Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Welcome to the Committee on Public Safety. We're going to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary could call the role.

[Roll Call]

Quorum is present. let's begin with a few housekeeping things. All witness testimony will be in person. There will be no phone testimony option for this hearing. You can find more information on the Committee's website. Assembly.ca.gov/committees. So let's begin with the consent calendar. The proposed consent calendar is item number six, AB 327. Joan Sawyer, criminal justice crime statistics. Item number eight, AB 330 Dixon domestic violence victims information card. Item number 10, AB 353.

Joan Sawyer, incarcerated persons access to showers, one of my personal favorites. Item number 13, AB 390 Haney Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, assessment of training requirements and item number 14, AB 39919 vehicles police pursuit data reporting. May I get a motion?

So moved.

Okay. Who was first? Lackey was first.

On the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. We're here hearing today's measures in sign in order. First up is item number four, AB 97. Mr. Assemblymember Rodriguez. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 97. First, I want to accept the Community Amendments and thank you and your staff for working with me on this very important bill. As amended, this bill would require the Department of Justice to include information on arrest for possession of an unserialized firearm in their annual reporting.

Additionally, this bill folds in provisions of last year's AB 2418 by Assemblymember Cara to require the DOJ reporting on these disposition of prosecutions for possession of an unserialized firearm beginning in 2029. Having serial numbers on firearms is a critical tool for prevention and investigation of gun violence.

Without serial numbers, law enforcement is unable to contact the manufacturer, distributor, importer, retailer, or others involved to learn who purchased a firearm and their connection to a potential crime.

Ghost guns are attractive to criminals for that reason because they do not require a background check for purchases and they are untraceable to law enforcement. To begin to address the profiling of ghost guns in California, we must collect data on the rest and prosecution for possession to inform future policy. With me to provide testimony and support is Ryan Sherman, representing the Riverside County Sheriff's Association and the Pomona Police Officers Association.

Yes. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Ryan Sherman. Some of the members have with the Riverside Sheriff Association and Police Officer Associations of Claremont, Palace, Verdes, Upland, Inglewood, La School Police, Corona, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Arcadia, Fullerton, Pomona, Burbank, Riverside, Culver City. All in support of AB 97.

As the assemblymembers stated, AB 97 was amended and will require DOJ to collect information on unserialized firearms in their annual reporting. By requiring the DOJ to identify misdemeanor arrests for possession of an unserialized firearm.

Our hope is that the policymakers will have the necessary information to better understand where these ghost guns are most prevalent and then be able to focus resources and attention to address this growing problem. These illegal firearms are wreaking havoc in our communities and have been used in the murder of California residents and peace officers. For example, in 2019, an AR 15 ghost gun was used in Riverside to commit the murder of CHP officer Andre Moye.

AB 97 will help us collect the information we need to better respond to these dangerous firearms, and we respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Yes. Are there any other witnesses in support? Any other witnesses in support? We'll now go to witnesses in opposition.

Leslie Caldwell Houston. For the California Public Defenders Association, we are withdrawing our opposition due to the amendments. Thank you.

Very good, Mr. Rodriguez.

Well, with that said, Mr. Chair, thank you for.

We're not completely out of the woods yet.

Good morning. Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU California Action, similarly withdrawing our opposition in recognition of the proposed amendments. Thank you.

Are there any others in opposition or withdrawing or tweener or whatever you want to call yourself? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Seeing none, you may close.

Mr. Rodriguez, once again, thank you, Mr. Chair, for working to find the amendments that work towards my policy goals in addressing the concerns and Members of the Committee. As statistics and local reporting would tell you, these firearms can be found in each one of our communities today. As lawmakers, we must have comprehensive data on ghost guns uncovered in our community so we can better prevent them in the future. Thank you very much for your support. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Motion.

So moved.

Second, thank you and thank you for working with the Committee. As you can see, when we do try to come with some middle ground or try to work together, you can even remove opposition. So I commend you on working with the Committee. So I want to thank you for that personally. With that, call the roll.

On AB 97 Rodriguez. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

And in sign in order item number one. AB 15 Dixon. Public records, CDCR. Welcome, Assemblymember.

Good morning.

Whenever you're ready.

All right. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Diane Dixon, Assembly of District 72. I am here to present on AB 15, which seeks to provide transparency as it relates to early release credits for incarcerated individuals. You will all recall last April, 6 people were murdered in a mass killing several blocks from this Capitol building. One of the alleged killers was released from prison after having served slightly less than one half of his sentence.

5.5 years slightly more than one half of his sentence 5.5 years out of a 10 year sentence. Why does this happen? It's a simple question. The people of California deserve to know why incarcerated individuals are released early by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation before their sentence release date. The people of California deserve transparency. It's only fair. We all believe in transparency in government. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, a public agency, should be accountable to the public.

This bill would not increase prison sentences or make any change or make any sentence any day longer. The public has a right to know that an incarcerated individual are being released into our communities after serving only a fraction of their sentence. And the public has a right to know that.

The quantitative basis for understanding parole decisions if parole is based on exceptional performance or rehabilitation, good or bad, the public needs to know. And these quantitative measures relate to education, educational programs, vocational programs and self improvement, not privacy information or HIPAA qualified information.

One month after the Sacramento killings, three people were each charged with three counts of murder. Of the group, one individual was a felon in possession of a firearm and a machine gun. Police say he fired his gun at least 28 times during the shooting. CDCR later confirmed that he was released from prison a little over a month before the shooting, only having served about five and a half years of a 10 year sentence.

CBS News Sacramento, seeking to understand how a defendant in a gang related multiple homicide case was able to be released from a 10 year sentence after serving half the time, submitted a Public Records Act request.

CDCR responded by denying the news station's request, arguing that credit earning information was confidential. 25,000 prisoners have been released into our communities since 2020, and the public has a right to know the reasons for the release in terms of their programmatic credits.

This bill offers a remedy to this lack of transparency by amending the Public Records Act to provide the calculation of a prison inmate's release date and a summary of how the inmate earned the release credits is not confidential and is a matter of public record, subject to disclosure when requested. When an incarcerated person serves a fraction of their sentence imposed by the judge, the public is entitled to know why that is the case.

My primary expert witness to speak in support of the bill is San Joaquin Deputy District Attorney Cindy De Silva, and she will be followed by Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Thank you.

You both have five minutes and split it up. Five minutes total. Split it up any way you want.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, I am Cindy De Silva with the San Joaquin County District Attorney's office and I'm happy to speak on behalf of AB 15. As the assemblywoman mentioned, it would not increase punishment. All it does is increase transparency. As a prosecutor, it's difficult to tell victims that you really have no idea when their perpetrator is going to be getting out. That's a difficult thing to tell them. We can give them a best guess.

Also, I was here a few weeks ago and I talked about the healing and restorative aspects of justice, and that occurs here as well. Not every victim is invested in the perpetrator doing 100% of the time. They are happy oftentimes. Oftentimes to know that the perpetrator has engaged in pro social activities while incarcerated.

It helps them, their families and the community that may or may not be directly related to the crime in question, to understand that the jails and prisons are doing their job, that of reform and learning and engaging, as I mentioned, in the pro social activities that programming offers while incarcerated. I noticed some of the opposition letters, and I know you've all had a chance to read those.

One of them called AB 15 frivolous, and I would dispute that because it's never frivolous to give transparency to the taxpayers and the voters and to let them know what precisely the rubric is for the CDCR staff to come up with the figures that they come up with. And it is true that calculating credits is a difficulty, but it should not be shrouded in mystery or secrecy. That is something that the voters are entitled to have.

Also, with regard to voters, the constituency does vote with their feet, and we have lost several people in our population in recent years to the point that we've lost representation in Congress. And part of the reason for that is the feeling that our society in California is not as friendly toward victims and not as understanding of their needs and just letting them know that their perpetrator engaged in the pro social reforms that programming offers can go a long way toward healing that divide.

So with that, I'll yield the rest of my time to my partner here.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman with ARC strategies on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association. I don't have much to add because the witness and the author have covered things so comprehensively. But just to reiterate, every government program needs oversight. Good oversight from the public and from stakeholders requires information, and we're not getting that in this case.

And with something as significant as Prop 57, which has dramatically changed our correction system for the better, in many cases incentivizing individuals to go through rehabilitative programs to earn their early release, I think even everyone in law enforcement can agree with that.

But it has demonstrably failed in many instances. When an individual gets out early from Prop 57 and goes on to kill an officer, as it happened in Selma just earlier this year, that's a failure of the system.

And to evaluate how it failed, why it failed, and how do we make sure that doesn't happen again requires the dissemination of this information. And to this point, CDCR has not adequately responded to the request and there's a gap here that has to be filled. I understand the privacy concerns.

I understand some of the other issues outlined by the opposition. I reject the notion that this bill is somehow opposed to rehabilitation and opposed to reform efforts. That's not why we're here.

We're here to narrow in on why did these situations occur. What was the failing in the rehabilitative programs that resulted in somebody getting out and murdering somebody else. There's no argument about whether or not there was a failure. There was.

We have to figure out in those instances what happened and how do we make sure it doesn't happen again. And so I appreciate the author for putting forth this bill and all of her effort and would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support of item number one, AB 15?

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association and all the POAS I previously stated in my prior testimony, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chairman and members Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United, in support.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Committee. My name is Leslie Caldwell Houston. I'm here to represent the California Public Defenders Association. I have personally worked in indigent defense for over 40 years. We must respectfully oppose AB 15 unless there are significant amendments.

In 2016, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 57, recognizing that incentivizing inmates to better themselves while incarcerated ultimately benefits not only the inmates, but all the Members of our society.

Proposition 57 increased parole chances for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes, allowing an inmate to earn credits for good behavior and educational or rehabilitative achievements. While this bill excludes records covered under HIPAA, this leads to information regarding any work in mental health or in substance abuse treatment not to be allowed as a release of information.

So rightfully, no information about an inmate's attempts to overcome addictions or treat mental health issues would be released. This absence would lead to incomplete information and mislead the public if the bill were to be passed. Got a little catch 22 here.

Information about which classes and activities an individual participated in beyond a very generic description, such as work or education, should not be subject to disclosure. Citizens in this state are entitled to enjoy certain privacy rights. Their school transcripts and job evaluations are not public records.

In the same vein, individuals who have earned education or rehabilitative credits for their activities in prison resulting in their release deserve the same protections. A review of the blank CDCR form for determining credits and release dates reveals a form that looks like a very complicated. This form must not be released to the public because of the amount of federally and statewide protected information included.

Existing law covers all the information that may be released without a valid written release signed by the inmate or parolee. This is a long list of information that is more than sufficient to satisfy questions the media or public may have. This bill is an unfortunate attempt to use a tragedy to instill fear in the public.

It is a mistake to move backwards. While AB 15 purports to make the awarding of credits and the parole system more transparent, it is ill conceived because it undercuts the evidence based rationale of Proposition 57.

We want our imprisoned individuals to avail themselves of all the rehabilitative programs that will assist their successful move back into society. We do not want to endanger prisoners by making public some of the efforts they are making to better themselves and make both inmates and guards safer. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you.

My name is Ken Hartman. I'm the director of advocacy for the Transformative In-Prison Workgroup, and we represent 85 community based organizations that would be directly impacted by this bill. I also served 38 years in the California prison system, and I participated in many of the programs that I now represent.

A couple of things come to mind. I actually thought I was just going to walk over there and say I opposed. But a couple of things come to mind when I'm thinking about this.

The first is I think it does disincentivize people from participating in programs, and I think it also disincentivizes program providers who are now are going to feel like, are they in some kind of jeopardy because they helped a guy who got out and did something wrong?

With all due respect to the assemblymember, I feel like this is kind of like we're going back to the 80s or the, we're passing legislation based on the latest tragedy, which is a terrible thing, no doubt.

But I don't see how this actually advances the cause of rehabilitation. And I find myself in an odd position of defending the CDCR, which I don't generally do, frankly. But in this case, I think that they have made a wise choice of how they're going to conduct, how these things happen. This is confidential information. It could put people in a bad position, and I don't think there's any upside to doing this.

So with that, and I agree with everything you said, respectfully, we oppose this and ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. Lizzie Buchanan, representing Uncommon Law, also in opposition.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. In opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Then we'll bring it back to Committee Members for comments or questions. Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I think that, first of all, let me just say that failures are not to be ignored, but they're not the only possible benefit that this particular consideration brings forward. Transparency can equate with partnership and, for example, victims. As was mentioned by one of the testimonies, victims can often be encouraged by seeing change of heart conceit.

The fact that there's been effort being made to recognize that a change needs to take place and the fact that someone is going to be released earlier than their sentence date can also mean that partners in the community may want to more vigorously engage in supporting this change of heart.

And so I feel like restorative justice can also be accomplished by meaningful information and honest information, that this is the reason, and there's a reason why they're being released early because they are making efforts that indicate that change of heart is more likely than not.

And so I don't think we should focus only on the negative aspect, because certainly there are some people who will be disheartened, but we can't let that be the only driver behind this kind of transformational consideration. So I will be supporting this.

