST
WANTED TO UNDERSTAND, LIKE,
THESE ARE VERY GENUINE
QUESTIONS BECAUSE I ALSO, I'M,
I'M LEARNING ABOUT AND ABOUT
THIS IN REAL TIME, AS YOU ALL
ARE EXPLAINING THIS TO ME. AND
AS I WAS READING THE BILL LAST
NIGHT, REGULATING WEBSITES THAT
DISTRIBUTE 3D FILES IS ALREADY
IN LAW. SO THAT IS A THAT IS
LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN
PASSED PREVIOUSLY. SO
REGULATING COMPANIES THAT ARE
PRODUCING 3D, LIKE PARTS OF 3D
GUNS ALREADY EXIST. IS THAT
WHAT YOU JUST SAID AND YOU JUST
REFERRED TO? THE CHAIR YES,
PLEASE. YES. SO THE THE SORT OF
FILE DISTRIBUTING FILES FOR 3D
PRINTED GUNS ALREADY ILLEGAL,
PRINTING THEM ALREADY ILLEGAL.
WE ARE STILL SEEING THEM. WE
ARE STILL SEEING RECOVERIES OF
THESE GUNS. WE'RE SEEING GHOST
GUN MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS
WITH YOU KNOW, THEY'RE FINDING
DOZENS OF 3D PRINTED FIREARM
PARTS AT A TIME AND MULTIPLE 3D
PRINTERS, SOMETIMES IN
TEENAGERS BEDROOMS. WE'RE JUST
TRYING TO HAVE TECHNOLOGY
EQUIPPED ON THOSE PRINTERS. SO
IT'S NOT EVEN REGULATING A
SPECIFIC SEGMENT OF 3D PRINTER
MANUFACTURERS. IT'S NOT, YOU
KNOW, FOCUSED ON ONES THAT CAN
PRINT GUNS SPECIFICALLY. IT
WILL BE TECHNOLOGY ON ALL, ALL
3D PRINTERS. OKAY. GIVEN THE
INCREASING CAPABILITIES. AND I
ASKED THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I
THINK ONE OF THE MAIN CONCERNS
THAT I'VE HEARD, YOU KNOW, FROM
MY CONSTITUENTS IS, I THINK OUT
OF ALL THESE THINGS, THE
QUESTIONS THAT HE HAD WAS JUST
ABOUT THE SURVEILLANCE ISSUE.
AND ARE WE ESSENTIALLY CREATING
LIKE A SYSTEM WHERE WE'RE
TRACKING EVERYBODY THAT HAPPENS
TO OWN A 3D PRINTER, INCLUDING
INDIVIDUALS LIKE HIMSELF? THE
INDIVIDUAL I'M TALKING ABOUT
LIVES IN THE CITY OF MONTEREY
PARK. I REPRESENT THE CITY OF
MONTEREY PARK, IF YOU'RE
FAMILIAR. WE HAD A MASS
SHOOTING THAT HAPPENED ABOUT
FOUR YEARS AGO AND HAD A NUMBER
OF INDIVIDUALS WHO DIED AS A
RESULT OF THAT MASS SHOOTING.
AND SO THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HE
CARES A LOT ABOUT PERSONALLY,
BUT ALSO HAS THESE QUESTIONS
ABOUT PRIVACY AS WELL. I'M NOT
QUITE SURE HOW YOU RESOLVE THAT
HERE, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO JUST
AND THAT'S IT FOR MY QUESTIONS.
I'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU SPEAK TO
THAT. AND, ASSEMBLYWOMAN, IF
YOU WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT AT
ALL, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST THE
ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED TO
ME THAT I'M TRYING TO NAVIGATE
AS SOMEBODY THAT OBVIOUSLY
WANTS TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY
SAFE. AND AT THE SAME TIME, I
THINK WE HAVE REAL CONCERNS
ABOUT PRIVACY AND DATA RIGHT
NOW AS THE CHAIR OF PRIVACY
WITH SO, SO WELL KNOWN. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. YES. AND TO
YOUR POINT, AS THE CHAIR OF
PRIVACY WHO DEFENDS THE PRIVACY
OF CALIFORNIANS, AND I BELIEVE
I DO TRY EVERY DAY, THAT'S
OBVIOUSLY A CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT PIECE OF ANY
LEGISLATION THAT MOVES THROUGH
THIS PROCESS. AND SO, YOU KNOW,
THAT IS A QUESTION I'VE ASKED
OF EXPERTS. I'VE MET WITH
ACADEMIC RESEARCHERS THAT
RESEARCH THE TECHNOLOGY AT
BERKELEY, AT DARTMOUTH, AT
OTHER UNIVERSITIES, AND THEY'VE
ASSURED ME THAT THIS WOULD NOT
BE THAT THE STANDARDS THAT ARE
SET THROUGH THIS BILL WILL
ENSURE THAT THIS IS HAPPENING
LOCALLY, AND WE'RE NOT SENDING
THE FILES OFF SO THAT WHAT
YOU'RE PRINTING IS BEING
SURVEILLED. BUT IF YOU WOULD
LIKE MORE DETAILS, I'M SURE MY
WITNESS COULD PROVIDE BETTER
TECHNICAL DEPTH ON THAT. DOES
THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR DO
YOU WANT ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND?
I THINK THAT OKAY, OKAY. THANK
YOU, SENATOR, FOR YOUR QUESTION.
I THINK I THINK THAT ANSWERED
YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU. OKAY.
EXCUSE ME. ONCE AGAIN, NO
OUTBURSTS ARE TOLERATED. NO
CLAPPING, NO INTERRUPTING. IF
YOU CONTINUE TO DISRUPT THE
MEETING, YOU'LL BE ESCORTED OUT.
WE WILL HAVE DECORUM AS WE
CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION. VICE
CHAIR SATO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO GET
AWAY FROM THE TECHNICAL STUFF
AND I'M GOING TO THINK LIKE A
LITTLE CRIMINAL. OKAY? I WANT
TO MAKE GHOST GUNS. AND I HAVE
MY LITTLE 3D PRINTER AT HOME. I
KNOW IT'S ILLEGAL. I'M GOING TO
MAKE MY LITTLE GHOST GUN OR
WHATEVER IT IS. YOU SAY IT'S
ILLEGAL. I ALREADY KNOW IT. I'M
ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW. NOW
YOU TELL ME, OH, WE'RE GOING TO
COME IN AND MAKE YOU PUT A
THING IN THERE. I'M NOT GOING
TO. I'M GOING TO PUT IT IN THE
CLOSET. OR IF I WANT TO GO BUY
ONE, I'M GOING TO GO OUT OF
STATE. I'M GOING TO BUY ONE.
I'M GOING TO PUT IT IN THE BACK
OF MY TRUCK UNDERNEATH A
BLANKET. I'M GOING TO BRING IT
IN, AND I'M GOING TO CONTINUE
TO DO WHAT'S ILLEGAL BECAUSE I
DON'T CARE THAT IT'S ILLEGAL.
THAT'S THAT'S NOT GOING TO STOP
SOMEBODY WHO IS, IS DOING THIS.
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS BILL LIKE
THIS IS INEFFECTIVE IN ITS, YOU
KNOW, TRYING TO GET PEOPLE THAT
ALREADY DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT
THE LAW IS TO STOP WHAT THEY'RE
DOING. ALL IT'S GOING TO DO IS
HAVE POTENTIAL REAL
RAMIFICATIONS FOR PEOPLE THAT
USE THIS TECHNOLOGY IN
ADVANCING THE TECHNOLOGY WHILE
WHILE OTHER PLAYERS COME IN TO
TRY TO INSTALL THINGS THAT THEY
DON'T KNOW ARE GOING TO WORK.
THE WITNESS THAT I THINK KNOWS
A LOT ABOUT THIS HAS ALREADY
ALREADY GIVEN US KIND OF THE
LOWDOWN ON HOW EFFECTIVE THIS
STUFF IS. SO, YOU KNOW, JUST
LIKE THE GUN LAWS THAT COME UP
AGAINST THE SECOND AMENDMENT,
THEY'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU,
YOU CAN'T KEEP PASSING THINGS
THAT ARE AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTION BECAUSE THEY'RE
JUST NOT LEGAL. AND WHEN YOU DO
PASS THINGS LIKE THIS, OKAY,
YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO
STOP THEM? NO, IT'S ILLEGAL.
AND YET, WHAT ARE WE FINDING?
WE'RE FINDING THAT PEOPLE ARE
MAKING THEM. SO WHAT DO WE DO?
WE GO AFTER THOSE PEOPLE. WE GO
AFTER THOSE PEOPLE. THIS ISN'T
GOING TO HELP US DO THAT. THIS
ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
ALL THIS IS GOING TO DO IS
POTENTIALLY CREATE BIG PROBLEMS
FOR PEOPLE THAT LEGALLY USE
THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY. WE
DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO
SAY THAT THE PRINTER IS GOING
TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A, OH,
WAIT A MINUTE, THIS GUY IS
DOING A GHOST GUN. SO SOMEHOW
WE'RE GOING TO GRIND THE WHOLE
THING TO A HALT. IT'S NOT THERE.
AND AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY
TELL ME THAT IT IS. I'VE HEARD
YOU TELL ME IT'S FOUR YEARS
AWAY. THAT MEANS NOTHING TO ME.
THIS IS AN INEFFECTIVE APPROACH
WITH WAY TOO MANY WAY TOO MUCH
COLLATERAL DAMAGE. THAT'S
POSSIBLE TO A BURGEONING
INDUSTRY OUT THERE. FOR A LOT
OF PEOPLE THAT ARE VERY
CREATIVE PEOPLE, BY THE WAY,
THAT THEIR LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS
ON THIS, THIS TECHNOLOGY. SO
AGAIN, YOU NEED TO GO AFTER THE
PEOPLE THAT ARE BREAKING LAWS,
NOT AFTER THE TECHNOLOGY THAT
THEY USE, BECAUSE THEY'LL
CONTINUE TO USE THAT TECHNOLOGY.
WHETHER YOU MAKE NEW LAWS THAT
AFFECT EVERYTHING ELSE OR NOT.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE, SENATOR CORTEZ?
THANK YOU, CHAIR, I APPRECIATE
HEARING BOTH SIDES OF THIS. I'M
KIND OF HEARING COMMENTS LIKE
THAT FROM COLLEAGUES, WHETHER
THEY'RE FOR OR AGAINST. I AM
VERY PICKY ABOUT FIREARMS
LEGISLATION, AND THERE'S A LOT
I DON'T SUPPORT IF IT DOESN'T
MAKE SENSE. I APPRECIATE THE
OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS IN THE
SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, EXPLAINING
SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW,
FAIRLY, FAIRLY RECENTLY AND AT
LEAST IN THE HISTORY OF
FIREARMS FAIRLY RECENTLY HAS
BECOME, YOU KNOW, HAS, HAS, HAS
BECOME AN EMERGING AND FAR
GREATER USE TECHNOLOGY IN TERMS
OF 3D PRINTING. BUT AS GOOD AS
THE ARGUMENTS ARE, WE DON'T WE
DON'T ALLOW OPEN SOURCE
FIREARMS PRODUCTION, YOU KNOW,
WHETHER FIREARMS PRODUCTION IS
BEING DONE WITH 3D PRINTING
THROUGH THROUGH SOFTWARE,
THROUGH GUN FILES, WHICH I
THINK IS WHAT THIS BILL IS
TRYING TO TAKE A PIECE OUT OF,
OR WHETHER FOLKS, YOU KNOW ARE
SAYING, HEY, THAT'S NOT THAT'S
NOT HOW IT WORKS. I UNDERSTAND
THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN
OPEN SOURCE TECHNOLOGY THAT
MOST PEOPLE ARE RELYING UPON.
THAT'S NOT OKAY EITHER. I MEAN,
IT ISN'T IT ISN'T RECENTLY THAT
WE STARTED PUTTING SERIAL
NUMBERS ON FIREARMS. I MEAN,
THAT'S, THAT GOES BACK DECADES
AND DECADES AND DECADES. AND
IT'S NOT JUST A FORCE PEOPLE TO
REGISTER THEIR GUNS OR WHATEVER.
IT'S SO THAT YOU CAN TRACE GUNS
THAT ARE USED IN CRIMES SO THAT
YOU CAN RECOVER YOUR FIREARM IF
IT'S BEEN STOLEN, AND YOU CAN
IDENTIFY THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY
THE ONE THAT YOU OWN. SO YOU
CAN INSURE YOUR FIREARMS.
THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF
COMMERCIALLY PRACTICABLE
REASONS THAT WE DON'T ALLOW
FOLKS TO JUST, YOU KNOW, SORT
OF PRODUCE FIREARMS. AND BY THE
WAY, 3D PRINTING ISN'T THE ONLY
WAY TO DO IT. THERE'S MACHINE
SHOPS ANYWHERE UP AND DOWN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THROUGHOUT
ALL 50 STATES IN THIS COUNTRY.
THEY REALLY WANTED TO CREATE A
FIREARM OVERNIGHT TONIGHT, OR
PROBABLY DOZENS OF THEM WITHOUT
SERIAL NUMBERS. AND THEY DO
SOME DO YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE
OUT THERE, DOJ AND SO FORTH
TRYING TO CATCH THEM? IT'S NOT
OKAY THOUGH. SO I UNDERSTAND
THE ARGUMENT SAYS, HEY, LOOK,
YOU GOT TO GET THE THE CRIMINAL,
THE FELON, NOT DON'T GO AFTER
THE 3D PRINTERS. BUT IF WE CAN
TAKE A PIECE OUT OF THE
ENFORCEMENT SIDE OF IT BY, YOU
KNOW, ADDRESSING AND, YOU KNOW,
SOMEONE MIGHT SAY, THIS IS A
STATEMENT, BILL, YOU'RE JUST
MAKING A STATEMENT THAT YOU
DON'T WANT GUNS BEING 3D
PRINTED. IT IS IT'S I THINK IT
WANTS TO CREATE A SITUATION
WHERE THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. BUT
I ALSO THINK IT'S A STATEMENT,
ALMOST LIKE IF YOU PUT A, IF
YOU PUT A, A WARNING ON THE
SIDE OF EVERY 3D PRINTER THAT
SAID, IT IS ILLEGAL TO, TO USE
THIS DEVICE TO CREATE A FIREARM,
YOU KNOW, AS, AS, AS THEY'VE
BEEN DEFINED IN CALIFORNIA CODE.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU
SEGREGATE BB GUNS. I DON'T
REALLY RECOMMEND ANY MORE. EVEN
THOUGH I GREW UP WITH THEM
PROMULGATING A WHOLE BUNCH OF
TOY GUNS OR CHOCOLATE GUNS OR
THINGS LIKE THAT TO GIVE TO
YOUR KIDS, UNLESS YOU WANT TO
PUT THEM THROUGH FULL GUN
TRAINING AND, YOU KNOW, HUNTER
SAFETY COURSE AND EVERYTHING
ELSE, THEY ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO
HANDLE THESE THINGS. SO I'M
SYMPATHETIC, BUT I ALSO THINK
THE INDUSTRY NEEDS TO COME
FORWARD WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT TO
TACKLE THESE ISSUES, LIKE THE
AUTHOR, AND OFFER AMENDMENTS
THAT WILL HELP CLEAN THINGS UP.
I KNOW IT'S GETTING LATE IN THE
SESSION. I'M SURE YOU IT SOUNDS
LIKE YOU'RE WILLING TO WORK
WITH THEM ON TRYING TO TAKE OUT,
TAKE SOME OF THE EDGES OFF OF
THIS, THAT THAT MIGHT STILL
EXIST, BUT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT
IT TODAY JUST BECAUSE, AS YOU
KNOW, I CHAIR THE OUTDOOR
CAUCUS HERE. I JUST DON'T SEE
THE NEED. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR
THOSE WHO DO. BUT WE HAVE A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THAT.
I JUST DON'T SEE THAT I HAVE A
NEED. WHEN HUNTING SEASON
STARTS NEXT MONTH IN CALIFORNIA,
TO HAVE A THREE D PRODUCED
FIREARM. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT
PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE FREEDOM IN
TERMS, JUST LIKE WOZNIAK DID,
IN TERMS OF EXPERIMENTING WITH
THINGS YOU COULD PRODUCE WITH
THIS TECHNOLOGY. AND WE'RE
GOING GREAT. THINGS ARE GOING
TO COME FROM THAT. ACCIDENTAL
DISCOVERIES ARE GOING TO COME
FROM THAT. JUST LIKE HE KIND OF
ACCIDENTALLY DISCOVERED THE
PERSONAL COMPUTER. WE WANT YOU
ALL TO BE DOING THAT. WE LOVE
THAT ABOUT CALIFORNIA. BUT I
DON'T THINK GUNS, I DON'T THINK
COMING AFTER A BILL THAT'S
TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE
PRODUCTION OF FIREARMS, THAT
DON'T HAVE SERIAL NUMBERS THAT
ARE REGISTERED WITH THE DOJ, I
DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO
PROMOTE ANY ANY OF THE REAL
GOOD STUFF. SO I'M SUPPORTING
THE BILL, AND I APPRECIATE THE
CHAIR BEARING WITH ME TO
EXPLAIN. I THINK THE CHAIR
KNOWS I DON'T. I LAND IN
DIFFERENT PLACES. I HAVEN'T
BEEN A BIG SUPPORTER OF
HARDWARE RESTRICTIONS ON
FIREARMS. I THINK WE'VE KIND OF
REALLY NEED TO START FOCUSING
ON THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ARE
RUNNING AROUND THAT SHOULDN'T
HAVE FIREARMS IN THE FIRST
PLACE. THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'D
LIKE TO SEE US FOCUS MORE. BUT
THIS PREVENTS SOME OF THAT TOO.
AND IT CERTAINLY PREVENTS YOUNG
PEOPLE WHO MAY BE VERY WELL
INTENTIONED BUT ARE HAVING
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, WHICH IS
EXTRAORDINARILY COMMON RIGHT
NOW, WHO REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE
A GUN IN THEIR HANDS AT THAT
MOMENT FROM FROM DOING THAT?
POSSIBLY. AND I THINK THE BILL
WOULD PROBABLY SAVE LIVES AT
SOME POINT. SO I APOLOGIZE FOR
MAKING TWO SEPARATE STATEMENTS
THERE AGAIN, CHAIR, THANK YOU
FOR BEARING WITH ME. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH, SENATOR CABALLERO.
AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME,
I'M GOING TO JOIN MY COLLEAGUE
IN HIS STATEMENT. I DON'T
ALWAYS I'M VERY SELECTIVE IN
THE GUN BILLS THAT I SUPPORT
BECAUSE I WANT I DON'T WANT TO
VOTE JUST BECAUSE IT LOOKS GOOD.
IT'S GOT TO WORK. AND I'M I'M
FROM A HUNTING FAMILY. THEY
TOOK ME OUT TO SHOW ME HOW TO
SHOOT A GUN WHEN I WAS TEN
YEARS OLD. I DIDN'T LIKE IT. SO
I HAVEN'T TOUCHED A GUN SINCE.