Thank you. Mr. Zbur, good morning.

It's nice to see you. While I'm sure that this has good motivations behind it, I am someone who believes in experts and in facts and in data, and I just don't see any data that suggests that. And I also believe in restorative justice programs, and I don't see any data that suggests that the level of oversight that's there has had some kind of negative impact.

I know that you're citing a particular tragedy in this case, but I look at folks that are experts in restorative justice, the Ella Baker Center, and am persuaded that this is just not the right approach. Well, I think many of us believe that there should be more oversight of the criminal justice system. This is not the kind of oversight that I think I would support. So I just basically think this is the wrong approach, and I unfortunately won't be able to support this today.

Ms. Bonta.

I think I certainly am very for greater transparency in CDCR. In fact, spent 3 hours yesterday trying to fight for transparency within the CDCR's practices.

My challenge with this particular legislation is that it actually relates to the individual incarcerated having to be able to have their personal identifiable information while they are incarcerated, released to the public with a great amount of vagueness, quite frankly, in the way that this legislation is currently drafted and really creates such a cooling effect on the ability for people to seek rehabilitative programs that it's more than a challenge or a disheartening. It's potentially life threatening to them.

So for those reasons, I unfortunately won't be able to support this bill.

Anyone else? You may close.

Well, thank you, and I appreciate your comments. Again, in the spirit of transparency, this is not an invasion of privacy. This is information that could really embolden the soon to be released incarcerated individual to know that he or she did meet the qualifications of early release. And I think not only is the comfort to the victim's family, but to the community that they will be reentering with a positive, the wind at their back, essentially that they've gone through the programming.

It should be the programmatic programs that are offered in the prison system that one take, the incarcerated individual takes initiative to participate in. Not all of my understanding is not all prisoners voluntarily participate. So by taking that initiative to try to rehabilitate themselves and have a smoother reentrance into society, to me, is a positive to the community.

This is about public safety and having the community feeling confident that the people, and there are large numbers of individual inmates, incarcerated individuals being released, that the community needs to have confidence that these individuals have been rehabilitated.

I mean, that's the purpose of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Why not validate that these individuals have met all the standards and not into the privacy? I agree. We're not trying to release grades and ranking in the class. It's just that they've met the requirements in education, vocational and self improvement.

Just basic information, frankly, that the public can say, okay, someone has given the corrections board, the parole board has given careful review of this individual. I think it benefits the individual. So there's not a black mark upon reentry into the community that he or she voluntarily participated, wanted to reeform themselves and get beyond the reasons why they were incarcerated. I think it's a positive and it validates them by not releasing the information, in my opinion, it suggests that there's something to hide.

I think anyone who is released from prison, we should celebrate the fact that they're rehabilitated and let us know the reason why and celebrate that fact. So that's where the spirit of where I'm coming from with this bill. This isn't punitive.

There's no extra sentencing involved, nothing punitive. It's simply to reward that effort of rehabilitation and give comfort to the community that this person has met those qualifications without getting into anything sensitive or highly private whatsoever. So I appreciate your consideration and thank you very much.

If there was an opportunity to make an amendment that would satisfy any of your concerns, I certainly would be open to that.

Thank you. And as someone that know, I'm not a real big fan of CDCR and how they do things. And as someone who spent 3 hours of my life that I can never get back, Mr. Lackey, Ms. Bonta and myself spent 3 hours trying to just get basic information from CDCR.

Yesterday in sub five is excruciating. In fact, CDCR united Democrats and Republicans in their outrage at the fact that we couldn't get information from them. So we understand what the family's going through.

We understand what the public's going through when you try to find or get information out of the CDCR. The HIPAA concerns are important. The medical concerns are important. Whether you have a substance abuse or mental health. I have a friend that worked in the Capitol.

And he's having some substance problems. I would not want the world to know who it is, what happened. He's receiving treatment right now. And that information could be really damaging to people on the outside even trying to get work.

And so I think there's another method. So one of the things that I tried to do was on the implementation, is trying to do some accountability measures internally. One of the things we were looking at is the Inspector General trying to just get information on rogue and prison guards who are doing some illegal things. We're having a hard time even getting that information or how that's done or even what prisons to close. We can't get information from CDCR. I'm just saying there may be an opportunity.

This just is not the right bill or the right methodology to do it, but there should be some kind of oversight so that we can improve on those programs. And not get rid of them.

If we could reconsider this, I'd be happy.

So I know you're a freshman, so this is how it goes. It's going to get voted up or down. And afterwards you can ask for reconsideration. And I'm pretty sure if it goes down, you'll get reconsideration.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Unfortunately, the Chair is going to recommend the no vote.

All right.

Is there a motion.

So moved.

Second.

On AB 15 by Assemblymember Dixon. The motion is do passed to the Judiciary Committee.

[Roll Call]

I'm sorry. That measure fails. Now you can ask for reconsideration. Come back, Ms. Dixon.

Yes, I would ask for reconsideration. Thank you.

If there are no objection.

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

We voted unanimously to grant reconsideration.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Now, item number five. Mr. Hoover? AB 25. Seven criminal offenses, encampments. Good morning, Mr. Hoover.

Good morning.

You can begin whenever you're ready.

All right. Good morning, colleagues. Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to present this bill to you today. AB 257 would provide a 500 foot buffer around schools, daycare centers, youth centers and playgrounds where homeless encampments would not be allowed.

This models ordinances that are being pursued and passed in other cities like Los Angeles, Sacramento and Elk Grove. I don't think I need to remind all of us what a growing crisis our homelessness crisis is in this state.

According to the Legislative Analyst Office in a hearing just a couple of weeks ago. We have spent $20 billion as a state since 2018, and we've seen a 77% increase in chronic homelessness in our state. In my county alone, Sacramento, our homelessness crisis has grown 67% since 2019.

And it's no wonder why a Quinnipiac poll just one week ago put homelessness at the top of the list for Californians in something that they want their leaders to take action about.

Now, I start with that because I want to say that I look forward to working with all of you as we continue to solve this crisis and get people the help that they need. And I want to make it clear that this bill specifically is a public safety measure to keep our most sensitive public spaces safe while we do that important work. This is not a panacea to homelessness.

I am not here today claiming that this is the solution to homelessness. What this bill is, is a measure to keep our most sensitive public spaces safe while we do the important work that needs to be done. And I'm going to know from a couple different perspectives today.

As a school board member, prior to coming to Legislature, I was on a school board in Folsom and Rancho Cordova, and we had a number of instances, particularly in Rancho Cordova, where we had homeless individuals come onto our campuses and interact with our students in a way that was very concerning for administrators. It was very concerning for parents. And this is something that much of my district is supportive of, including our school officials.

I will also speak from a parent perspective as someone who has found needles and drug paraphernalia in the park where my own children play. These are things that our community cares very deeply about, and they are things that are very important to keeping our children safe in the areas where they spend most of their time. And so that is the motivation for why I brought this bill forward. It is a very straightforward public safety measure to address these very issues.

I did meet with some of the opposition. I took amendments on this bill to try to narrow it to get more to the issue that I was trying to solve with this bill. I am open to continuing to work on the bill, but I do want everyone to know that we are working to make this bill acceptable for everyone. I've also brought two speakers up from my district today, and I want to introduce both of them.

They will go into more detail on some of the things happening in our community. So the first is going to be Mr. Saul Hernandez, who is on the San Juan school board in my district. And then from Rancho Cordova, we have Garrett Gatewood, who is speaking as a Rancho City Council Member today. So Saul will turn it over to you first if that works.

You have total of five minutes, and you split it up any way you want.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I am Saul Hernandez. As a school board member and a member of the community, I believe the safety of our children should be our top priority. These encampments near around schools often take up the entire sidewalk.

Children must cross the other side of the street to avoid them, because getting too close could be dangerous. It only takes one unstable person to do irreparable harm, which makes allowing these encampments near our schools a risk we can't afford to take.

Parents should have the peace of mind that their children can walk or ride their bikes to school with safety. The trash and drug paraphernalia left on or near our campuses by those living in these encampments poses another serious risk. Most schools with homeless encampments nearby have to survey the entire grounds before they start school each day.

They often find condoms, needles, and alcohol. I realize that homelessness is a serious issue in California that must be addressed. However, protecting our children is even more important. AB 257 will significantly increase the chances that our children will remain safe. And for their sake, I hope you will support this bill.

Thank you, sir. Next.

All right, first off, I got to say, your suit is fire. My name is Garrett Gatewood. I am the city councilman for the City of Rancho. I'm the first black Democrat ever elected in my city. But this isn't a partisan issue or a racial issue. This is a very issue that comes close to my heart. I speak in favor of AB 257 that empowers the community to keep the homeless encampments away from our schools and our playgrounds.

Homelessness is in a humanitarian, environmental, and public safety crisis. But the collective failure to solve the homeless problem should not compound by further endangering our citizens and our children. Homelessness should not be criminalized, but neither should they be allowed to encamp and rob the safe places of our schools. Many cities have taken up similar actions in encampments, including Sacramento, Folsom, Elk Grove, Los Angeles, and even Rancho.

In the schools, children walk past encampments, expose them to addicts, overdose victims, discard needles, condoms, makeshift pipes, meth residue, and human waste. And this is just in my city on your way as you walk. Parents have to do sweeps of our local playgrounds right now to collect needles, tainted condoms, and face actual attacks, where they actually run at the citizens.

Many of the parks, and I've started calling around. Even in San Francisco, they're picking up over 13,000 needles and syringes a year.

Santa Cruz is up to 14,500. In an elementary school, 20 of the students who have been pricked by needles in the playground. Across the nation, we have over 600 sticks. A five year old person undergoes a blood transfusion after being struck by a needle and got Hepatitis in her school in Albuquerque. Kyle was reaching out to pick up a football and got struck by another needle and got HIV.

In my city alone, which is the most, not the most important, but where I really care about the most, my citizen was brutally murdered. Not just brutally murdered, she was raped to death and then found tied to a tree by a homeless person. She was a disabled girl walking down the American river. His campsite was near one of the schools. The other one, and her name is Emma Rourke. Tim Fairley was driving his bike down this road and was macheted in the face.

This is in a small little City of Rancho Cordova. Literally, he took a machete to the face and then the person's camp, it was next to our little league field, next to a school, and maybe we'd have been able to take care of that. Her grandma right now pleads the county for help. Rancho Cordova isn't someone to complain. We're doing our own stuff. Right now, we're trying to triage to find a shelter. We're putting it in our own hands to take care of our citizens.

But honestly, I need your guys help. I just need a break for a little bit to let me try to get a hold of this problem in my own city and just protect our kids while I figure out a way to put homeless shelters up. You know, that takes time. I just need a little bit of a break and make these people feel safe.

The problem with encampments is dangers is posted is all our children, but the body can take the action to push this bill forward and really protect us. I hope you guys please pass AB 257. Make the corrections you need and do what you have to do. But think right now, in small cities, I've literally lost two of my citizens. I've had homeless walk in half naked into our schools, and I don't have a fix yet. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support of name and organization, please?

Hi, good morning, Alyssa Stillhigh. On behalf of the City of Eastville, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Are there any witnesses in opposition?

It's anyone testifying? Two. Okay, take your time. We're making room for you right now. Sir. Do you have two witnesses or just one? Two.

Okay, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Is this thing on?

So, you have five minutes total. So at least some time for each of you to talk, okay?

Do I have a go?

Go.

1, 2, 3. Go.

There you go.

My name is Alfred Sanchez. I'm a homeless advocate in the City of Citrus Heights. What all of you see before you is the guy who's out there talking with the homeless every day. Okay? So for that reason, I'm the guy out there on the streets talking to these people every day. That's why I implore you to listen to me. Okay?

I don't have a lot of time. I could talk this off for years. Number one, please do not sign any bills as you're talking about amending without clearly defining what camping is. Because otherwise, you take cities like mine. And they told the guy, as long as he sleeps there, he's fine but the man that he puts a blanket on, he's camping. That is so wrong. Please, I implore you. You're looking at the guy who's out there every day.

Do not sign any bills unless you can clearly define what camping is. Even in my own city, I'm the liaison between the homeless and the city. And they cannot define it. And it's just wrong, because you cannot punish everybody for what a few people are doing. As far as your syringes, I've been out there for six years. I've seen two, and none of them were near homeless camps.

Trust the cities and the counties to regulate their own people. What works in some places will not work everywhere. It's a broad law. You're saying this is going to work across the whole state, but it's not.

In our city, the Department of Parks and Recs, they let us stay there provided we follow certain rules. Why can't everybody else just do that? In our city, we sleep at the library, provided we follow certain rules. This is too far reaching. It's too broad. We need to trust the cities to regulate their own people.

They know their own situations. They know their homeless people. They know what can be done. So don't just, out of frustration, make a statewide bill that's not really going to be actable. I'm looking for the right. What's the right word? That everybody can go by.