BUT BUT BUT THEY HUNTED AND
THEY ATE EVERYTHING. THEY
HUNTED AND THEY LIVED OUT IN
RURAL AREA OF ARIZONA. SO I
WANT THE GUNS TO MAKE SENSE.
BUT I ALSO THINK THERE THERE'S
SOMETHING HERE. I'M GOING TO
VOTE FOR IT TODAY. I MAY NOT ON
THE FLOOR. I THINK THERE'S SOME
MORE DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO
BE HAD. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE
EVERYBODY COMING OUT HERE TODAY,
BECAUSE I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT
THE APPLICATIONS OF, OF, OF
THAT TECHNOLOGY TO BE ABLE TO
CREATE THINGS THAT DO REALLY
GOOD THINGS IN, IN OUR LIVES.
AND I APPRECIATE IT. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. AND I WILL BE
VOTING YES TODAY. ANY OTHER
COMMENTS? BACK OVER TO CLOSE.
THANK YOU. SENATORS. I
APPRECIATE THE ROBUST
CONVERSATION. I AGREE WITH THE
SENATOR THAT I APPRECIATE
EVERYONE WHO SHOWED UP TODAY TO
SUPPORT AND OPPOSE THE BILL. I
THINK THESE CONVERSATIONS ARE
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT, AND I
COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM SANTA CLARA. I
THINK I GOT THAT RIGHT, SAN
JOSE, SORRY, THE SENATOR FROM
SAN JOSE, THAT THERE IS SO MUCH
PROMISE IN THIS TECHNOLOGY AND
EVERY TECHNOLOGY OUT OF
CALIFORNIA. BUT I THINK WE CAN
BOTH CREATE THAT PROMISE AND
STOP THE PRINTING OF THESE
FIREARMS THAT, TO THE POINT
THAT WAS MADE, CANNOT BE
TRACKED AND MONITORED IN THE
WAY THE OTHER FIREARMS WE SELL
IN CALIFORNIA WILL. SO WITH
THAT, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR
YOUR AYE VOTE. OKAY. I'LL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE BILL.
AB 2047, MOVED BY SENATOR
CORTEZ. THANK YOU. IF WE CAN,
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 2047
BAUER-KAHAN MOTION IS DO PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
AGAIN. I AGAIN I SAY NØ CIERTO
NO. CABALLERO. CABALLERO.
CORTEZ I CORTEZ. I PEREZ.
WIENER WIENER. AYE WE'LL KEEP
THAT BILL AND CALL FOR. THANK
YOU SENATOR. PARENTS CLAIM
SANTA CLARA IS PRESENT AND I
BELIEVE SHE'S PRESENTING AN
ADDITIONAL BILL AS WELL AS A
BILL ON BEHALF OF ASSEMBLY
MEMBER PETRIE-NORRIS. AND THEN
AFTER THAT, WE HAVE A OUR LAST
BILL PRESENTATION BY
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BRIAN. OKAY. AND
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY,
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, I'M GOING TO
PRESENT MINE FIRST. YES, YES.
MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS AB 2113
PROTECTS THE INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ARTISTS
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES AND
ADDRESSES A GROWING PUBLIC
SAFETY GAP AT PUBLIC EVENTS DUE
TO THE GROWING USE OF DRONES
ACROSS CALIFORNIA, LARGE
TICKETED ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS
SUCH AS CONCERTS, FESTIVALS AND
SPORTING EVENTS BRING THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE INTO DENSE, CONFINED
SPACES, INCLUDING MANY VENUES
IN MY DISTRICT. UNAUTHORIZED
DRONES ACTIVITIES IN THESE
SETTINGS POSES REAL RISKS TO
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CAN INTERFERE
WITH EVENT OPERATIONS AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE. WHILE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REGULATES
AIRSPACE, LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING
PUBLIC SAFETY ON THE GROUND.
YET CURRENT LAW DOES NOT
PROVIDE A CLEAR STATE LEVEL
PROHIBITION. ADDRESSING THIS
ISSUE, AB 2113 CREATES A
STRAIGHTFORWARD PROHIBITION ON
OPERATING UNAUTHORIZED DRONES
WITHIN 400FT OF, OR DIRECTLY
ABOVE A LARGE OUTDOOR, TICKETED
ENTERTAINMENT VENUE. THIS BILL
ESTABLISHES A $500 INFRACTION
AND INCLUDES CLEAR EXEMPTIONS
FOR AUTHORIZED OPERATORS,
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL, UTILITY
WORKERS AND OTHER ACTING AND
OTHERS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF THEIR DUTIES. MY OFFICE AND
THE SPONSOR HAVE BEEN ENGAGING
WITH STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT
THIS PROCESS, AND I WANT TO
THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR
PATIENCE AND COLLABORATION. WE
REMAIN COMMITTED TO WORKING IN
GOOD FAITH AS THE BILL MOVES
FORWARD TO ADDRESS CONCERNS OF
STAKEHOLDERS, I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE AND MY
WITNESSES, JOSH. STEVE STEVENS
FROM LIVE NATION. THANK YOU.
GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. THANK
YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO
ADDRESS YOU TODAY. MY NAME IS
JOSH STEVENS. I'M HERE ON
BEHALF OF LIVE NATION,
TICKETMASTER. I'M HERE TODAY
SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF AB 2113 AS
A NECESSARY AND SIGNIFICANT
IMPROVEMENT ON PUBLIC SAFETY
REGULATIONS FOR LIVE OUTDOOR
EVENTS AND THE LARGE CROWDS
THEY ATTRACT. LAST YEAR ALONE,
WE WELCOMED MILLIONS OF FANS TO
LIVE NATION EVENTS ACROSS
THOUSANDS OF CONCERTS. MODERN
TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS DRONES AND
OTHER UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
PRESENT A NEW CHALLENGE FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY AT LARGE EVENTS,
AND THIS BILL WOULD BE A
MEANINGFUL STEP TO SOLVING THAT
CHALLENGE. RECREATIONAL DRONE
USAGE HAS INCREASED
SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE PAST
FIVE YEARS, MORE THAN 160%
SINCE 2019, ACCORDING TO THE
FAA. AND OUR OPERATIONAL
EXPERIENCE REFLECTS THAT DRONE
INCURSIONS HAVE UNFORTUNATELY
BECOME MORE COMMON AT ALL TYPES
OF EVENTS, FROM SMALL CONCERTS
TO THE LARGEST FESTIVALS.
DESPITE THAT, REGULATORY
GUIDELINES HAVE NOT KEPT UP TO
THIS NEW TREND AND LEAVE EVENT
ORGANIZERS AND OUR LAW
ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS VULNERABLE
TO POTENTIAL BAD ACTORS.
FEDERAL GUIDELINES AND
PROCESSES ARE CURRENTLY
INCONSISTENT FOR EVENT
ORGANIZERS AND RARELY APPLY TO
ANY BUT THE LARGEST OF EVENTS,
SUCH AS THE WORLD CUP MATCHES
HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN L.A. AND
THE BAY AREA. WHILE THERE HAVE
BEEN EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE
SITUATION AND STREAMLINE
TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTION
PROCESSES WITH THE FAA, THESE
HAVE NOT LED TO CONSISTENT OR
MEANINGFUL CHANGE. TO DATE,
LIVE NATION ALONE HOSTED MORE
THAN 1000 EVENTS IN 2025, WITH
10,000 OR MORE ATTENDEES THAT
DID NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS
FOR FAA TFRS TO PREVENT DRONE
USAGE ABOVE THOSE LARGE CROWDS.
AS A RESULT, NEW STATE LAW
REMAINS THE BEST OPTION FOR
HELPING EVENT ORGANIZERS KEEP
ATTENDEES SAFE AND GIVING LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THE
REGULATIONS THEY NEED TO TAKE
ACTION AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED
DRONE USERS NEAR LIVE EVENTS.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB 2113? PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE SEEING NO ONE ELSE
COME FORWARD. ARE THERE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO AB 2113?
THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MEMBERS OF
THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MASON
SISK. I'M WITH OVSI. THE
ASSOCIATION FOR UNCREWED
VEHICLE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL.
WE'RE THE WORLD'S LARGEST TRADE
ASSOCIATION DEDICATED TO THE
ADVANCEMENTS OF ROBOTICS AND
UNCREWED SYSTEMS. WE REPRESENT
A BROAD COALITION OF
STAKEHOLDERS, FROM DRONE
MANUFACTURERS TO OPERATORS AND
AND EVEN PUBLIC SAFETY AND
HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS.
I WANT TO START BY THANKING THE
THE AUTHOR AND THE SPONSOR.
WE'VE BEEN HAVING VERY GOOD
DISCUSSIONS AND HAVE BEEN
OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH TO
FIGURE OUT A GOOD WAY TO, TO
COME TO AN AGREEMENT, OUR, OUR,
OUR, OUR, OUR. ISSUE WITH THE
BILL REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
LOITERING AND HOVERING AND THE
DISRUPTIVE USE OF DRONES, WHICH
IS WHAT THE BILL IS INTENDED TO
DO, AND SEPARATE THAT FROM THE
COMMERCIAL, THE COMMERCIAL
DRONE ACTIVITY THAT MIGHT BE
FLYING FROM POINT A TO POINT B,
THAT IS AN FAA EXEMPTION THAT
WE'VE INCLUDED IN SIMILAR BILLS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY IN SEVEN
OTHER STATES AT LEAST. AND IT
IT REALLY PRESERVES THE THE
POINT OF THE BILL, WHICH IS TO
TO GO AFTER THAT DISRUPTIVE AND
THE THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
OF THE ARTISTS. BUT IT DOESN'T
DISRUPT THE COMMERCIAL
OPERATIONS THAT THAT SO MANY OF
THE COMMUNITIES AROUND THE
STATE ARE, ARE ALREADY REAPING
THE BENEFITS OF. SO I WOULD ASK
THAT THAT THE COMMITTEE NOT
SUPPORT THE THE BILL UNTIL WE
HAVE LANGUAGE FIGURED OUT. I
THINK WE'RE CLOSE. WE'VE BEEN
WORKING TOGETHER IN THE LAST
FEW WEEKS, AND I THINK THAT
THAT WE'RE GOING TO. I'M
OPTIMISTIC THAT WE'LL GET SOME
LANGUAGE TOGETHER THAT WILL
SUIT BOTH OUR NEEDS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE
ANY OTHER OPPOSITION WITNESSES
FOR AB 2113? SEEING NO ONE ELSE
COME FORWARD? WE HAVE A MOTION
BY VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU.