It's just too far reaching. Thank you. I like this guy. And simply creating less places for people to be and less places for people to sleep doesn't solve the homeless problem. All it does is move them around. Trust me when I tell you you cannot keep shuffling people around. It's dangerous.

You guys here, you go home, you go in your houses, you go to sleep, you go in at night. You do not realize how difficult it is for people to be shuffled around. It's very territorial. You cannot just keep saying, well you can't be here, you can't be there, you can't be there.

Just want to make sure you leave some time.

I'm sorry.

It's been two and a half minutes. Just want to make sure you leave some time for your other speaker.

Thank you. And I hope that you heard me. And I hope that you pay attention.

Thank you.

Good morning. Brandon Green, I direct the Racial and Economic Justice program at the ACLU of Northern California and respectfully ask that you all vote no on this. This would do nothing but further stigmatize and criminalize the unhoused population, the majority of which is black, brown and indigenous.

It relies on negative stereotypes of violence perpetrated by unhoused people. We all know that all of the incidents of violence, while tragic, that were discussed, are more likely to happen by housed people who commit violence every single day.

We also know that there's not a distinction between unhoused people and children. So if we're talking about protecting children, many unhoused individuals are children. This does nothing to solve the unhoused problem that we have in California.

A housing first model, obviously, would be a better solution. We also know that given the ubiquity of schools, daycare centers, et cetera, this would effectively bar unhoused people from all urban centers, which is where they get services that they need every single day.

Finally, even though this has been amended to sort of limit the geographic scope, those amendments do nothing to mitigate any of the harms that I discussed. And so I respectfully ask that you vote no.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California, we reject the generalization that homeless people are a threat to children.

That's it. Name and organization. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle Parasite with Public Advocates in opposition.

Thank you.

Ahmed Aydid, Tarbiya organization.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice and Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in opposition.

Thank you.

Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership in opposition.

Thank you.

Alex Visotzky on behalf of National Alliance and Homelessness in opposition.

Thank you.

Chris Martin, on behalf of Housing California and the Corporation for Supportive Housing in opposition, thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Cynthia Castillo, on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty in opposition.

Thank you.

Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition.

Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.

Good morning. Jim Lindbergh, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, also in opposition.

Good morning. Espan Nunez, with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and Social Change in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ed Little, on behalf of California's for Safety and Justice in opposition.

Glenn Backus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? We'll now bring it back to Committee. I think Ms. Bonta wanted that first question or comment?

Comment more than anything. I'm a school board member, former school board member. I'm a parent of three. I went to a Quaker school that actually housed the homeless and sheltered the homeless in the evenings and then opened up its doors in the mornings to educate its children. Let me give you another scenario.

Given the fact that there are 25% of the people who are homeless are children, it is quite possible that there could be a mother and her child close to a daycare center, close to a school, camped, who could find themselves sleeping near, within the 500 foot radius of one of the sites that you have indicated here, who could, instead of grappling to be able to get their child into that school the next morning for breakfast, lunch and education, could find themselves, under this legislation, charged with a misdemeanor, punished for up to five days and incarcerated, and put in county jail and receiving a fine not to exceed $25.

That, to me, is absolutely inhumane. The way to solve homelessness is not to criminalize poverty. I fully support the intention and the desire to make sure that our public spaces are safe. The desire and intention to make sure that we are resolving and addressing the issues of homelessness.

I cannot, in good conscience and as a Legislator, as a parent and a school board Member, condone the notion that we would actually criminalize a child and a mother trying to get to school and near that campus. For those reasons, I will not be voting for this bill.

Mr. Bryan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do recognize that this is solving homelessness. Houselessness is a top priority for the state in many of our jurisdictions. But I think this approach ultimately runs counter to those goals. Los Angeles was mentioned many times. I know deeply what Los Angeles has been doing.

I municipal Code 561140118 a decade ago, one in 10 arrests by the LAPD was somebody who was unhoused. Today, it's more than one in five. Every dollar we've spent penalizing and criminalizing poverty is a dollar we could have invested in support of housing wraparound services. I'm the sibling of a crossover youth, now adult, who is currently unhoused.

And this kind of a solution prohibits unhoused people from being in our municipalities, from being in our civic centers, as was heard in the testimony here. All of these spaces, if you set up a 500 foot perimeter, you ultimately bar out the city. It also behooves me to think that somebody who is struggling with deep poverty would then be sided with an infraction that would require them to pay anything.

Right. That runs counter to these goals. I hope that we can get to meaningful solutions. I think this kind of approach has been a mistake in every single city that's tried it.

And I think it would be a mistake for us as a state to mandate this across cities, across the state. And so while I respectfully appreciate the willingness to center homelessness as a priority of the authors, I think this particular approach going through criminalization, is something that I will always stand up against.

Thank you. Mr. Ortega.

Good morning. Thank you for your testimony. And I heard your concerns about safety of our children and making them a priority. As a mother, I think about this every day. I want my child to be safe at school in any way, shape, or form. But as I looked at the summary of your bill today, the first sentence that's on here says, makes it a crime to camp on any street? Homelessness is not a crime.

This also talks about demonizing, criminalizing, taking away rights to those that are protecting the safety of our children. We have teachers that are homeless. We have daycare providers that are homeless. Is that what we're trying to say as a state, that because you're homeless, we're going to find you and we're going to send you to jail? That's how we're planning to keep our children safe.

Homelessness is an issue that we're all trying to work on, but criminalizing our homelessness is not the way to do it here in the State of California, not in the fourth largest economy in the world. We have to do better. I will not be supporting this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey.

Okay. This is obviously a very difficult and delicate topic to address. No doubt about that. But we have to talk about realities as well. And one of the realities is, like it or not, law enforcement is currently, the relied upon arm of government intervention that deals with mental health difficulties.

It's been that way for a long time. Law enforcement didn't ask for that. It's what we're left with. And this is a very narrow focus. It doesn't claim to solve homelessness. It doesn't claim to require officers to arrest and take action. It just gives them some authority in case they get resistance.

Because you got to remember, I don't know what the percentages are, but it's a significant percentage of these people that are having difficulties. They don't trust the outside. They don't trust because of circumstances within their own lives. They don't want intervention, and they have a high degree of difficulty managing their lives.

So what this bill is designed to do is it's designed to be a balanced approach. Balance is really what we need because right now we have a very strong imbalance because we're doing nothing or very little. We're trying, but we need something that will actually work. And here this narrow focus is to protect and to protect those who deserve protection. We're talking about schools, we're talking about sensitive areas where people deserve to feel comfortable.

And unfortunately, because of the dysfunction and there's a lot of very difficult circumstances that are hard for us to understand as a society. Clearly the homeless problem is not a new problem and it's continually growing the wrong direction. And so all we're trying to do is give law enforcement another tool.

It doesn't require them to hook these people up and take them to jail just because they're camping on the sidewalk. They're trying to be the arm of intervention and trying to relocate these folks is what everybody would benefit from. And I know that's something that's really. Because there's lack of trust with law enforcement. And that's part of our problem is, there's some negative stereotyping of law enforcement that gets in the way of good decision making.

And I will tell you that the majority of law enforcement, they want good outcomes. And we see some examples of betrayal of trust. Please don't over generalize and think that's the majority of officers. It's just unfair to them and it's unfair to our public.

They don't want to just go and put handcuffs on these people and tell them you're going to go to jail and impose more difficulty into their lives. But the tool exists and it's like a wobblet. It's not a wobbler because that's a felony and misdemeanor. This is an infraction and misdemeanor. And it's only if there's strong resistance they have a tool that they can take another course of action.

Because unfortunately, sometimes that is the only safe intervention. And that's the reason why I'm going to support this bill is because it just gives another tool that I hope would never be abused. And we've got to do something to protect those who deserve protection and try to create some kind of balanced circumstance, because right now there's just so much dysfunction, and nobody is winning.

Nobody. And so I'm going to clearly support this approach.

Thank you, Mr. Santiago.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a lot I want to say without having to repeat what my colleagues have said. So I'll echo those comments to be briefer on what's going on in my soul as we talk about homelessness, because oftentimes, I think there's a lot of misunderstandings and a lot of things we want to throw out there, like this concept of folks who are homeless don't want help.

I mean, nobody wakes up in the morning and decides that they can't afford their rent or they don't want to afford their rent. Nobody wakes up in the morning and decides that they're going to have a tragedy happen in their life. And I think there's a lot of assumptions around saying we're going to criminalize an act of being homeless.

And it assumes a lot of different things. It assumes that somebody wants to do this. It assumes that there aren't economic circumstances where a person loses their jobs. It assumes that there aren't mental health care issues in our society. It assumes that there isn't substance abuse issues in our society. And the easy thing to do when we're solving homelessness, and we went through this, right? I mean, Los Angeles went through this since it was thrown around when they did the policies of containment decades ago.

And it was easy at that time to know we'll solve homelessness by containing homelessness in a particular area. And here we are generations later that we now know as Skid Row, an area that wasn't solved the way it should have been from the very beginning.

And the easy thing is always to do well, let's lock them up and throw away with a key.

We already went that through that at the federal level with the crimes act bill. And we continue to have this conversation about just lock everybody up who we don't like for one reason or another. They either do this, they do that, or they look this way, or they've done this.

Instead of going to the core roots of why there is homelessness. Why there is an issue in society. So if we're going to get serious about solving homelessness, then let's get serious about affordable housing. Let's get serious about rental assistance. Let's get serious about tenant protections. Let's get serious about mental health care funding.

Let's get serious about substance abuse treatment. Let's get serious about the things that people really need to prevent homelessness and to ease us off homeless and get people back on their feet or into an unit. Los Angeles went through this debate, but it's a very, very different debate.

So I don't want to go into the Los Angeles debate too much, but a blanket approach that says let's criminalize everybody who doesn't have a home because all of a sudden the rents went up and somebody has to live on the streets, you call them a criminal.

All of a sudden there was a landlord that kicked somebody out, and that person becomes a criminal all of a sudden. And I'm being overly simplistic here with my comments, not to be taken out of context, but it really is in a lot of ways.

And I don't want to say this too, I don't like to say too much from up here, but it really is cruel and inhumane to think that somebody is homeless and let's go move them across the street. Let's go move them five blocks down.

Or let's just go put them out of sight, out of mind. And I don't want this conversation to be pit around what law enforcement should be as it relates to or pit about law enforcement should do this law enforcement should that. Let's be very clear. If we write a law that says law enforcement arrest people, then law enforcement is going to be required to arrest people.

If we don't write this law and it doesn't pass, then they won't have the requirement to do it. We don't see a whole heck of a lot, at least from what I see here, a lot of law enforcement lining up to say, hey, let's go do this. And I appreciate the approach of an author sponsored bill. I've done that many of times myself.

And I also want to say that I do appreciate your approach to bringing attention to a very important issue like homelessness. But I'd say join the effort in trying to figure out something that is humane, something that is not cruel, something that will address why we have homelessness, something that will help us to solve the problem, to bring some dignity to people who for one reason or another are not fortunate to be housed. And I think language is important, too.

I think some of us have gravitated from off and on to talk about our unhoused population, because I think language is also important. And there's some dignity that, look, I can go on forever because I feel very, very emotional about this issue when it comes to the issue of homelessness. But I don't want to let us allow the oversimplification of a conversation. Then we could just arrest our way out of homelessness, and it's going to solve the problem. It's just not.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. You may close.

All right. Thank you. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the discussion. I do agree with my colleague, Mr. Santiago, that there is much more that needs to be done. I think all of us actually agree with that in this room. And as I mentioned in my know, I look forward to being a part of those solutions, and I look forward to working with you all on those solutions.

I want to just clarify a couple of things on this bill specifically, because I think we have spoken in a lot of generalizations about what this bill does.

One of the amendments we took was to address a specific concern that was brought up pretty early on in our first version of the bill, which I acknowledged was an issue, and we fixed, was that the goal of this bill is not to criminalize an individual homeless person, and it does not give law enforcement any authority to take any action against a specific homeless person and their child or anything like that.

What the bill in its current form does specifically is address the issue of encampments specifically as defined in the bill. And the way we define it in this bill is encampment means three or more persons camping together within 50ft of each other and without permitted electrical power.

There's also another part in our definitions that discuss the time period that that would inquire. So, again, the goal of this bill was not to address an individual homeless person's ability to be in a public space.

It is simply to address the issue of encampments, and actually long term encampments in our parks. And so I just wanted to make sure that that is made clear because, and again, it is something that I am happy to continue working on with the opposition.

I'm happy to continue working on with the folks of this Committee as well. But to close, I do want to touch on the main motivations for this bill, and that is the public safety of our community. These stories are not meant to be stereotypes. They are not meant to create fear around everyone. What they are, is that we are acknowledging that there are things that are happening in our communities that need to be fixed.

As my colleague to my right, Mr. Gatewood, talked about in his presentation, Emma Rourke was raped and murdered. She was 20 years old. She was raped and murdered on the American River Parkway in Rancho Cordova.