COLLEAGUES. ANY ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE
BILL? SEEING NONE, I'LL TURN IT
BACK OVER. THE AUTHOR TO CLOSE.
WELL, I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN
AYE VOTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE
HAVE A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR OF
THE COMMITTEE. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. AB 2113. MOTION IS TO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I
AGAIN, I SAY. COR TÚI CABALLERO.
CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ.
WIENER. WE'LL KEEP THAT BILL
AND CALL FOR ABSENT SENATORS.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND I
BELIEVE YOU'LL BE PRESENTING
FILE TÂM 38AB2553. YES. THANK
YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND MEMBERS A B
553 WILL I HAVE WILL CORRECT
THE PROBLEM. REAL ESTATE FRAUD
CAN DEVASTATE VICTIMS
FINANCIALLY WHICH CAN STRIP
THEM OF THEIR HOMES, LIFE
SAVINGS OR BOTH. YET UNDER
CURRENT LAW, COURTS MAY LACK
ADEQUATE TIME TO ENSURE THAT
OFFENDERS COMPLETE THE
REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMING
NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE
UNDERLYING CONDUCT. PROGRAMING
SUCH AS FINANCIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY COURSES AND
FRAUD PREVENTION EDUCATION CAN
HELP, BUT ONLY IF OFFENDERS
REMAIN UNDER COURT SUPERVISION
LONG ENOUGH TO COMPLETE IT. IN
PRACTICE, THIS MEANS COURTS CAN
ASK. COURTS ARE SOMETIMES LEFT
WITHOUT THE DISCRETION THEY
NEED IN SERIOUS FELONY CASES
WHERE ADDITIONAL SUPERVISION
SUPERVISION IS WARRANTED. AND
ACTUALLY THE AUTHOR IS
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. I FORGOT TO SAY
THAT. LET ME MAKE SURE TO MAKE
THAT CLEAR. THE SOLUTION TO
THIS IS A B 553 GIVES COURTS
LIMITED DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY
TO EXTEND PROBATION FOR UP TO
ONE YEAR FOR INDIVIDUALS
CONVICTED OF FELONY REAL ESTATE
CRIMES, BUT ONLY WHEN THE COURT
FINDS THAT MORE TIME IS
NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
PROGRAMING. THIS BILL DOES NOT
MANDATE EXTRA PROBATION.
INSTEAD, ANY EXTENSION REQUIRES
INDIVIDUALIZED JUDICIAL REVIEW
BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
AB 553 IS A TARGETED APPROACH
THAT GIVES JUDGES THE
ADDITIONAL TIME NEEDED TO
ENSURE OFFENDERS OF REAL ESTATE
FRAUD COMPETITIVE NECESSARY
PROGRAMING SUCH AS FINANCIAL
ACCOUNTABILITY COURSES OR FRAUD
PREVENTION. AND WITH THAT, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE,
AND I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR
WITNESS. THANK YOU. APOLOGIES.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. NATHAN SCOTT, ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS HERE IN
PROUD SPONSOR OF AB 2553. WE
APPRECIATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER
PETRIE-NORRIS AND THE COMMITTEE
FOR WORKING WITH US TO
SUBSTANTIALLY NARROW THIS
MEASURE. AND, OF COURSE,
ASSEMBLY MEMBER TINA MACKINNON
FOR HELPING PITCH IT AND
PRESENT THIS BILL TODAY. THE
AMENDMENTS, BEFORE YOU REMOVE
MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES FROM THE
BILL, AS WAS MENTIONED,
LIMITING ITS APPLICATION TO
INDIVIDUALS CAN CONVICTED OF
SPECIFIED FELONY REAL ESTATE
CRIMES. FOR MOST CALIFORNIANS,
BUYING AND SELLING A HOME IS
THE SINGLE LARGEST FINANCIAL
TRANSACTION OF THEIR LIVES.
CRIMES SUCH AS DEED FRAUD,
MORTGAGE FRAUD, FORGED REAL
ESTATE DOCUMENTS, IDENTITY
THEFT AND OTHER SOPHISTICATED
REAL ESTATE FRAUD SCHEMES CAN
STRIP FAMILIES OF THEIR SAVINGS
CLOUD TITLE TO THEIR HOMES AND
LEAVE VICTIMS FACING YEARS OF
FINANCIAL AND LEGAL HARDSHIP.
THE AMENDMENTS APPROPRIATELY
FOCUS THIS BILL ON THOSE MOST
SERIOUS FELONY OFFENSES, WHERE
COURTS MAY DETERMINE THAT
ADDITIONAL REHABILITATIVE
PROGRAMING IS NECESSARY BEFORE
THAT PERIOD ENDS. IMPORTANTLY,
AB 2553 DOES NOT CREATE
AUTOMATIC PROBATION EXTENSIONS,
NOR DOES IT INCREASE CRIMINAL
PENALTIES. THE BILL PRESERVES
JUDICIAL DISCRETION. A COURT
MAY EXTEND PROBATION FOR UP TO
ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR ONLY AFTER
MAKING A FINDING THAT
ADDITIONAL TIME IS NECESSARY
FOR PROGRAMING FOR DEFENDANTS
ON FORMAL PROBATION. THE
PROBATION DEPARTMENT MUST FIRST
PETITION THE COURT BEFORE ANY
EXTENSION CAN EVEN BE
CONSIDERED. THIS MEASURED
APPROACH GIVES COURTS AN
ADDITIONAL TOOL TO PROMOTE
REHABILITATION AND
ACCOUNTABILITY, WHILE
MAINTAINING APPROPRIATE
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AND
INDIVIDUALIZED JUDICIAL REVIEW.
THE COMMITTEE'S AMENDMENTS
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE THE BILL
BY ENSURING IT IS NARROWLY
TAILORED TO SERIOUS FELONY
CONDUCT. ADDRESSING CONCERNS
THAT A BROADER APPLICATION
COULD HAVE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES FOR LESS SERIOUS
OFFENSES, WE APPRECIATE THE
COMMITTEE'S THOUGHTFUL WORK AND
THE AUTHOR'S WILLINGNESS TO
COLLABORATE WITH STAKEHOLDERS
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. WE
BELIEVE THE BILL NOW REFLECTS
AN APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN
PROMOTING MEANINGFUL
REHABILITATION AND PRESERVING
JUDICIAL JURISDICTION OR
DISCRETION. FOR THOSE REASONS,
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR
VOTE ON AB 2553. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT FOR AB 2553? MR.
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS. DAN, ON
BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. FITZPATRICK, ON BEHALF
OF THE CALIFORNIA DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. OKAY.
UNLESS THERE'S ANYONE ELSE
WISHING TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR
AB 2553, WE'LL TAKE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES AT THIS
TIME. CHAIR MEMBERS, MY NAME IS
ROBERT RODRIGUEZ. I'M A JUDGE
ADVOCATE WITH ACLU CAL ACTION.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO EXTEND
GRATITUDE TO THE AUTHOR FOR
ACCEPTING THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS TO NO LONGER COVER
MISDEMEANORS. EVEN THOUGH THIS
IS A POSITIVE AMENDMENT, WE ARE
STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE
APPROACH IN THIS BILL.
CALIFORNIA HAS IMPLEMENTED
VARIOUS CRIMINAL JUSTICE
REFORMS, SHIFTING STATE
RESOURCES AWAY FROM A LEGACY OF
OVERINCARCERATION AND TOWARDS
PREVENTION, INTERVENTION AND
TREATMENT. HOWEVER, EFFORTS TO
EXTEND PROBATIONARY PERIODS
CONTAIN MANY ISSUES THAT ARE
ANTITHETICAL TO THIS RECENT
TREND. A COUPLE SESSIONS AGO,
THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A
HISTORIC REFORM, WHICH THE
AUTHOR VOTED AGAINST AB 1950.
BY THEN, ASSEMBLY MEMBER
KAMLAGER OF AB 2553 SEEKS TO
REVERSE THIS PROGRESS AND IS
PREMATURE. WE ENCOURAGE THE
LEGISLATURE TO ALLOW FOR THIS
RECENT REFORM TO CONTINUE
TAKING EFFECT BEFORE WE MAKE
ANY FURTHER CHANGES. IN
ADDITION, A 2018 STUDY FOUND
THAT A LARGE PORTION OF PEOPLE
VIOLATE PROBATION AND END UP
INCARCERATED. AS A RESULT. THE
SAME STUDY REVEALED THAT 24% OF
PRISON ADMISSIONS IN CALIFORNIA
ARE THE RESULT OF SUPERVISED
VIOLATIONS, VASTLY INCREASING
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE SPEND ON
AN ANNUAL BASIS TO INCARCERATE
PEOPLE FOR THESE VIOLATIONS.