Timothy Farrell was 60 years old, riding an electric bike in Rancho Cordova neighborhood. On November 28th, he was attacked with a machete near a preschool. An unhoused man killed a 74 year old Carmichael resident in my district in what the sheriff's department called an unprovoked and senseless homicide. These are real people stories, real incidents that are happening in my community specifically. These are just the things happening in my district.

And I think we need to be honest that these things should not happen in our communities. And that was the motivation for why I brought this bill forward. So again, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I'm happy to work with the Members of this Committee to improve the bill if there are suggestions, but I hope that you'll support it. Thank you.

And thank you, Mr. Hoover. I guess the main suggestion, probably the only suggestion, at least, of where you can start, is to look to Los Angeles. I'm not saying that because Mr. Santiago, Mr. Bryan and I are from Los Angeles, but Mr. Santiago for several years had Skid Row, which is now in my jurisdictional responsibility. And it's my understanding if we were to solve just Skid Row alone, we could cut 25% of the homeless population out of the mix and move forward.

But the real reason why I say look to Los Angeles, and I'm glad you brought your people from your area, is I have a bill where we're going to try to create homeless czars or homeless leaders or coordinators or someone that can take care of that, that can wrap their arms around it. And it's really based on Los Angeles. So look to Los Angeles.

Look what Karen Bass, Mayor Karen Bass is doing and what she's done so far and how she's not only got people off the street, but she's not criminalizing them, she's humanizing them so that they can get the wraparound services and get to shelter so that we can then bring them in and back into society. It's a tough job. I think she's done several hundred so far, and we're going to see how effective it is.

But it is having one person who has the guts and the bravery to say, I'm going know, take the bull by the horn. And I'm going to tackle this, and that's what's going on in Los Angeles. So when you were asking about what kind of solutions we should be looking at, I'm saying, look at Los Angeles. And again, I'm not saying it because I'm from there.

It's just, I'm saying it because I can see it, and I can see how it's improving our ability to handle the homeless situation. And it may ultimately, when we look back on this a year from now, two years from now, it may be the way you handle homelessness nationwide. I would suggest, especially if this were to not make it, that you actually look at what some successful programs that people have done.

And one of the things you will find across the board where they've been successful as far as actually helping homeless people get off the street into permanent supportive housing, it's that they don't criminalize them. And we just don't put the burden on law enforcement. We get the professionals that can help people who are on the street, help them move on into a productive life. So, unfortunately, I can't vote for this.

What I want you to do, if you're really serious about coming up with a methodology to work with everyone, and I know every city is different. That's why I want to hold the czar in different places, because every place is different, every person is. And hopefully, as we move forward, you can even support my bill about a homeless, and we can get things done. So with that, unfortunately, I can't support this bill.

But I think if you look at what we're doing in Los Angeles, you might be able to come back, if you so ask, for reconsideration with something that makes sense that we all can agree on. Is there a motion?

Yes.

The bill has been moved and seconded on AB 257 by Assemblymember Hoover. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That measure failed.

I would appreciate reconsideration if that's acceptable.

f there's no objection that by unanimous consent.

Thank you.

You want to object? You can. Item number seven, AB328. Essayli.

Hi. Good morning, Mr. Essayli. Item number seven, AB328. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair.

I hate that.

Laptop. It's always a problem.

It's working.

Got it. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, appreciate your time and consideration of this really important Bill and this discussion we're going to engage in. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 328, which will combat gun violence by restoring the sentencing enhancement for criminals who use a firearm in the Commission of a violent crime.

It would require a 20 year mandatory enhancement if you fire the gun in the commission of violent crime, and it requires a life sentence if you use a gun to kill another person. The crimes we're talking about are murder, kidnapping, rape, assault with a firearm on a police officer, and lewd acts on a child. So we're not talking about all crimes. We're talking about the worst crimes.

In 2018, SB 620 went into effect, removing the mandatory prison enhancement for criminals who use a gun when committing these violent crimes. SB 620 had one goal in mind, to reduce prison sentences. We know now that this misguided policy has been tremendously effective in accomplishing its intended goal. The prisons are quickly being emptied, but it has failed miserably in protecting the safety of the public. Since SB 620 went to effect, we've experienced an alarming and devastating increase in violent crime committed with a firearm.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, compared to 2019 pre-pandemic levels, gun-related homicides have gone up by 52% and gun-related aggravated assaults are up 64%. These numbers are staggering. The ACLU and other groups who oppose my Bill do so on the basis of race. They claim that long prison sentences are inherently racist and insidiously suggest that police and the justice system are rigging the system to target minority groups. That is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Our justice system is colorblind.

There is zero evidence that prosecutors consider race, the race of a defendant when deciding to bring charges. In fact, it's illegal and unconstitutional to do so. And they certainly don't decide the race of the individual pulling the trigger of a gun. If we want to talk about race, let's have the conversation. Two thirds of all violent crime victims are minorities. I know there are Members of the Committee who represent the City of Oakland.

Just this weekend, the San Francisco Chronicle published a heartbreaking article detailing the explosion of unsolved homicides in that city. In 2022, 65% of all homicide victims in Oakland were Black and predominantly men. 65%. One of those victims was 33 year old Jamal Watkins, the only son of Tina Harris. She speaks to a picture of her son every day. She told the reporter, "I don't know how the healing process can ever really begin if there's no justice."

I ask each of you to contemplate the deep trauma every family faces when their loved one is harmed or killed with a gun. The families of these victims don't want empty words and rhetoric. They want justice. If we are serious about combating gun crime. Then we need serious consequences. AB 328 will reorient our public safety back in the direction it belongs, protecting the most innocent and vulnerable members of our society: the victims. The victims who are predominantly people of color, that are the true disenfranchised members of our society. Not the violent criminals perpetuating the crimes against them. One of the arguments against my Bill is that it will remove judicial discretion. I want to direct your attention to page two of your analysis, the Committee analysis, number seven, subsection C. Last year, a law went into effect, taking away the discretion from judges.

It says if the application of an enhancement results in a sentence of over 20 years, which is what we're talking about here, the judge shall dismiss the enhancement. We've taken the discretion away from the judges. The judges do not have discretion to impose the 20 year or life enhancement my Bill requires when you hurt or kill somebody with a gun. So if we are serious about judicial discretion, then we need to make sure that judges have the ability to impose that.

I want to reemphasize the crimes we are discussing and directing are the most heinous. The firearm enhancement should be applied equally and without exception to any person evil enough to commit a violent crime. I have more comments. I'll save them for closing. But I want to turn it over to my expert witnesses. I also believe in the importance of experts and data. And I encourage you to maintain an open mind while you hear their testimony. Joining me this morning is Riverside Police Chief Larry Gonzalez and President of Our Cops Association of Riverside County Chiefs of Police and Riverside Sheriff. Also joining me is Nina Salarno Besselman, whose family member was killed by a firearm. She's here representing Crime Victims United. I thank you both for being here. And I turn it to them, Mr. Chair.

You both have, total you have five minutes, whatever way you want to split it up.

Thank you, honorable Chairman and Committee Members. I think everybody can agree that safety is not really a partisan issue. And while we hear calls from both sides of the aisle for a need to come together and meet in the middle. The unfortunate trend of legislation over the past 10 years has clearly been shifted to one side. And this is not the side of protecting victims of crimes. There is often a picture painted by the media that crime is some inanimate thing that just flows through communities.

This is not true. The danger plaguing every corner of this state today is caused by criminals or individual people who make a choice to assault, attack, rape and murder innocent victims. Members of our communities who don't get a choice. There's a sentiment among some that may that any law or policy that incarcerates criminals is misguided and unjust. We firmly reject this premise. The unequivocal truth is, in order to uphold justice and protect communities, there are certain individuals who cannot be let free.

Those who make a choice to prey on the innocent must lose their privilege to roam the streets without consequence and further terrorize our families, friends and children. Every law enforcement leader in California can provide us sickening examples of their own jurisdictions of the consequences that soft-on-crime policies have. I can just share, just in my city, just in the last couple of months, we had a murder last week where an individual shot his sister-in-law in the face.

He said it was accidentally, was filming a video, killed her. When we arrived on scene, we met his brother, who was a witness, and saw the murder. We recognized him immediately because we just arrested him. He had just been arrested in our city for six armed robberies in a month and was already out and on the scene as a witness of a murder. We also had a spree of home invasion robberies last year in our city. Six in one week. Armed home invasion robberies.

We finally started using several hours of investigative resources and get some people on custody, and we found out the majority of those suspects were all ex felons that were using firearms in commission of these felonies. Unfortunately, I could fill the next several days with only recent examples of tragedies such as these, where your local law enforcement officers and deputies did their job well, removed violent criminals from the streets, only to have them released under the guise of justice reform, or some equally ironic term.

There is no justice in policies that objectively can produce only the outcomes of increased violence and more victims in our cities. I implore the legislation to listen to our collective voices as law enforcement leaders who see devastating effects to these preventable crimes every day. I'm sure you guys have all been hearing the same things in your districts about crime, and it's on the rise. I read some of the opposition letters talking about they don't see any evidence of imposing enhancements.

And I'm telling you that I'm seeing that every day in our city. And victims who seem to be forgotten as all efforts seemingly are focused on the already well-defined protections for those who choose to victimize others. I tell my community all the time that we will do everything we possibly can, but nothing that we can't. And it does get difficult. It's disheartening sometimes to look at our victims in our city that we say we did everything we possibly could and the justice system failed you.

Told our officers, and when you start the academy, there's three types of people we seem to run in the police officers. Nobody really calls 911 to tell us we're doing a good job. But we use categories as mad, sad and bad. Right? Mad folks, because they got a ticket, they got their car towed. We arrested a family member. Sad are our victims. People have got something stolen from them. They got robbed, they got raped.

And then there's bad, which is what this Bill really is pointing out. It's a very small majority of our community, very small. But they're the ones that take no hesitation, no hesitation at all to shoot a police officer, to shoot a civilian in our community or even do a school shooting. So this is what this is targeted at. So please acknowledge the necessity, protect the innocent and join us in supporting AB 328. Thank you.

Yes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. My name is Nina Salarno Besselman. I am the President of Crime Victims United. This Bill is about one thing. It's about the safety of our communities, and it's about the victims, the innocent and unintended victims that I deal with daily. You can look in our paper every day, hear the news. We all see what happens with these unintended consequences of some of our criminal justice reforms. They have created more and more victims.

We saw in the headlines about Mary Tibbets, who was brutally murdered and raped by a repeat felon. The shooter just down the street from there. But here's what the reality is. Every day I feel literally hundreds of calls from Black and Brown communities of victims who are being harmed by gun violence. Here's the other reality. My sister was murdered by gun violence. So these unintended consequences have created victims. I live with something that most of you probably don't live with every day.

Going to a cemetery to see my sister who was murdered by guns. I hear those calls every day from victims who just want justice. So, yes, we are talking about incarcerating longer the worst of the worst, by allowing judicial discretion to have these enhancements, we are protecting the innocent people in our community: the children who grow up without a parent because their parent was murdered; sisters and brothers, like me, who grew up without loved ones because they were murdered by gun violence, by repeat felons.

There's two things that this Bill targets that is a common theme. That is repeat violent felons and gun violence. I also happen to work as a DA for Yolo County, the first county in the state that does race-blind charging of crimes. And our release of a study just came out, as you're all aware, that showed that that was consistent with the rise in violent crime, and it was race-blind prosecution.

But the number of repeat violent felons harming our communities has risen, and 75% of it was to gun violence. We need to stop it. We need to quit creating victims because of unintended consequences. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Name and organization. Please take your time.

Cindy DeSilva, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you.

Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the City of Eastvale, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Go through the list this time. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff Association in support of 328. Also in support of police officer associations of Claremont, Palace Verdes, Upland, Inglewood, LA School Police, Corona, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, Arcadia, Fullerton, Pomona, Burbank, Riverside, Culver City, and Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? And we'll now have witnesses in opposition. One chair. Thank you. You have five minutes.

Good morning again. Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition to AB 328. AB 328 would amend the Penal Code Section 1385 to prohibit a court from striking a firearm enhancement under Penal Code Section 12022.53 in the interests of justice, unless the firearm was unloaded or the individual did not personally use the firearm. Judges should not have discretion taken away, as they're the only individuals in our society, in our entire system, charged with viewing this situation as a whole.

The victim's damages, the needs of the community, and the complicated--always complicated--individual before them. Gun violence happened before we had mandatory enhancements, after we had mandatory enhancements, before we even thought about mandatory enhancements. It's occurring now, and it will keep occurring. Yes, we do need to eliminate gun violence, but this is not the way. Sentencing enhancements do not prevent crime and will not address gun violence. We know this. We've been down this road.

These excessive enhancements are some of the driving forces that led to mass incarceration, particularly of Black and Latinx persons. Mass incarceration is racist, an economic disaster, and a human rights violation. The purpose of 1385, Penal Code Section 1385, is to alleviate mandatory, arbitrary and rigid sentencing procedures that inevitably lead to unjust results.