PRIOR TO THE AB 1950 REFORM,
INCARCERATION FOR SUPERVISION
REVOCATIONS COST CALIFORNIA
TAXPAYERS AT LEAST 2 BILLION A
YEAR. WE CANNOT HAVE A DOUBLE
STANDARD WHERE LEGISLATORS
OFTEN CITE BUDGETARY RESTRAINT
FOR INVESTING IN COMMUNITIES TO
COMBAT THE ROOT CAUSES OF CRIME,
BUT CONTINUE TO PASS CARCERAL
REFORMS THAT FURTHER DRAIN
TAXPAYER RESOURCES WITHOUT
BATTING AN EYE. FOR THESE
REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE A
NO VOTE ON AB 2553. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMITTEE.
MY NAME IS SOPHIA NEWHOUSE
BROWN. AGAIN, I'M A PUBLIC
DEFENDER IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY
REPRESENTING THE PUBLIC
DEFENDERS UNION LOCAL 148 AND
WE RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. AGAIN, WE'RE OPPOSING
THIS BILL BECAUSE THERE'S NO
ADDED BENEFIT TO KEEPING PEOPLE
ON PROBATION. AGAIN, IT'S JUST
COSTLY. THE COURT ALREADY
RETAINS JURISDICTION TO CHANGE,
MODIFY OR EXTEND SOMEONE'S
PROBATION IN THE CASE THAT THEY
HAVEN'T COMPLETED THEIR
AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATIONS AND
THEY'RE ABLE TO GRANT A NEW
TERM OF PROBATION. IF THE COURT
FINDS, AFTER HEARING THAT THEY
DID NOT COMPLETE THEIR
AFFIRMATIVE OBLIGATIONS. AND
UNLIKE THE PROBATION ON THE
SEXUAL OFFENDER BILL, THIS
THERE'S NO MANDATED PROBATION
OBLIGATIONS ALREADY SET WITH
PROPERTY OFFENSES. THERE ARE
ALSO THESE THESE PROPERTY
OFFENSES ARE SOME OF THE MOST
COMMON BILLS OR THE COMMON
OFFENSES IN MY JURISDICTION.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE FOUND GUILTY OF
THESE OFFENSES HAVE VARYING
AMOUNTS. IF ANY, PROBATION
OBLIGATION. AND ALTHOUGH THERE
ARE. THIS THIS BILL HAS NOW
BEEN AMENDED TO ONLY SUPPORT
FELONY CONDUCT. THERE ARE MANY
OF THE CHARGES IN THIS BILL
THAT ARE WOBBLERS. SO THEY'RE
ALREADY TAKING INTO
CONSIDERATION THE PROBATION
PERIOD, THE MITIGATING FACTORS
WHEN ORIGINALLY CHARGING THIS
BILL. AND BECAUSE THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE ALREADY TAKEN
INTO CONSIDERATION, WE WE
STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
OPPOSITION? A B 2553. MARCO
GEORGE, ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER OPPOSITION WITNESSES?
OKAY, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE
DAIS. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
SENATOR CORTEZ, I FEEL LIKE
WE'VE HAD SOME GREAT
DISCUSSIONS IN THIS COMMITTEE
THIS YEAR AROUND PROBATION. AND
I'VE TYPICALLY FALLEN ON THE
SIDE OF NOT WANTING TO TO
EXTEND SOMETHING THAT I'VE
REFERRED TO AS A SYSTEM THAT'S
BROKEN IN SEVERAL WAYS. HOWEVER,
I APPRECIATE THE CHAIR AND THE
COMMITTEE NARROWING THIS BILL
TO THE POINT THAT YOU HAVE, AND
I'M GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE
BECAUSE OF THAT. SO I'M
STRAYING FROM MY USUAL PATTERNS
HERE A LITTLE BIT TODAY. BUT I
DO APPRECIATE THE WORK OF THE
COMMITTEE. I WANT TO BE
SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, AND I'D BE
HAPPY TO MOVE THE BILL IF A
MOTION IS NEEDED LATER. ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS
FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS? WE HAVE
A MOTION BY SENATOR CORTEZ, AND
I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE
ASSEMBLY. MEMBER. TO CLOSE, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A
MOTION. IF THE COMMITTEE PLEASE
CALL THE ROLL. A B 2553
PETRIE-NORRIS MOTION IS DO PASS
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
AGAIN I AGAIN I SAY, I SAY I
CABALLERO CABALLERO I CORTEZ
CORTEZ I PEREZ WIENER WE'LL
KEEP THAT ON CALL FOR ABSENT
SENATORS. THANK YOU ALL. AND WE
HAVE ONE MORE BILL. AND I JUST
WANT TO TAKE THIS UP TO THANK
THE VICE CHAIR FOR BEING HERE
THROUGHOUT THE DAY AS I HAD TO
GO CHAIR OTHER COMMITTEES AND
TALKING ABOUT ME. YES. AND
PRESENT BILLS TO KEEP THE
HEARING GOING. AND TO MY
COLLEAGUES AS WELL FOR YOUR
YOUR PATIENCE AND PARTICIPATION.
AND I'LL NOW TURN IT OVER TO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER BRYANT TO
PRESENT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR,
AND AND I THINK THIS WOULD BE
AN EXCELLENT BILL FOR THE VICE
CHAIR TO PRESIDE AS WELL. I'M
GRATEFUL TO BE WITH YOU ALL.
I'M PROUD TO PRESENT AB 2599, A
BILL FOCUSED ON CORPORATE
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
FOR CENTURIES, PRIVATE
CORPORATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY
BENEFITED FROM CHATTEL SLAVERY.
THEY BENEFITED FROM THE
ECONOMIC WEALTH TRANSFER OF
FREE LABOR. THEY WROTE LOANS
USING SLAVES AS COLLATERAL TO
ENSURE THOSE LOANS AND
UNDERWROTE THEM WITH THAT SAME
SLAVE LABOR. BUT A LOT OF THESE
STORIES HAVE BEEN ERASED OR
PURPOSELY HIDDEN FROM THE
PUBLIC. THE TRUTH AND
DISCLOSURE ACT REQUIRES THAT
ANY COMPANY WITH ANNUAL
WORLDWIDE GROSS RECEIPTS OF
OVER $100 MILLION TO VERIFY AND
SEARCH ITS RECORDS FOR ANY
TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO WEALTH
GAINED DURING CHATTEL SLAVERY,
AND REPORT THAT WEALTH TO THE
STATE TO BE HELD IN A PUBLIC
DIGITAL ARCHIVE. THIS BILL IS
SIMPLY ABOUT TRUTH. IT'S ABOUT
DISCLOSURE, AND SO THAT WE HAVE
AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW OUR
PUBLIC INVESTMENTS MIGHT STILL
BE GOING TO CORPORATIONS THAT
HAVE BENEFITED FROM SOME OF THE
DARKEST MOMENTS, IF NOT THE
DARKEST MOMENT IN AMERICAN
HISTORY. WITH ME TO TESTIFY
TODAY IS MONA TAOTAO,
REPRESENTING EQUAL JUSTICE
SOCIETY AND THE ALLIANCE FOR
REPARATIONS, RECONCILIATION AND
TRUTH. HI. GOOD EVENING. HI.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M VERY
PLEASED TO BE HERE TO TESTIFY
IN SUPPORT OF AB 2599 AND THE
HISTORIC BILL THAT THIS BODY
PASSED TWO YEARS AGO THAT LED
TO A FORMAL APOLOGY FOR THE
ROLE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PLAYED IN PERPETUATING AND
PROFITING FROM THE ENSLAVEMENT
OF BLACK PEOPLE. THE
LEGISLATURE DECLARED THAT
CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIES BENEFITED
FROM ILL GOTTEN GAINS BASED ON
CHATTEL SLAVERY, AND IT MADE
THAT DECLARATION BECAUSE YOU
RECOGNIZED HOW IMPORTANT IT IS
TO EXAMINE THOSE ILL GOTTEN
GAINS AND TO ENSURE THAT THE
SIN OF COMMODIFYING HUMAN
BEINGS FOR CORPORATE PROFIT
NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. AND THIS
IS WHAT THE TRUTH AND
DISCLOSURE ACT IS ALL ABOUT. IT
WOULD REQUIRE QUALIFYING
COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN
CALIFORNIA TO EXAMINE THEIR
HISTORY FOR THOSE ILL GOTTEN
GAINS, AND TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT
WHETHER THEY PROFITED FROM
SLAVERY, SO THAT THE STATE CAN
THEN SHARE THAT TRUTH WITH THE
PUBLIC. THE BILL ANALYSIS FOR
THIS COMMITTEE STATES
TRANSPARENCY REGARDING
HISTORICAL PRACTICES IS
ESSENTIAL TO RESPONSIBLE
GOVERNANCE AND ETHICAL BUSINESS
STANDARDS. AB 2599 EMBODIES
THESE VALUES AND FOLLOWS A LINE
OF CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION THAT
HOLDS CORPORATIONS TO THESE
VALUES, TO ACCOUNTABILITY, AND
TO A UNIFORM MORAL STANDARD. IN
2000, THE STATE ENACTED THE
SLAVERY ERA INSURANCE POLICIES
LAW BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE
DETERMINED THAT THE DESCENDANTS
OF ENSLAVED PEOPLE AND ALL
PEOPLE IN CALIFORNIA DESERVE TO
KNOW THAT TRUTH, THAT TRUTH
ABOUT INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT
EXIST TODAY BECAUSE OF CAPITAL
GAIN FROM SLAVERY. TEN YEARS
LATER, THE STATE ENACTED THE
CALIFORNIA TRANSPARENCY AND
SUPPLY CHAINS ACT TO FURTHER
THE STATE'S GOAL AND MORAL
IMPERATIVE TO ERADICATE SLAVERY
AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING ONCE AND
FOR ALL. THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD
FOR THAT LAW SHOWS THAT
CALIFORNIANS CARE WHETHER
COMPANIES DOING BUSINESS IN THE
STATE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING
AND DOING WHAT'S MORAL. THIS
BILL HAS BROAD SUPPORT FROM
DOZENS OF MULTIRACIAL AND
MULTISECTOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT
WORK WITH MILLIONS OF VOTERS
THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND, YOU
KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN VERY
STRONG SUPPORT WITH THIS BILL
COMING OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY AND
MOST RECENTLY IN THIS BODY LAST
WEEK, PASSING THROUGH THE
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. WE
KINDLY ASK THAT YOU DO THE SAME
TODAY AND VOTE YES ON AB 2599.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I INVITE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD
LIKE TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR AB
2599. PLEASE COME FORWARD. IF
YOU COULD PLEASE STATE YOUR
NAME, ORGANIZATION OR CITY
YOU'RE FROM AND YOUR POSITION
ON THE BILL. HELLO. KRISTIN
NIMMERS ON BEHALF OF THE
ALLIANCE REPARATIONS LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS, CATALYST
CALIFORNIA, AND EQUAL JUSTICE
SOCIETY. THANK YOU. SLOANE.
NOELLE JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF
LIVE FREE CALIFORNIA AND IMANI
COMMUNITY CHURCH IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF AB 2599. THANK YOU.
HELLO. MY NAME IS JONAH
MOREHOUSE AND I'M HERE TODAY
REPRESENTING FOUR ORGANIZATIONS
THE CALIFORNIA BLACK POWER
NETWORK, ALLIANCE FOR
REPARATIONS, RECONCILIATION AND
TRUTH, A NEW WAY OF LIFE, AND
ELLA BAKER CENTER AND STRONGLY
IN SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU, THANK YOU. HELLO. MY NAME
IS BETTY WATKINS, REPRESENTING
BLACK WOMEN ORGANIZED FOR
POLITICAL ACTION. AND WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THE PASSING OF
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. KEVIN WARD WITH LIVE
FREE CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
SUPPORT OF AB 2599. THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIR MEMBERS. I AM
REVEREND CALVIN SALAS. GLAD TO
BE HERE. ON BEHALF OF LIVE FREE
CALIFORNIA AND THE ALLIANCE FOR
REPARATIONS, RECONCILIATION AND
TRUTH, AS WELL AS CLERGY FOR
BLACK LIVES IN LOS ANGELES AS
WELL AS CITY OF REFUGE IN
OAKLAND. TO STRONGLY SUPPORT
THIS BILL AS WE MOVE TOWARDS
ACCOUNTABILITY. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DAMON
WOODS. I'M WITH THE BLACK
EQUITY COLLECTIVE. WE REPRESENT
BLACK LED ORGANIZATIONS IN LOS
ANGELES COUNTY, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY AND SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY, AND WE ARE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING CHAIR MEMBERS AND
STAFF. MY NAME IS DEBORAH
SANDERS WITH BLACK CALIFORNIA
UNITED FOR EARLY CARE AND
EDUCATION, ALSO A MEMBER OF ART
AND STRONG SUPPORT OF THE BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS,
KAREN STOUT HERE ON BEHALF OF
POWER CALIFORNIA ACTION AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. LONNIE
NORWOOD, REPRESENTING THE
INLAND EMPIRE BLACK WOMEN'S
COLLECTIVE AND ALSO THE
ALLIANCE FOR REPARATIONS,
RECONCILIATION AND TRUTH AND
STRONG SUPPORT OF AB 2599.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE
ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO EXPRESS
SUPPORT FOR AB TWO FIVE, NINE
NINE, SEEING NO ONE ELSE COME
FORWARD? ARE THERE ANY
OPPOSITION WITNESSES TO THE
BILL SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD,
BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS FOR
ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR
EMOTION? MOVED BY SENATOR
CABALLERO, VICE CHAIR. THANK
YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO IN 2000, SB
2199 WAS PASSED AND IT KIND OF
DOES THE SAME THING. SO ALL OF
THOSE THAT DID THEIR REPORTING
AND IN THAT BILL. DO THEY HAVE
TO REPORT AGAIN, OR IS THIS
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THEY'VE
ALREADY DONE THIS EXERCISE?
THAT PARTICULAR LEGISLATION WAS
FOR A SPECIFIC INDUSTRY BACK
THEN, AND IT WAS A ONE TIME
SNAPSHOT, ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE
COLLECTED AND REPORTED THEN
WE'VE MENTIONED IN OUR BILL CAN
BE USED TO SATISFY THIS
REQUIREMENT AS WELL, ALTHOUGH
WE HAVE MORE REQUIREMENTS FOR
DISCLOSURE IN HERE THAN WAS
PASSED IN THAT ORIGINAL
LEGISLATION BACK THEN. ALL
RIGHT. SO ESSENTIALLY, THEY
HAVE A HEAD START ON OTHER
COMPANIES, AND THEREFORE IT
SHOULD BE EASIER FOR THEM TO
COMPLY BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE
CONDITIONS WOULD ALREADY BE
SATISFIED. AND IS THIS I MEAN,
ARE THEY TRYING TO SEEK
RESTITUTION FROM THESE
COMPANIES, OR ARE THEY TRYING
TO GET PEOPLE TO BOYCOTT THESE
COMPANIES? WHAT'S THE END GOAL?
YEAH, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE THEY
ARE, BUT I KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE
WHO WANT THIS BILL TO PASS,
WHAT DO THEY WANT? WHAT DO THEY
WANT THE OUTCOME TO BE? I WANT
THIS BILL TO PASS. AND I THINK
MORE THAN ANYTHING, I THINK WE
SHOULD HAVE A TRUE AND HONEST
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING ON THE
PRIVATE WEALTH THAT'S BEEN
GENERATED AND AND EXTRACTED
FROM OUR COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP
OF BLACK BODIES DURING CHATTEL
SLAVERY. WE TALK A LOT ABOUT
WHAT THE THE PUBLIC REPAIR
LOOKS LIKE, BUT WE NEVER TALK
ABOUT THE PRIVATE WEALTH THAT'S
STILL BEEN GENERATED. THE FACT
THAT MANY OF THE MAJOR LENDERS,
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THIS
COUNTRY, SOME OF THE
FOUNDATIONAL WEALTH THAT WAS
GENERATED, WAS GENERATED FROM
CHATTEL SLAVERY. I THINK THERE
ARE PROBABLY FOLKS ON THE DAIS
WHO DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THE FACT
THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES
UNDERWROTE LOANS WITH SLAVES,
INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT ARE
STILL OPERATING TODAY, AND SOME
OF THESE COMPANIES HAVE VERY
LUCRATIVE PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND
RELATIONSHIPS WITH LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS AND WITH THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. AND I THINK THE
MORE WE KNOW ABOUT THIS
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OUR CIVIC
INSTITUTIONS, OUR PUBLIC SECTOR,
AND THE WEALTH GENERATED
PRIVATELY AND HOW FAR BACK THAT
RELATIONSHIP GOES, ESPECIALLY
AS IT PERTAINS TO CHATTEL
SLAVERY. I THINK THE BETTER
INFORMED WE ALL ARE ON HOW WE
SHOULD SPEND TAX DOLLARS GOING
FORWARD. OKAY. THANK YOU. I
THINK I FIGURED OUT THE ANSWER
TO THE QUESTION IN LISTENING TO
YOU AS WELL. SO BASICALLY, AS
FAR AS THE DEFINITION OF
SLAVERY FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
BILL IS CHATTEL SLAVERY. I MEAN,
IT'S PERSONS BOUGHT AND SOLD.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO THE LEVEL OF
SOMEBODY PAID $0.42 AN HOUR TO
WORK ALL DAY. YEAH, I SUSPECT
THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF YOUR NEXT
NÓ, BUT THAT'S DEFINITELY A
CONVERSATION WORTH HAVING
BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT SLAVERY IS
ALSO STILL IN CALIFORNIA'S
CONSTITUTION, AND WE
PARTICIPATE IN IT THROUGH OUR
OWNERSHIP OF OF BODIES IN OUR
CARCERAL SYSTEM STILL TODAY.
BUT NO, THIS IS LOOKING
SPECIFICALLY GOING BACK TO
CHATTEL SLAVERY. IT'S TRACING
THAT BACK THROUGH CORPORATIONS
THAT EITHER EXISTED OR ARE
ESSENTIALLY. DRAW THEIR, THEIR,
THEIR HISTORY BACK TO TIMES OF
CHATTEL SLAVERY. ABSOLUTELY.
AND YOU CAN THINK OF THE
FINANCIAL SECTOR IN A MAJOR WAY,
THE TEXTILE SECTOR IN A MAJOR
WAY, THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR IN
A MAJOR WAY. THERE ARE
DEFINITELY SECTORS, PRETTY MUCH
PRETTY MUCH ALL SECTORS. OKAY.
THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE
QUESTION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
OR COMMENTS? NOW I'LL TURN IT
BACK OVER TO ASSEMBLYMEMBER
BRIAN TO CLOSE. THIS BILL IS
THE ONLY PRIORITY LEGISLATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE
BLACK CAUCUS THIS CYCLE. IT IS
IMPORTANT FOR A NUMBER OF
REASONS. IT DOESN'T CALL FOR
ANY IMMEDIATE REMEDIES. I THINK
IT'S IT'S FIRST MOST IMPORTANT
TO HAVE A TRUE AND HONEST
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHERE WE ARE
AND HOW WE GOT HERE. BEFORE WE
DECIDE WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT
RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE TO
PROVIDE MEANINGFUL REDRESS. IT
HAS HAD SUPPORT, SIGNIFICANT
SUPPORT ACROSS THE ASSEMBLY AND
IN ITS FIRST COMMITTEE HERE IN
THE SENATE. AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR YOUR VOTE TODAY. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A MOTION.