AB 328 seeks to require additional time in spite of a judge's belief that it's not appropriate, where the amount of additional time would be out of proportion to the individual's culpability or the needs of the other stakeholders in a criminal case, the community, the victims. Longer prison sentences do not make California communities safer. Instead, they divert our precious resources from housing, education and mental health treatment--things that actually do make us safer.

There is no reason to return to a failed public policy, and for these reasons, I respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Carmen-Nicole Cox. I'm Director of Government Affairs at ACLU California Action, and we are respectfully opposed to Assembly Bill 328.

While we share the author's goal of reducing gun violence and appreciate that AB 328 purports to retain some discretion for judges in very limited circumstances, we know that this policy will not accomplish its stated goal because we need a public health response to this public health crisis and we need evidence-based approaches to root causes of crime. Penal Code Section 1170 (a) (1) states, in relevant part, the Legislature finds and declares that the purpose of sentencing is public safety achieved through punishment, rehabilitation and restorative justice.

When a sentence includes incarceration, this purpose is best served by terms that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense. In 2017, ACLU California Action sponsored Senate Bill 620 to give judges the discretion, when it is in the interest of justice, to strike a firearm-related enhancement to impose sentences that are consistent with the Legislature's intent. Again, terms that are proportionate to the seriousness of the offense.

AB 328 seemingly ignores this legislative intent, as it would prevent judges from making that assessment and exercising the discretion as necessary. While the evidence does not suggest that the exercise of judicial discretion has contributed to gun violence, we do know that increasing punishment is not effective. It's not only ineffective, it may actually exacerbate recidivism and reduce public safety. Admittedly, we have seen a spike in gun violence since the fatalities and community disruption caused by COVID-19. We've reached a point of diminishing returns, however, with respect to law enforcement responses to this public health crisis. The post-pandemic surge in violence must be treated as the public health crisis that it is. We must address root causes that includes chronic stress, mental illness, housing instability, historical oppression and poverty. We cannot genuinely claim to care about communities of color while enacting laws that we know will disproportionately harm this population, nor can we rely on race-neutral good intentions when we know the actual impact of our policies is race-biased because it offers no public safety benefit at the expense of already marginalized people. We are opposed to AB 328, and we urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization.

Good morning. Jim Lindberg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, also in respectful opposition.

Thanks.

Stephen Munkelt, Executive Director of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, oppose.

Thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice in the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Good morning. Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, in opposition.

Good morning. Esteban Nuñez with the Anti Recidivism Coalition and Social Change, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Now we'll bring it back to Committee Members. Mr. Bryan, if you want to go first.

I'm mostly just confused, Mr. Chair. We were told that the enhancements have been struck in for firearms. That's not actually the case. Right? The enhancements still very much exist. The judge just has the discretion whether to use it or not. You pointed to the analysis. Prior legislation, 7 A, the last sentence says, "was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee" to remove the enhancements.

And so what we've also seen is that, since the judges have been given this discretion in 2017, they haven't used it to not enact enhancements. On almost 3000 people, they have added 6255 enhancements at about the same rate that they did before that. I guess if there's anything I've learned from this Bill coming is that that Bill that gave judges the discretion didn't actually allow them to use it in the furtherance of justice.

And so the Bill's intentions haven't actually lived out in reality when enhancements are being applied about the same rate that they had historically. So I don't understand the purpose of this Bill. It looks like a solution to a problem that isn't actually happening in our justice system.

I apologize. I may have misspoke. Mr. Chair. It's 7 C, and SB 81 went into law last year, adding that, I apologize if I misspoke. It's page 2, 7 C. SB 81 was signed last year, requiring judges to dismiss the enhancement if it will add 20 years or more to the sentence. I apologize.

Are you talking about the Bradford Bill?

I'm sorry?

Are you talking about the Bradford?

I'm not sure the author is, Mr. Chair. It's SB 81 that took away the discretion. That's what I was referring to.

I think it gave discretion. Well, we don't want to debate it right now.

7 C's in the report, Mr. Chair, as your Committee drafted.

Okay, you may finish, Mr. Bryan.

I will not be supporting this Bill.

Thank you. Mr. Zbur?

Yeah, I mean, I always have concerns when you're taking away judicial discretion to advance justice in the courtroom. We have a whole page of enhancements that are tools for law enforcement. And I think this Bill will do nothing more than create more victims because it will prevent judges from actually sentencing folks in a way that's in the interest of justice. So because of that, I won't be able to support the Bill.

Thank you. Ms. Bonta?

So in 2022, 6000 children were killed by gun violence. You don't need to talk to me about mothers in Oakland. Oakland has one of the highest, experienced one of the highest homicides. That means that there are victims and people who are perpetrating in the City of Oakland, same community.

When I talk to the mothers in Oakland, they're mostly concerned about mass incarceration and their sons and brothers and fathers and mothers being taken away from them because of the disproportionate impact that the enhancements have had on their community. Taken away for years more than they need to because of those enhancements. 80% of the people who are sentenced to state prison are experiencing a lengthened sentence because of enhancements. Longer sentencing does not prevent crime. Certainty of apprehension does.

I would love to work with the author on really eradicating gun violence because the children and mothers of Oakland, and in my district, are dying because of the proliferation of guns. If you want to do something about that, I'm more than happy to work with you on that. On this Bill that supports and increases mass incarceration, I cannot stand for that. I will be voting no on this Bill.

Thank you. Anyone else? Who wants to go first? Mr. Lackey?

I'll just go real quickly. I just have a comment, because clearly this is a very narrowly-focused Bill, and it's focused on the most heinous crimes that actually do shock the conscience. And I think it's very rare that the victims of these heinous crimes are concerned about the political aspects of custody. And I think that we need to be honest about the gravity of these crimes and the nature and the permanent damage done by these perpetrators. And this Bill is definitely called for. And I'll definitely be supporting it.

Thank you.

Chair, thank you. I just have one big question, Chief, if a long prison sentence for most dangerous offenders have an effect on the crime rates?

Yes, I believe it will, if it was, in fact, in effect.

Okay. And, Mr. Assemblyman, would you be willing to accept any amendments if they came?

I am more than willing, Mr. Chair. I stand ready to work with the Committee and its Members. If the Committee is committed to maintaining the discretion for judges to exercise that, I'd be open to amending to remove the requirement, because right now they don't have discretion. It says they shall dismiss an enhancement if the sentence results in over 20 years. So if we really want to be serious about judicial discretion, I'd be willing to work with the Committee to restore that.

As the member noted, judges have been enforcing the enhancement. I'd be willing to work on that. I don't know if this is my closing, Mr. Chair. I don't want to be gratuitous here. If there's other.

You want to do it now?

If there's other questions, I'll just close at one time.

Maybe should wait to, if there's anything else. Is there anything else? Okay, you may close.

I appreciate it, Mr. Chair, and I really want to just address some of the points made. I think we can do both. We can address the root causes of crime and the communities that crime impacts or individuals being affected in crime and administer justice. You have to do both. And I think we can do both. They're not arbitrary enhancements. They're charged, and they're proven and found guilty by a jury of their peers. So these are not arbitrary. It's not mass incarceration.

We're talking about individual cases in which you are charged with the most heinous crime and you use a firearm to commit it. There is no rehabilitation for somebody willing to pull a trigger against another human being. That is not always rehabilitable. Sometimes that's just pure evil. And we have to lock you up to ensure the safety of the community so you will not do it again. If you want to talk about recidivism, if you're locked up for life, you're not going to commit it again.

That's 100%. You will not have recidivism. This is a very narrow issue, and it's to deal with the worst of the worst. Mr. Chair, we are not interested in mass incarceration. That's not we're talking about here. We're talking about getting the worst of the worst off the street who are willing to shoot a police officer in the face, like Deputy Cordero in my county who was shot by a third-striker who was let out on bail. Shot in the face. That's not a person we can rehabilitate.

So I hear it. I appreciate it. I want to work with the members of the community. I care deeply about the safety of our community, as I'm sure the Members here, too. And so if we can work together to restore the discretion properly to the judges, I welcome that, Mr. Chair. And in closing, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. And there's some things we probably need to just clarify, because as I look at SB 620, Bradford, Chapter 682 Statute 2017 allows a court, in the interest of justice, to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement, which otherwise has a state prison term of 3, 4 or 10 years, or 5, 6 or 10 years, depending on the firearm, or a state prison term of 10 years, 20 years, or 25 years, depending on the underlying offense and manner of use.

That's the Bill I voted on. And that kind of gives the judges a little more discretion, because before it was automatic that they would just sentence people because they felt like judges, shouldn't use pronouns, but judges felt like they had no recourse. They just had to do it because the law said it. And we worked very hard to make sure that they looked at every individual case. That's what everyone's talking about. We definitely do feel for the tragedies.

What happened to the sheriffs in Riverside should have never happened. We need to do everything we can to make sure that anyone is not murdered for any reason. And I'm pretty sure your witnesses may have a race base or race neutral attitude, but in your county right now, your sheriff is under a civil rights probe.

And what the Members of this group is saying, that your law, by this gentleman, this law enforcement officer, may be abused by other law enforcement officers to, again, fill the prisons with Black and Brown folk. A civil rights violation that's being instituted by a former colleague of mine here in the Assembly, who's now the Attorney General, I take very seriously.

And so wrapped in that, we've got to look at what's going on in, for example, in your county, Riverside, to make sure that we don't enable individuals who may not have the same dedication you have to make sure that Black and Brown folk are not unjustly prosecuted. So, unfortunately, I can't support this. I understand where you're going, but you need to understand what we see and what we've been dealing with. Again, you're new, you're a freshman, a lot of these laws that came in.

I wish you could have heard a lot of that testimony, why we have these things now, because we got here through a long, for me, for a long 10 year process to be able to make the justice system more just. And we're getting there, and we can tweak some more things. But right now, I think for the most part, giving judges discretion is really important.

And the fact that law enforcement and others are trying to take away discretions from judges tells me that maybe they are starting to go into the right direction of looking at the individual and not just doing a blanket. We're just going to lock everybody up and throw away the key. So is there a motion? And a second.

On AB 328 by Assemblymember Essayli, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

That measure fails.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for reconsideration.

If there is no objection.

I object.

To reconsideration?

Yes.

Then we'll take it to a vote.

On reconsideration for AB 328. The motion by Ms. Bonta. Is there a second for reconsideration? [Roll Call]. Reconsideration failed.

Reconsideration failed.

I thought that was a common courtesy.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members, good morning. Thank you for allowing me to present this bill before you. This is my first bill this year coming before this Committee, and I'm very grateful.

Assembly Bill 360 which aims to ban the term of excited delirium as a legitimate diagnosis or cause of death on the death certificate of those who have lost their lives while in police custody. Excited delirium term is used to describe many characteristics such as excitability, paranoia, extreme aggression, physical violence, and apparent to immune to pain.

This term, excited delirium has been used to catch, to be a catch all for deaths involving police officers, restraints when individuals are in custody.

However, the majority of these individuals have died from excited delirium and have been black or African Americans, Mexicans or Latinos, and other people of color such as Angelo Quinto, a Filipino American.

In 2010, report has been done on deaths and police officers and individuals have been placed in custody and has used excited delirium that has been found that 166 reported deaths, 56% were African American and also Latinos, 56% out of 166.

In additionally, a report is done in Texas from 2005 to 2017 discovered that more than 1 and 6 deaths in police custody were linked to excited delirium. I need that to sink in for a moment. We continue to see the impact of these terms today with the deaths of Angelo Quinto.

Many of you remember Angelo Quinto. I brought the name and the case before you last year, and you voted this bill out. And that was Assembly Bill 490 dealing with positional asphyxia. But it goes on.

Elijah Mcclain, Agora, Colorado and many other countless individuals who have lost their lives. And the death certificate shows excited delirium. And I can list all those individuals' names, but you will be here past lunch if doing so.

in 2020, Angelo King to a Filipino American Navy veteran of the United States of America dealing with a mental crisis, stopped breathing when he was on the floor and Antioch police officers placed their knee on his neck for five minutes on the floor in front of the witness that I sit next to today. And because of that situation, I introduced and wrote the Assembly Bill 490 banning such techniques in the State of California.

That bill was signed into law, but Angelo Quinto's case, it took eight months after the death for Condra Costa County to issue a report before the autopsy was even completed. The official death cause of death of Angelo Quinto was attribute to guess what excited delirium syndrome.

Excited delirium syndrome is not accepted by certain well, authoritative organizations such as the American Medical Association has debunked it, said it doesn't exist. The American Psychiatric Association said it doesn't exist. The World Health Organization.

And the list goes on and on. In addition, there is no recognition of a definition. There is no diagnosis, nothing to validate this term to even being used in this country. Yet the term is still being used to explain by medical examiners. By banning this term, it will allow us to focus on the underlying factor that contributes to an individual's actual cause of death.

I want to introduce my witness, Ms. Sandra Quinto Collins, the mother of Angelo Quinto, who lost his life at the hands of police officers during positional asphyxia. And the death certificate showed that it was excited delirium. And the same topic that we're here today, that Assembly Bill 390 wish to correct.