YEAH. YES, I'LL MOVE IT. THANK
YOU. IF WE CAN, PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL. AB 2529 BRIAN, MOTION IS
TO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN.
I AGAIN I SAY. COR. NØ.
CABALLERO CABALLERO I CORTESE
CORTESE I PEREZ WIENER I WIENER
I THAT BILL HAS SUFFICIENT
VOTES FOR. WE'LL WAIT FOR THE
ABSENT MEMBER. THANK YOU. OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO DO THE ROLL CALL
ONCE. SO DO WE KNOW WHEN
SENATOR PEREZ WILL BE ARRIVING?
AND HOW. SO THEY WERE ABSENT.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE GOALS BECAUSE
ALL I SAW WAS NO, I THERE WAS
NO END GAME. WELL, I KNOW
THERE'S MULTIPLE MULTIPLE BILLS.
ONE ONE BIG ONE I KNOW. OKAY.
WELL THEN. OKAY, SO GIVEN THAT
WE HAVE ONE MEMBER WHO'S NOT
GOING TO BE HERE IMMEDIATELY,
LET'S JUST LET'S DO THE ROLL
CALL FOR ALL MEMBERS WHO ARE
HERE. AND WE'LL KEEP WE'LL
RECESS THE COMMITTEE AND WAIT
FOR THE LAST SENATOR TO ARRIVE.
SO LET'S START WITH THE
BEGINNING, THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
IF WE CAN, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO 0. ORTEZ
ORTEZ. AYE, THAT'S IT FOR THAT.
OKAY, WE'LL KEEP THAT ON CALL.
ARE YOU SURE PEREZ VOTED ON
THAT? OKAY. NEXT IS FALLON AND
ONE RAMOS ÁP 31. RAMOS. MOTION
IS TO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
AGAIN. IS THERE A MOTION? OH
I'M SORRY. THESE ALL NEED
MOTION ITEM 1AB31 NEEDS A
MOTION MOVED BY SENATOR
CABALLERO. THANK YOU. AGAIN. I
AGAIN I SAY I SAY A CABALLERO.
CABALLERO AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ I
PEREZ WIENER AYE WIENER AYE
KEEP THAT ON CALL ÁP. 458.
STEPHANIE MOTION IS TO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS. THAT
NEEDS A MOTION. I NEED A MOTION.
OKAY. A B 458 STEPHANIE NEEDS A
MOTION. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION.
THANK YOU AGAIN. I AGAIN I SAY
OR NOT SAY NOT VOTING CABALLERO
CABALLERO I CORTEZ. CORTEZ AYE.
PEREZ WIENER AYE WIENER AYE
WE'LL KEEP THAT ON CALL. THE
NEXT IS AB 1588. STEPHANIE I
HAVE A MOTION. IT DOES NOT MOVE.
MOVED BY VICE CHAIR CIERTO
THANK YOU. MOTION IS Dð PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I AGAIN I
SAY I SAY TO A CABALLERO
CABALLERO I CORTEZ. CORTEZ I
PEREZ WIENER WIENER AYE WE'LL
KEEP THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU.
MAYBE 910 NEEDS A MOTION TO
ENTERTAIN A MOTION AB 910 BY
ASSEMBLY. BONTA MOVED BY
SENATOR CORTEZ. THANK YOU. 8910.
A MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I AGAIN I
SAY NO, SAY NO. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO NOT VOTING. CORTEZ.
CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ. WIENER. AYE.
WIENER. AYE. WE'LL KEEP THAT ON
CALL. THANK YOU. NEXT IS
8AB2624 BY ASSEMBLY MEMBER
BONTA. DOES THAT NEED A MOTION
AS WELL. YES IT DOES. MOVE BY
SENATOR CORTEZ. THANK YOU.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. AB 2624.
BOND MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
AGAIN. I AGAIN I SAY NO, SAY NO.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO I CORTEZ.
CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ. WIENER AYE.
WIENER AYE WE'LL KEEP THAT ON
CALL THANK YOU. I THINK NEXT IS
ITEM NINE AB 1539. DOES THAT
NEED A MOTION. DOES OKAY
ENTERTAIN A MOTION. AB 1539 AT
THIS MOVE BY SENATOR CABALLERO.
THANK YOU. MAYBE. 1539 MOTION
IS TO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS
AGAIN. I AGAIN I SAY NO SAY NO.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ.
WIENER. WIENER. AYE WE'LL KEEP
THAT ON CALL. THANK YOU. OKAY.
NEXT I BELIEVE IS ITEM 12 AB
1607 BY MARK GONZALEZ. DOES
THAT NEED A MOTION. YES. OKAY.
MOTION ON FILE ITEM 12 AB 1607
MOVED BY VICE CHAIR CIERTO.
THANK YOU. MAYBE 1607 IS MOTION
IS DUE. PASSED TO THE FLOOR
AGAIN. I AGAIN I SAY I SAY TÔI.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO AYE.
CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ
1607070 AYE. PEREZ AYE. WIENER
WIENER AYE. OKAY THAT BILLS OUT
A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. AB 1650 NEEDS
A MOTION BY SENATOR CABALLERO.
THANK YOU. MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I AGAIN I
SAY NO SAY NO. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ.
AYE. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE. WIENER.
WIENER. AYE. THAT BILLS OUT IN
A VOTE OF 5 TO 1. THANK YOU. AB
1664. JACKSON NEEDS A MOTION.
IS THERE A MOTION. AB 1664 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER JACKSON. MOVE
THE BILL MOVE BY SENATE. PEREZ
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOTION IS
TO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN.
I AGAIN I SAY NO SAY NO.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ.
PEREZ. AYE. WIENER. AYE. WIENER.
AYE. OKAY. THAT BILLS OUT IN A
VOTE OF 5 TO 1. NEXT I BELIEVE
IS FILED 16 AB 1886. YEAH. OKAY.
BY EL-HAWARY. THAT NEEDS A
MOTION AS WELL. I'LL MOVE THE
BILL MOVE BY SENATE. PEREZ.
THANK YOU. MOTION IS DUE. PASS
TO THE FLOOR. AGAIN AND AGAIN I
SAY NO. CIERTO NÓ. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ.
AYE. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE. WIENER
WIENER. AYE. OKAY. THAT BILL IS
OUT ON A VOTE OF 5 TO 1. NEXT
IS FILE 17AB2403 ALSO BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER AL-HAWARI. DOES
THAT NEED A MOTION AS WELL.
I'LL MOVE THE BILL. OKAY. MOVED
BY SENATE. PEREZ THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
AGAIN. I AGAIN I SAY NOT VOTING
NOT VOTING. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ.
AYE. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE. WIENER.
AYE. WIENER. AYE. THAT BILLS
OUT IN A VOTE OF 5 TO 0. NEXT
IS FILE ITEM 18AB1897 BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER HANEY MOVED.
THANK YOU. MOTION BY VICE CHAIR
CIERTO. MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
AGAIN I AGAIN I SAY I SAY I
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ.
PEREZ AYE. WIENER AYE. WIENER
AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT IN A VOTE
OF 6 TO 0 I BELIEVE NEXT IS
FOLLOWED HIM. OH IT'S TRUE.
IT'S WELL IT'S A B 1902.
PELLERIN NEEDS A MOTION. THANK
YOU. MOVED BY VICE CHAIR CIERTO
MOTION IS TO PASS AS A Dð PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN I AGAIN
I SAY, I SAY TO A CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. ORTEZ. CORTEZ.
AYE. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE. WIENER.
AYE. WIENER. AYE. THAT BILL IS
OUT IN A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. THE
NEXT IS FILE ITEM. WELL A B
1905 SCHULZ AND A B 1905 SCHULZ.
MOTION IS TO PASS TO THE FLOOR.
CURRENT VOTE IS 2 TO 1 AGAIN I
AGAIN I CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE.
PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE. THAT BILL IS
OUT IN A VOTE OF 5 TO 1. NEXT
IS THE BURR WRIGHT 19, 1930 BY
BURR NEEDS A MOTION THAT NEEDS
A MOTION MOVED BY CABALLERO.
THANK YOU. MOTION IS DO PASS,
AS AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS
AGAIN I AGAIN I SAY NO CIERTO
NØ. CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
CORTEZ. ORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ. AYE.
PEREZ. AYE. WIENER. AYE. WIENER.
AYE. THAT BILLS OUT IN A VOTE
OF 5 TO 1. NEXT IS AB 1959 BY
PATEL. THAT NEEDS A MOTION
MOVED BY VICE CHAIR CIERTO C¯
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I AGAIN I
SAY, I SAY I CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ.
NOT VOTING. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE.
WIENER. AYE. WIENER. AYE. THAT
BILLS OUT IN A VOTE OF 5 TO 0 I
BELIEVE. NEXT IS BAUER-KAHAN A
B 2047 BAUER KAHAN. MOTION IS
DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. THE CURRENT
VOTE IS 4 TO 1. PEREZ. PEREZ.
AYE OKAY. THAT BILLS ON A 5 TO
1. NEXT IS A B 2108 BY SHARP.
COLLINS. MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CURRENT VOTE IS 3 TO 1. CORTEZ
AYE ORTEZ AYE. PEREZ. AYE.