And you have five minutes, and I move the bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Jones-Sawyer and assemblymembers, my name is Cassandra Quinto Collins. Angelo Kinto.

Closer. Thank you.

Thank you.

On December 23 of 2020, Antioch police asphyxiated my son Angelo to death in front of me on my bedroom floor. Angelo was having a mental health crisis at that time, but was not violent, had no weapons, and was not under any influence of common substances of abuse.

The police officer still restrained him excessively and kneeled on the back of his neck for at least four and a half minutes after I asked them if he was asleep. The Contra Costa County sheriff's coroner, lacking transparency, accountability, objectivity and independence, ruled his cause of death as due to excited delirium.

The syndrome is a debunked, unscientific diagnosis that has been widely discredited by groups like the American Medical Association and more. It is used almost exclusively in cases of low enforcement related deaths that involve excessive force or the use of tasers. In our case, in Angelo's case, he did not even exhibit the symptoms they usually claim point to this diagnosis. Our case is not unique.

Excited delirium used too often to cover up law enforcement wrongdoing. This has to change. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in support.

Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell Houston. On behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Thank you.

Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice in support.

Thank you.

Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in support.

Robert Collins, father of Angelo Quinto, in strong support.

Thank you.

Bella Quinto Collins, sister of Angelo Quinto, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to Committee Members. Mr. Bryan, Mr. Zbur.

I want to thank the author for this bill. It's a great bill. If you're looking for co-authors, please let us know. I'd be happy to join you in this fight. Thank you to the family for your advocacy and for your work. You are making a difference for all of California. So thank you

Ms. Bonta.

Thank you for bringing forward this bill. I just want to also just thank the Quinto family, Angelo's family, for continuing to come here and for turning your pain into something that will prevent others from suffering in this way. I'm so happy to see you growing, and I'm so sad that I have to see you again in this context.

Mr. Zbur.

Ms. Quinto, I just wanted to say how sorry I am to hear of such a horrific experience in your family and your son. And Mr. Gipson, thank you for bringing this bill. I will be supporting it today.

Thank you.

Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. I feel very awkward in this particular moment just because I know the sensitivities of what took place. Very tragic. Very tragic. And my sympathies are for you. I've heard your story multiple times, and I just think it's very dangerous for us to respond politically to a medical determination. I think there's other ways to do it, and I find this to be a very difficult decision for me.

I'm not sure exactly how I'm going to address it, but I feel that there's just a big danger in telling the medical profession how to do their business.

Thank you.

I just want to clarify, so we just heard from testimony and from the author that this is actually not a recognized, excited delirium is not actually recognized by the Medical Association or other. So I'm curious, Mr. Lackey, about that concern.

Yeah, that is some of the medical profession, certainly, and that's what makes this very difficult. I understand the advocacy, and I understand where it's coming from. And I'm not saying it's misplaced, but I am saying that I think it's very dangerous that we tell people in this profession how they are to communicate with each other. And I find that to be very troubling.

You may close, Mr. Gipson.

Thank you very much and thank everyone who've spoken thus far. Assembly Bill 360 will place accountability on the action of law enforcement and the medical examiner's office. Ultimately, this bill will provide clarity and closure on the cause of death of loved ones. Assembly Bill 360 is supported by the Campaign Zero, California Public Defenders Association, Ella Baker's Center for Human Rights.

And if I may, just for a few moments, that we have credible organizations that I named, which is the World Health Organization, which is absolutely credible, the American Psychiatric Association as well as the American Medical Association.

And if they don't embrace or have given a definition or validated such term to be used, why are medical examiner's office only using this term when people are involved in custody and die in custody? And that's all we're saying.

When you fix as a medical or forensic pathologist on proving scientifically on how an individual die, that should be it. It should be, no question. But it should be backed up by fact. If someone commits suicide, it's drugs or gunshot wound.

It's going to appear on the autopsy report, but excited delirium cannot be proven or validated at all in any medical group whatsoever in the country. And so we should not be using it. Medical examiner's office should not be using it. And also autopsies should not conclude that this is a cause of death. I respectfully ask when aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Gipson. And the fact that there's no opposition and that if medical examiners or forensic scientists or whoever really believe that this is a term or a problem or something that should be on the death certificate, we would have got something in writing or they would have been here to protest.

Not seeing that here tells me that maybe this terminology is probably something that either can't be validated or shouldn't be used at all. And so I asked for a motion to approve it. Is there a second?

Yes.

On AB 360 by Assemblymember Gibson. The motion is do passed to the Judiciary Committee.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Alanis. Alanis. Items 9 and 11, AB 335 and AB 3555. Then we'll, I think we can go to. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. This is what it's like to sit down on this end. So. Good morning, chair, and my fellow Members. Mr. Chair, let me start off by thanking your office and your staff, and the Committee staff as well, for working with my office on this very important subject. I have found our conversations constructive, enlightening and most importantly, productive.

Fellow Members, I have heard you and I have listened carefully to your points of views over the first two Committee meetings and including this session as well. I don't think it is a secret to anyone here that I have real concerns about the real deficits I believe exist with Proposition 47.

While Proposition 47 has indeed accomplished the goals its supporters had set forth, I do also believe it has had negative consequences or severely harming retailers in big and small across the state, these retailers are bearing the burden of increasing retail thefts. Following our hearing last week, I met with large and small retailers in my district. They all said to me the same thing. Every one of them looked me in the eye and said, here in California, the problem is getting worse and not better.

Mr. Chairman, I also heard your words last week about retail theft law that you passed some years ago. I immediately instructed my staff to brief me on that legislation and found myself asking why that law was not being widely enforced across the state. I don't know the answer yet, Mr. Chairman, but having finished my 20 plus years careers as a sheriff's deputy and sergeant, most recently assigned to the court services division, I suspect that it's because the system remains backlogged and overwhelmed.

I am betting that District Attorney's offices are having to triage higher crimes over misdemeanors like retail theft, and the result is open season on retailers in California. To get some insight on this very topic, I have invited Stanles County District Attorney Mr. Jeff Leggero here to my right to testify with me today. Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, I may be new to the body and this line of work, but I can also count to 41, to 21, and most importantly to our business today, to five.

I was under no illusions when I introduced this Bill back in December that it was not likely to win the majority support. I am proud that this Bill, prior to my amending the Bill, had garnered bipartisan and bicameral support. I promised my constituents I would work on their concerns with Proposition 47.

And I introduced this Bill because I really wanted to have serious conversations and bring attention to the voices of businesses big and small across the state who are asking for accountability and relief from this burden of organized retail theft. In every press conference, in every town hall, every chance I get to speak on this issue, I have said if there is bipartisan ground to be found, I would definitely take it. Today.

I am pleased to sit here before you for my first time to say I believe the result of honest and serious discussions have now put us firmly on honorable and reasonable bipartisan ground to get real answers to some of these open questions, the amendments to AB 335, which would ask the Little Hoover Commission to comprehensively review the questions that Members of this Committee and this Legislature have had from both sides of the aisle, and to report back with those answers so we may work together to generate more just laws and better policies for all of our constituents.

I will be proudly accepting the amendments that have come as a result of open and honest conversations. And again with me again today is DA Jeff Leggero from the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office to speak with you about his experiences with Prop 47 and his perspectives as an elected DA here in California.

Five minutes total.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. It's my honor to be here before you today. Thank you for allowing me to be here and to provide some context in support of AB 335 and the proposed Little Hoover Commission study. Now that we've had the benefit of time and experience with Proposition 47, seems appropriate to examine those results and evaluate Proposition 47 and identify any needs for legislative fixes.

A perfect example of this can be found in the organized retail theft legislation, and that was a perfect example of identifying a need and narrowly tailoring a legislative remedy to the retail theft problem that we were seeing throughout California. And, Mr. Chair, I thank you for your leadership in that my office has utilized the statute to protect businesses and their livelihoods and to prosecute defendants that were repeatedly stealing from these businesses, causing thousands of dollars in losses.

And these aren't your typical shoplifters, who we often successfully divert into programs and never see again in the criminal justice system. These are organized groups targeting retailers throughout the state, decimating inventories and impacting the retailer's ability to remain in business. Like most prosecuting offices, we must allocate our limited resources to address the most pressing public safety needs. Proposition 47 has increased the number of offenses that qualify as misdemeanors.

As many misdemeanor offenses directly impact the quality of life in our communities, we continue to commit significant resources to address those offenses and to use a variety of programs to rehabilitate and deter, including pre and post filing diversion. Even with these effective and novel solutions, our courthouse has two dedicated misdemeanor courtrooms, with discussions to open a third. Our misdemeanor attorneys carry tremendously large caseloads, and we continue to add misdemeanor attorneys to our staff to spread out the work.

At times, we have used more senior attorneys to assist with the misdemeanor caseload, and this is not ideal, as it pulls our felony attorneys away from the felony cases that they're tasked with handling. Bottom line is that misdemeanor caseloads exceed any reasonable capacity or any sustainable capacity to handle. I'm very appreciative of this body's efforts to fact find and develop solutions to assist our retailers and our communities, as well as provide the criminal justice system the legal framework and resources needed to work for everyone.

Engaging the Little Hoover Commission to conduct review is an ideal way to support this body's critical work. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Laurie Hoff. I'm not an elected. I'm just a line deputy with the San Diego District Attorneys Association. I also am here with the San Diegans against crime, and I'm also speaking on behalf of the CDAA. We're also in support of AB 335. I think as prosecutors in San Diego, we've also seen some of the negative impacts of Prop 47 over the last several years.

We've seen the victimization of commercial businesses across the state, but also in San Diego, we've seen damage to storefronts, we've seen vandalisms, robberies, and we've seen city centers that are not safe anymore, not to mention the loss that has been mentioned to businesses themselves. We've seen organized retail theft, which you've also sought to address, but I think has come about because of some of the impacts of Prop 47, when individuals organized to steal from stores in a massive and organized way.

The San Diego DA's office actually came together to work with CHP when other cities couldn't prosecute and did prosecute, organized retail theft across the state. And I also see those unintended consequences of not being able to get individuals into those diverted programs, the treatment programs that were just mentioned. I think that's one of the sort of unintended consequences of Prop 47 that we need to be concerned about. Overall, I think this is a discussion that's worth continuing, and that's why we're supporting AB 335.

And we'd ask for your support as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support of AB 335? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition?

Carmen-Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU California Action, withdrawing our opposition in light of the proposed amendments.

Ella Baker Center withdraws its opposition.

California Public Defenders Association withdraws our opposition.

Ed Little, on behalf of California for Safety and Justice, withdraws its opposition and in light of the author's amendments, and we remain cautiously optimistic.

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California withdrawing opposition. Thank you.

Oh, Ms. Ortega. Bring it back. You first.

I just want to thank my colleague Alanis for his thoughtful and balanced approach to this issue. As we discussed last week, we're not interested in filling our prisons back up. This is something that this committee and the chair has worked on for a very long time and put a lot of thought and effort. However, we are hearing from our small businesses that retail theft is on the rise.

So I look forward to working with you, and I'm also cautiously optimistic and appreciate your thoughtfulness and working with the committee and making those amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

I want to thank our colleague for bringing this forward. Mr. Alanis, despite, quite frankly, the testimony of the witnesses here, I think you are on the right track of the second witness. You are on the right track in making us take a good hard look, using data and being informed to understand the nature of organized retail theft. Unfortunately, you had a witness who decided to enter into causality space around Prop 47. That weakened the argument, I think, that you were trying to make.

And in the legislation that you are moving forward, I will be supporting this bill in concurrence with your intention to be able to have us be data-informed in our decision-making around organized retail theft. Certainly, an issue that is of concern in my district as well. I caution you moving forward, however, to make sure that the witnesses that you bring forward actually are speaking to the nature of your legislation and not beyond the scope of it.

Thank you.

Anyone else? Yeah.

So we've got a thing here in the Legislature. We call it an author problem. And in this case, we have an author problem. And the problem is that you are doing a really good job of being incredibly thoughtful with your first ledge package and doing the reconsideration work prior to the chair telling you you need to because you're recognizing the spaces where you can build collaboratively. There are some things about this that I don't like. But in the spirit of that collaboration and in respect to your leadership in the direction that you're headed, I will be supporting this as well.

Thank you. What else? That's it. You may close.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, in closing, colleagues, there's no doubt that Proposition 47 has had significant impact on businesses and our communities throughout California. With the ongoing workforce shortage and increasing workloads, law enforcement and prosecutors are struggling to triage the growing number of misdemeanor cases that Proposition 47 has created. Real question remains, such as how often are crimes of retail theft and shoplifting actually reported to law enforcement? How often are law enforcement agencies responding to reports of retail theft?

And more to the point, how many of those reports are being sent to the District Attorney's Office under the law passed by the Chair in a previous session for prosecution? There are real concerns among retail businesses for the safety of their employees. There are real concerns about significant economic losses caused by retail theft. And of course, there are real and legitimate concerns among our communities of color about over-incarceration related to shoplifting. Bottom line, we need answers and we want our laws to work.

AB 335 is an honest attempt to answer those questions by directing the nonpartisan Little Hoover Commission to report to the Legislature and provide answers to those questions and concerns. Getting factual data back will help us to better do our jobs here.

And instead of pointing fingers across the aisle, we can show Californians that we are able to work together and that we can work to make California safer, to ensure our laws are enforced, and that our justice system can be made fair and just for all communities. I thank you all for your time. I thank you guys for all working with my team, and I am ready to work with each and every one of you towards that goal. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I think when we talk, this is about the war on words and Prop 4757 and even just what I call the big W's. Walmart. Walgreens. You got Walgreens saying that all of it is a lot of poopoo. They just made it up. And you got Walmart closing stores saying that it's because of retail theft. How can two big groups come with two completely different ideas of what's going on? And they're the large ones in the retail business.

And so what the author and I talked about is, let's get some answers, because as I'm going to push back on your witnesses, I need to find out if this is passive policing or is it just DAs and derelict in their duty to prosecute? Or is this judges not metting out justice in a deliberate attempt to sabotage 47 and 57 by letting this get out of hand? That's what's irritating me.

I went out of my way to put in an organized retail theft that nobody's picking up and doing in the DAs. I'm glad you're doing it. I'm glad the governor put in $200 million to help with additional resources so you'll be able to get it done. We do appreciate that. I believe if you had effectively implemented my bill, working with the Highway Patrol, we would not be having this conversation in this manner right now.

But I believe the Hoover Commission will show, will shine a light, will actually know what's really going on. Otherwise, your side is going to say Prop 47 is not working. My side is going to say it is. But you guys, we're just going to keep going back forth. Crime is up. Crime is down. Crime is up. Let's find out truly what we need to do to move this forward.

And I think the Little Hoover Commission may be impartial enough to give both our sides a reality check of what's really happening on shoplifting, smash and grab, and the organized retail theft front because that's what we honestly need that right now. Was there a motion? You may find it's closer to what I'm saying than what you're saying. I'm just saying.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

The measure passes item number 355. Item number 11. AB 355. We may have that many items, but not today.

Whenever you're ready. Oh, yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, thank you guys for having me here and for listening to me again. To start off, I'll be accepting the Committee's clarifying amendments today. And let's get into this.

AB 355 is a sensible approach in correcting an oversight in current law by allowing peace officer cadets enrolled in basic training prescribed by the commission on Peace Officer Standards and Trainings, or better known as POST or other certified trainings, to use a tactical rifle while engaged in firearms training and supervised by a firearms instructor. The current law exempts law enforcement from restrictions on possession of a tactical weapon.

However, those exemptions apply to only sworn peace officers, not cadets enrolled in a post academy or training. This has caused logistical issues with getting cadets adequately trained and certified during the academy in preparation for entry into the field training program. While cadets are required to train with handguns during the post academy, under existing law, they are technically prohibited from going through that same training with these tactical rifles. However, post requires proficiency in the use of these firearms.

So to resolve this conflict, agencies have to graduate cadets without completing tactical rifle training, then send them back to receive the rest of their firearms training as sworn peace officers. This delays and unnecessarily complicates cadet training and their entry into their agency staffing ranks, as you can see. Let me be clear. AB 355 does not allow cadets to use or possess a tactical rifle anywhere but under the supervision of instructors during firearms training.

By making this technical change, we can ensure that cadets are properly trained on tactical rifles before they graduate. With me today to testify in support is Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association and Meagan Poulos from the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Trainings to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Chair and Members, good morning again. Jonathan Feldman with Arc Strategies on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association.

We'll be quick and not reiterate what the Assembly Member already stated, but this has been an issue that's been going on for a while that we've been working with post to try and resolve, and what it ultimately comes down to is that we need this statutory change to make sure that the cadets can train legally with the tactical rifles in the academy and not have to be graduated out and then sent back, which, other than just a logistics problem, finding the time, finding when they're actually offering the training, kind of hits on another major issue that law enforcement is facing, which is staffing shortages.

Staffing shortages, since I've been representing the California Police Chiefs, has been one of the top three issues over the last 10 years, and it's only gotten worse since I've been representing the group. It's at the point now where sending an officer away for two days for training that they should have already received in the academy is causing major, major problems and jeopardizes the operations that city and county fire law enforcement officers are trying to staff their way through.

So with that, we thank the Assembly Member for authoring the bill, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote yes.

Were you testifying?

I'm not. I'm Meagan Poulos. I'm with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. I'm just here to answer any sort of technical questions you may have.

Okay. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support, name and organization?

Mr. Chairman, Members. Randy Perry with Aaron Reed and Associates on behalf of PORAC in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Yes, come up to the- You have five minutes total. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady Campaign, we respectively ask that you vote against AB 355 today. We do appreciate the amendments offered, but we don't think they go far enough. Assault weapons are uniquely lethal, and that's due to specific features that differentiate these weapons from hunting rifles that fire the same caliber ammunition.

These features allow a shooter to either conceal the weapon or to make it easier to fire a high volume of ammunition in a short period of time while maintaining accuracy. A typical AR 15 bullet leaves the barrel of the gun three times faster than a typical nine millimeter handgun bullet. When it enters a human body, the bullet is designed to fragment and tumble. The high velocity damages and kills tissue as the bullet travels, causing catastrophic internal bleeding.

California has taken a strong position against the possession of assault weapons, and this bill aims to weaken that, allowing any person enrolled in the course of basic training prescribed by the POST, or any other firearms course training certified by the commission to possess these weapons of war. This bill is not just limited to those training to be police cadets. The trainees covered in AB 355 include people who are not working towards becoming a traditional peace officer.

The trainees could include any number of people who have no need for this type of training and who have not been subject to a thorough background check or psychological examination. Permitting any person involved in this course to possess these weapons undermines the law and is dangerous. There already exists a carve out for actual peace officers, which is a properly constructed and narrow exemption that makes sense. Importantly, it is entirely unclear why this exemption is needed now.

These training sessions have been carried out since 1989, when California's assault weapons ban went into effect without the participants having access to these weapons. And there's no evidence that California law enforcement is not sufficiently trained in weaponry. Placing these weapons in the hands of any person taking these courses because they may want to handle these guns is irresponsible.

Californians have clearly stated their position on assault weapons and more generally on gun violence prevention, and this would undermine the will of the people and to public health and safety for these Williams, Brady, and the Brady California opposed 355. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee Members. Yes.

Hi, I read the letter and thank you for the testimony by the Brady Campaign. I'm looking at the bill language and was concerned about how loose it is in the sense that it says that it doesn't apply to the loan of an assault weapon or the possession of an assault weapon while engaged in firearms training, sort of the bill analysis sort of implies that this only applies to cadets and that they'd only be available during the training itself.

But it looks to me like the language would allow the loan of a firearm, one of these firearms, to someone who is in the course of this training. So I guess the question I had is, how long does this training take? And are people other than cadets allowed to take this training? So that is the first question.

I can answer that. So, the rifle training in the post regular basic course is total of 16 hours. That's mandatory. The academies do have the option to go longer if they wish, and the only people enrolled in the regular basic course are those who are hoping to be peace officers.

Just one follow up question. Would the author be amenable to tightening this up some so that it is actually limited to cadets? And I guess I have one other question. I assume cadets are subject to psychological screening and behavioral screening. Is that the case?

To be enrolled in the regular basic course, you have to pass the DOJ clearance, so you have to be cleared of any sort of criminal background to enter the academy. Most cadets, when they are enrolled in the academy, are already hired by a police agency. There's a very small percentage that are non sponsored, as we refer to, where they are not already hired by a police agency.

If they're hired by a police agency, they've gone through all the requirements of government code 1031, going through the appropriate background, psychological exams and so forth to be hired.

And I'd just like someone from the Brady Campaign to respond.

So, based on a bill passed a few years ago, it's not just those training for the police academy to undergo the firearms training for POST. It's also those who are with the California Horse Racing Board, State Department of Healthcare Services, DTSC, CalPERS, HCD. I mean, there's a long line of folks who are allowed under the UHA that are required to take post training.

Thank you. I'm going to vote for this to allow it to get out of Committee, but I'd like to ask the author to continue working with the Brady Campaign to tighten this up. I do think it's still too loose, and the language related to loaning of the weapon and the fact that it's not limited to just cadets gives me concern. And so I reserve the right to vote against this when it comes back to the floor, assuming it gets out of the Committee today.

Yeah, I just want to have a lot more clarity on the people who are perhaps not ultimately going to be hired on in a peace officer position and who are able to get this training. To Mr. Zaber's line of questioning. We only need one person to have the ability to get this additional training around assault weapons to then go on and commit a mass shooting.

And I appreciate the desire and the need to support expediency to make sure that our peace officers are fully trained in the use of assault weapons. But I am very concerned about, I want to understand what the very few is both on the front end in terms of who's getting this, the very few in terms of who ultimately ends up getting trained but then not assigned to become a police officer. What's the variance we're talking about here?

I don't know the percentage off the top of my head of how many non sponsored cadets go through the academy each year, but I do know that the number is small.

Just personally in my area. Sorry, in my area, yes. It's very rare that you have an unsponsored, you have agencies competing to get their cadets or their new hires in those academies so they can bring them on. It's very rare, at least in my area, it could be different in others to have an unsponsored cadet.

I would just make sure that everyone's clear that if you're unsponsored, you still get fingerprint checked, background check by DOJ, everybody that goes through. So it's not any person off the street with no clearance. They are reviewed. These are people that we do sufficient background checks on through DOJ. I understand the concern and we'll work to see if there's. As a sponsor, I can try and work on language to tighten up the concerns that you guys have raised.

But it's a very small percentage of individuals that might fall into this category. And I feel like they could get the type of training and skills if they're committed to doing that or just graduating through. I think it's an issue that's worth us trying to address. But I want to make sure everyone understands that every person that goes into the academy has been background checked by DOJ.

Again, I'm objecting a bit to this language. Small percentage. I would like to have some pretty critical numbers, and I appreciate that in your area, it's a very rare instance. This is a law that will apply to the entire State of California and I would like to have more information about that.

Ms. Ortega.

Along the lines of what my colleague Bonta is expressing. Just wondering what are the graduation rates? I know that there's part of the problem with our shortage in staffing is that a lot of cadets do not finish the training. And so therefore, my concern is that we're now training more folks to use assault weapons who don't actually graduate and know how to use them. So I'm just wondering what the graduation rate is? And there's still that small percentage.

I'm going to support it today, but I still have a lot of questions and also reserve my right to vote no later.

Any other? Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I suppose I appreciate the concerns, but I think that they're pretty much displaced because I'm telling you, the purpose of this is a pragmatic piece in trying to prepare officers to defend against very troubling circumstances. And it's here to show our support for those who are willing to actually lose their life if they're using one of these weapons, their life is being threatened.

And I think that the bill indicates, too, that it's not only narrow, but it's saying that this population has to be under supervision. So they've been screened, you have supervision. And I think that some of the opposition is just people that hate weapons, period. And I understand the disdain because there's been a lot of heartbreak because of the misuse of weapons.

And so it's not displaced, but it's displaced with this population because these are people that have been hired that are willing to die for everybody else and trying to stop threats. And that's really what we're trying to do here. And I appreciate the author for addressing this issue because it's a pragmatic exercise. It's only to help facilitate a training aspect by those who have been screened and been selected. And that process is pretty rigorous, I'll tell you that right now.

So I thank you for bringing this forward, and I clearly will be supporting it.

Another question for the author.

Are you willing to take amendments that would prescribe this specifically to the category of people who are, people who have been screened, trained, who are holding position, who are sponsored, who are holding a position in a police unit, and just to kind of make it very narrowly tailored to the category of person that you are trying to create expediency for and limiting the people who could be getting this training for a different purpose or in a different department?

I am, and I'm not sure about the oppositions with PERS, I've never heard of any of those people ever in an academy. So we'll have to look into that as well. But yes, I would have the same concerns if I was up there also with narrowing and making sure that those specifically who were wanting to expediate are the ones that we're actually covering.

Yes, Mr. Zbur.

It's along Assemblymember Bonta's question, are you also willing to limit it to possession only during the training itself? I mean, I had an additional concern about these weapons being loaned to people during training. And you said it's only 16 hours, but it could be interpreted to the entire police training. And so for me to ultimately be able to support this on the floor, it would have to be really narrow so that there's being used only during the training itself.

And very good concerns on everyone's. And no, this would just be, during the academy. This would just be, okay, guys, we're pulling out the rifles. We're going to do our training. We're bringing them back. That's the supervision that they're going to get. So I understand your concerns, but yes, that will be addressed.

Okay. Seeing none, you make close.

Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members. Very good questions. Honestly, I had those same concerns when the bill was to me as well, because as was brought up, there are some people yes, that may have issues. And I had those same issues as well. So I thought we had tightened it up enough. But obviously we'll tighten up a little bit more. And I asked for an aye vote thank you.