PEREZ. AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT ON
A VOTE OF 5 TO 1. NEXT IS A B
2113 BY MCKINNON. MOTION IS TO
PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT
VOTE IS 3 TO 0. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. PEREZ. PEREZ.
AYE. WIENER. AYE. WIENER. AYE.
THAT BILLS OUT IN A VOTE OF 6
TO 0. NEXT IS A B 2411 ALSO BY
ASSEMBLY MEMBER MCKINNON. AND
THAT ONE NEEDED A MOTION THAT
NEEDS A MOTION. SENATOR
CABALLERO THANK YOU. AGAIN. I.
I SEE A CABALLERO. CABALLERO
AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ.
AYE. PEREZ. AYE. WIENER AYE
WIENER. AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT
IN A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. NEXT IS
FILE. NEXT IS A B 2232 BY
PATTERSON. NEEDS A MOTION. AND.
A B 2232 BY PATTERSON. NEEDS A
MOTION. MOVED BY VICE CHAIR
THANK YOU. MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
AGAIN I I SAY I SAY A CABALLERO
CABALLERO AYE. CORTEZ. ORTEZ.
AYE. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE. WIENER
SO THIS IS A A B 2232.
PATTERSON. Ó AYE. WIENER AYE
OKAY THAT IS A VOTE OF 6 TO 0.
NEXT IS A B 2237. PATTERSON
MOVE THE BILL MOVED BY VICE
CHAIR. CIERTO MOTION IS DO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. NO NO
I SAY A CABALLERO. CABALLERO.
CORTEZ. CORTEZ NO. PEREZ WIENER
NO. WIENER NO. BILL OKAY THAT
BILL FAILS. RECONSIDERATION.
RECONSIDERATION IS GRANTED
WITHOUT OBJECTION. SO GRANTED.
OKAY, NEXT IS A B 2235. PACHECO
A MOTION THAT NEEDS A MOTION A
B 2235. PACHECO. MOVED BY
SENATOR CORTEZ THANK YOU.
MOTION IS DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I AGAIN I
SAY I SAY CABALLERO. CABALLERO.
AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ.
PEREZ. AYE. WIENER AYE. WIENER.
AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT IN A VOTE
OF 6 TO 0. NEXT IS A B 2261.
DIXON NEEDS A MOTION THAT NEEDS
A MOTION. I'LL MOVE THE BILL
MOVED BY VICE CHAIR. THANK YOU.
MOTION IS DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I AGAIN I
SAY I SAY A CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ.
AYE. PEREZ. AYE. PEREZ. AYE.
WIENER AYE WIENER. AYE. THAT
BILL IS OUT IN A VOTE OF 6 TO 0.
NEXT IS A B 2304. LACKEY NEEDS
MOTION AND THAT NEEDS A MOTION
MOVED BY VICE CHAIR CIERTO
THANK YOU. MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I AGAIN I
SAY I SAY CABALLERO. CABALLERO.
AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ.
PEREZ. AYE WIENER AYE. WIENER
AYE. THAT BILL IS OUT IN A VOTE
OF 6 TO 0. NEXT IS A B 23792379.
IT'S A MOTION MOVED BY SENATOR
CABALLERO. THANK YOU. MOTION IS
TO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN.
I AGAIN I SAY TO SAY AS AMENDED
AS AMENDED APPROPRIATE. THANK
YOU. NO NO. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. CORTESE. CORTEZ.
AYE. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE. WIENER.
AYE. WIENER. AYE. OKAY. THAT
BILLS OUT IN ABOUT A 5 TO 1.
NEXT IS A B 2384. LOWENTHAL A
MOTION THAT NEEDS A MOTION.
MOVE BY CABALLERO. THANK YOU.
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I AGAIN I
SAY NO SEYARTO. CABALLERO.
CABALLERO. AYE. CORTEZ. ORTEZ.
Â. AYE. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE.
WIENER. AYE. WIENER. AYE. OKAY.
THAT BILLS OUT IN A VOTE OF 5
TO 1. NEXT IS A B 2405 GIBSON.
AND THAT NEEDS A MOTION. MOVE
BY CABALLERO. THANK YOU. MOTION
IS TO PASS TO APPROPRIATE AS I
DIDN'T I DON'T BELIEVE THEIR
AMENDMENTS. MOTION IS TO PASS
TO APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN. I
AGAIN I SAY NO SAY NO.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE ORTEZ.
ORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE.
WIENER. AYE. WIENER. AYE. THAT
BILLS OUT IN A VOTE OF 5 TO 1.
NEXT IS A B 2553. PETRIE-NORRIS
THAT EVERYONE RECORD THEIR
VOTES ON THAT ONE. TWO. WHERE
AM I. THAT'S OUT OF ORDER FOR
US. 25532553. WIENER
PETRIE-NORRIS 16 ON OUR 16 ON
OURS. OKAY YEAH SO A B 2553 IS
DO PASS AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. AND THE CURRENT
VOTE IS 4 TO 0. PEREZ THIS IS
FOR A B 2553 PETRIE-NORRIS 5531.
IF YOU DO REAL ESTATE CRIME YOU
CAN GET EXTENDED PROBATION.
JUST DON'T BE A SEX GUY. THAT'S.
A PEREZ I WIENER OH MY GOD.
WIENER AYE THAT BILLS OUT IN A
VOTE OF 6 TO 0. NEXT I HAVE IS
WE DID EVERYONE VOTE ON A B
2599. BRIAN NO SHE WASN'T. OKAY.
NEXT IS A B 2599. BRIAN MOTION
IS TO PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
THE CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO 1.
PEREZ I'M SORRY A B 2559. BRIAN
THE REPARATIONS BILL 599 AYE.
PEREZ AYE. OKAY. THAT BILLS ON
A VOTE OF 5 TO 1. NEXT IS A B
2605 ARAMBULA THAT NEEDS A
MOTION. I'LL MOVE THE BILL.
OKAY. MOVED BY VICE CHAIR.
THANK YOU. MOTION IS DO PASS AS
AMENDED TO APPROPRIATIONS AGAIN.
I AGAIN I SAY TO I SAY AYE.
CABALLERO. CABALLERO. AYE.
CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ.
WIENER. PEREZ. AYE. WIENER.
WIENER. AYE. OKAY. THAT BILL IS
OUT IN A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. AND
LASTLY I BELIEVE WE HAVE ITEM
43AB2727 BY NGUYEN MOVED THE
BILL MOVED BY VICE CHAIR.
CIERTO MOTION IS DUE. PASSED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE IS
3 TO 0. I AGAIN I SAY CABALLERO
AYE. CORTEZ. CORTEZ. AYE. PEREZ.
PEREZ. AYE. OKAY. THAT BILL IS
OUT IN A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. THANK
YOU COLLEAGUES WHO'VE RECORDED
YOUR VOTES SEE YOU IN HOUSING.
I THINK THERE ARE A FEW MORE
FOR SENATE PRESIDENT VOTE ON AS
WELL. LET ME GO BACK THROUGH
HERE THEN. LET'S SEE IF WE GET
YOUR SECOND. YOU DON'T GET YOUR.
YEAH. AND 31 REAL ESTATE. OKAY.
LET'S START FIRST WITH THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. OKAY. CONSENT
CALENDAR CURRENTLY IS AT FIVE
ZERO. PEREZ. I'M SORRY. CONSENT
CALENDAR. OKAY. CONSENT IS
APPROVED ON A VOTE OF 6 TO 0.
ÁP 31. RAMOS. MOTION IS DUE.
PASSED TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CURRENT VOTE IS 5 TO 0. PEREZ.
PEREZ. AYE, THAT BILL IS UP TO
6 TO 0. A B 458. STEPHANIE.
MOTION WAS DO PASS AS AMENDED
TO APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE
IS 4 TO 0. PEREZ. PEREZ AYE,
THAT BILL IS OUT IN A VOTE OF 5
TO 0. A B 1588. STEPHANIE
MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE IS
5 TO 0. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE, THAT
BILLS OUT IN A VOTE OF 6 TO 0.
8910. A MOTION IS TO PASS TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE IS
3 TO 1. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE. THAT
BILL IS OUT IN A VOTE OF 4 TO 1.
ÁP 2624. BONTA MOTION IS DO
PASS, AS AMENDED TO
APPROPRIATIONS. CURRENT VOTE IS
4 TO 1. PEREZ. PEREZ. AYE, THAT
BILL IS OUT IN A VOTE OF 5 TO 1.
MAYBE 1539 AT THIS MOTION IS
DUE. PASS TO APPROPRIATIONS.
CURRENT VOTE IS 4 TO 1. PEREZ.
PEREZ. AYE, THAT BILL IS OUT IN
A VOTE OF 5 TO 1. I GOT HER ON
THIS STUFF. YEAH. IS THAT IT.
THAT'S WHAT I YEAH I THINK I
YEAH I GOT IT ON EVERYTHING
ELSE.
OKAY. CAN WE CALL THE
ROLL AGAIN ON A B 2237. THE
CENTER PEREZ REQUESTED TO
CHANGE HER VOTE ON A B 22370.
RESCISSION. I HAVE TO RESCIND
THE VOTE TO RESCIND THE Þ. OKAY.
NEVER MIND, NEVER MIND. ONCE HE
ONCE HE CALLS HER. YES. OKAY.
THE ROLL IS CLOSED AND THE BILL
FAILED AND RECONSIDERATION WAS
GRANTED. ANYTHING ELSE, MADAM
COMMITTEE ASSISTANT? NO, I
THINK THAT'S IT. THAT COMPLETES
OUR AGENDA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
TO OUR STAFF. THANK YOU TO THE
COLLEAGUES. WITH THAT, THE
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC SAFETY IS NOW ADJOURNED.