And I thought we had tightened it up enough. Evidently not. So I thank you for taking the amendments. Thank you. From the discussion here, you can see there's a lot more work to be done. You definitely need to be open to the discussion about loaning. I thought we had tightened it up in the language.

It looks like we need a little more because you can see by the questioning, we don't want a cadet to loan it out to someone, something happens, but also don't want a cadet or someone that doesn't make it through the program because they later find out that they may not be suitable to be law enforcement. And now we've trained them in the use of a high powered weapon or a weapon of mass destruction, and now they're out on the street fully trained.

I think that's a concern. I think there's a way to tighten that up. That's either. I have some ideas. We need to have a long discussion with the Brady Campaign because I believe what they're concerned about whether or not a fish and game person should be able to do this, even though with the cannabis situation now, maybe fish and game need some training with that.

So we need to narrow it to make sure people who don't really need this training just because they have a badge in the uniform, they get it, or we just need to tighten it up. And I think the Brady Campaign can help us get to that narrower specification. I don't want to speak for them, but I'm sure they understand that there are other people out there that have these weapons.

We need to work together to make sure we don't add to that number on the other side. I think that's what you're hearing from everyone here, that we don't want to add to that number inadvertently. And so with that, the chair is going to recommend an aye, knowing that if we don't get where we need to go, it's probably not going to, probably not going to get a lot of Members here moving it forward.

First, I got to get a motion, I guess.

On AB 355 by Assemblymember Alanis. The motion is due passed as amended. [Roll Call]

The measure passes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Items number 2 and 3, AB 61 and AB 93 Bryan.

Item number which one do you want to do first? Item number 61. Yeah. Yes, sir. Okay. Chair moves approval of item 61, and it whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I rise today to present AB 61, a Bill that will require arraignment hearings to occur within the first 48 hours following an arrest, and codify the requirement that a judge review all arrests for probable cause, as is currently required.

Constitutionally, California's pretrial timeline requires people who have been arrested to have their first court appearance without unnecessary delay after arrest. The penal code sets a 48 hours time frame for these arraignment hearings, but allows for exceptions, including Sundays and holidays, that can elongate to be as long as five days. As a result of these exceptions, people can remain in custody, and it's extremely harmful to their stability.

Studies have shown that having a person incarcerated for more than 24 hours can unnecessarily jeopardize their housing, their job security, their family stability, their mental health. Currently, people who are arrested can be held in jail for days without seeing a lawyer, even though many will not be charged. In 2021, prosecutors rejected over 20,000 felony arrests for lack of sufficient evidence or mistakes. Yet these people can be detained without ever seeing a judge again for as long as five days.

13 states, including Texas, Florida, and Alabama, require an arraignment hearing within 48 hours of an arrest without any exceptions. Again, we are behind Texas, Florida, and Alabama. AB 61 also codifies the United States Supreme Court case of the County of Riverside versus Mclaughlin. This case requires a neutral judge to review for probable cause every arrest made without a warrant within 48 hours and without additional time or exceptions. That is already happening. It's just not codified in our penal code.

Other states, again, like Florida, Louisiana, and Arizona, have codified it in their penal code. This came as a recommendation from the governor's Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code, for which I sit on as the Assembly Member. Both of these changes will ensure that incarcerated people who have not formally been charged with any wrongdoing have their prompt judicial review so that their housing, their employment, their family stability, and their livelihood are not unjustly jeopardized.

To give testimony today, I'm joined by Cecilia Chavez, an attorney with Silicon Valley debug, and Steve Munkelt, Executive Director of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

Thank you and good morning. I'm Steve Munkelt. I've been practicing criminal defense law for 45 years, initially in San Diego and currently in Nevada City. I'm also the Executive Director of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

CACJ is the co sponsor of this Bill, and if we had coordinated our remarks, there would be less overlap than you're going to hear in the next couple of minutes. But judicial review of warrantless arrests in less than 48 hours has been the constitutional standard in the United States for more than three decades. It's embarrassing that California has not acted to conform our criminal procedure to the minimum constitutional standards set in the United States Supreme Court case Riverside versus Mclaughlin.

It's a California case and we don't comply. Over those 30 years, I've personally handled many cases in several jurisdictions within California where there was no judicial review of probable cause within 48 hours or any other time. This Bill will bring California into compliance with the Constitution requiring review of probable cause within 48 hours by an independent magistrate, and this change under the Bill would apply to both adult criminal and juvenile cases.

A related problem in procedure is the permissible delay in bringing an accused before the court to argue for release from custody and get arraignment on charges. Currently, penal code sections 825 and 849 specify the standard mentioned earlier. Bring them to court without unnecessary delay. Obviously, a vague term, section 825 sets the outer limit for the first appearance at 42 hours, but exempting Sundays and holidays. This Bill addresses those exemptions.

The one example of the problems created for individuals arrested by the excessive delay is the Thanksgiving Weekend. Most people arrested on a Wednesday won't appear before a judge until the following Tuesday. That's almost an entire week that they sit in custody before they get to talk to anybody or have any review of their case at all. This Bill would amend penal code 825 to eliminate the exemptions.

And as mentioned, there are a number of states that are already requiring that initial court appearance within 48 hours or less. Several states require it within 24 hours. By making these changes, we'll help individuals get back to their jobs and families, maintain employment while their case is pending, and be able to support their children and grandchildren. Remember, the vast majority of those arrested will not have their case finally resolved for weeks, months, or sometimes longer.

For many, the first few days after arrest may be the only time they are incarcerated until the case is completed. And the longer that delay stretches out for their opportunity to seek release from custody, the worse the consequences will be for them, their families and the community. We ask you to support this Bill with an Ivo. Thank you. Next.

Thank you for having us. My name is Cecilia Chavez and I'm a community organizer with Silicon Valley debug. Silicon Valley Debug is a community advocacy group that supports loved ones who are going through the criminal, immigration and juvenile proceedings. We want to thank the Committee for this opportunity to tell the stories of the families that have come through our doors over the years. We have supported hundreds of families through the pretrial and arraignment stage of the system.

Since the Humphrey ruling, we've been in arraignment court every day collecting observations and connecting with families, desperately trying to get their loved ones home. This Bill is important to our community because it directly impacts our loved ones right to an arraignment within the 48 hours. We know that a lot of things can happen within the arrest and the time of arraignment that affects our community, such as losing their housing, losing employment, and sometimes even losing their children.

For example, a few years ago we supported a loved one, AB, who was arrested on September 21, and his arraignment wasn't until September 27. That was six days from the time of arrest to a time of arraignment. This was a crucial moment in Avy's lives because of his daughter was born just two days before his arrest. He went on to be on pretrial following two years until his charges were dropped. During that time, he lost valuable time with his daughter, her first steps, her first words.

He even lost the opportunity to renew his DACA status, which left him in limbo in an invulnerable state. Another example is that of Godwin, who was in custody for five days without even being arraigned. Charges were ultimately never filed, but yet he had to wait five days for this to happen during the time he was living out of his car and with his pregnant partner, which his car was towed and he couldn't get back and lost his job opportunities.

This case also helped uncover illegal practices in Santa Clara County by the sheriff's Department, where they were holding individuals who the DA didn't proceed with the charges until the last available hour for arraignment, resulting in unnecessary holding of our community Members for past the 48 hours. We greatly appreciate your yes vote on this very critical Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of initiate justice in support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support thank you.

Glenn Backes, Ella Baker Center for human rights in support thank you.

Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for safety and justice and ARC in support. Thank you.

Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU Cal action in support thank you.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? Good morning again.

Good morning. My name is Laurie Hoff again. I'm a prosecutor representing over 330 union Members from the San Diego District Attorneys Association, the San Diego's against Crime and CDAA. We are opposed to AB 61, as it's currently written. We're actually not opposed to early pretrial procedures, but we don't feel this Bill addresses what it thinks it's going to address. And I think the way it's written will actually potentially cripple the entire criminal justice system if it's passed.

Comparing California's arraignment procedures to other states, the states, for example, that have been mentioned or that are listed in this Bill is kind of like comparing apples to oranges, because our arraignment process is very different. For example, other states, like the ones listed, do require a probable cause hearing within 48 hours of arrest based on a police officer's office and a police officer's affidavit. We actually, in San Diego, do that within 24 hours for warrantless arrest.

For example, probable cause declarations are reviewed by judges within 24 hours, and a judge will release individuals prior to arraignment if probable cause is found to be insufficient. That is in alignment with the Riverside case that we would support being codified. That's appropriate. But at this initial hearing, other states, for example, typically do not require appointment of counsel. They don't require a DA charging document, and they do inform individuals of their constitutional rights.

California, on the other hand, not only informs individuals of their constitutional rights, it appoints counsel at that time, and it also requires the DA to file charges or the individual is released. A lot of other states, the ones that are mentioned, for example, don't even have a deadline for prosecutors to file those charges. Some of those states that were mentioned require a DA to file a charging document within 30 days of this probable cause hearing.

In many of these states, some of that are listed designate no bail cases. For cases that are serious, they are completely exempt from this 48 hours hearing requirement. I spoke to the bureau chief in anticipation of this hearing in New York. She is chief of intake. She told me specifically, there is no automatic release, no automatic kickouts for individuals in serious cases like murders or what she calls pattern serious cases like serial robberies, for example.

If the DA does not file charges within 24 or 48 hours, there are no exceptions in this Bill for these types of serious cases for the DA to review and file charges. It's just a different way that we do it here. And if we're going to be similar to these other states. We need to have everything similar.

Finally, I think this Bill is going to be an extreme financial burden on our taxpayers because what it means is that we are going to move to open seven days a week, open at night, night court with courts, fully staffed DA's offices, staffed public defenders, staffed law enforcement staff because they have to transport individuals to and from court. I will tell you that we are experiencing a tremendous amount of strain in our courts.

We don't even have enough judges in San Diego to try misdemeanor cases, let alone be open on the weekends and at nights, for this type of serious commitment. So I do think there are ways, ultimately, that we can get to this probable cause requirement. Things that we do, for example, in San Diego that are good, like that 24 hours rule that judges have to review probable cause warrants for warrantless arrests. I think that's great, but I just think that it's just not written very well.

It's going to have a massive impact beyond what I think the intent is. So with that, I appreciate your time. I would ask at this time for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee Members. Ms. Bonta.

I'd love during discussion, as opposed to just in closing, for the author to be able to have response to the charge that this is not a very well written Bill. From my perspective, anything that allows us to be able to carry out justice while ensuring that we are doing so in a timely manner, and ensuring that we're not holding people unnecessarily for a time that is not ours, it's theirs.

When they are captured in our carceral system seems to be like a very important thing for us to be able to do. And an argument that it will require us all to do our work better and faster and more expediently seems like an incredibly terrible argument as the State of California on the cutting edge of criminal justice transformation. So I'd love the author just to be able to respond to the testimony.

Yeah, I mean, it's definitely the first time I've publicly been accused of trying to bring down the entire criminal justice system. Also, if I was looking for advice on how to do things better, I personally wouldn't call Rikers island either. Delaying arraignments for as long as five days on Thanksgiving weekend for people who have not been charged with any wrongdoing, haven't been charged or convicted is wrong. It's shameful. There are other states who do this better who do this faster.

This may require additional investments in the system, but I'm not thinking about whether the judges can handle this or whether public defenders can handle this or whether DAs can handle this. We build the infrastructure for them to handle this. I'm thinking about the over 20,000 people who languished in jail last year not to ever be charged at all. Right.

If you think about our unhoused population, one of the quickest pipelines to going unhoused is going into the jail system for even just a few days when you're living check by check or getting paid hourly. So imagine 20,000 people going into jail, not having a hearing in five days, finding out that their charges have been dropped, and then ending up on the streets. What does that cost the system? What does that overload impact on the state? And so that would be my response to those comments.

It was incredibly well written. I know that because I took time on it. I know that because it came from the Committee on the Revision of the penal code, the governor's Committee. It took over a year of work from community and Committee Members. And the case that it's codifying again, it is a California Supreme Court case. We're still already open to civil suits if we violate that case.

Other states have added that case to their penal code so that there's not variation county to county and jurisdiction by jurisdiction. That's what we're doing here. This is smart governance. This is the right thing to do. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I will use that as my close. Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Chair is recommending aye vote. Thank you for bringing this forward. I'm a little tainted since I've tried this a couple of times before. Governor Brown, veto one of my attempts. So I thank you for bringing it back. Is there a second 2nd.

On AB 61 by Assembl Member Bryant. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call}.

That measure passes, and we'll go to item number three, AB 93, criminal procedural consensual searches.

We're almost done here. Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. It's our final bill of committee today. I rise present AB 93, a bill that would specify that consent to conduct a search without an evidentiary basis is not a lawful justification for a search. Currently, police officers need probable cause to search a vehicle or probable cause that a vehicle contains evidence of wrongdoing to conduct a warrantless search.

They're allowed to conduct a more limited search when they reasonably suspect that a person is armed and dangerous. For other searches, like searching my cell phone, you would need a warrant, or you can bypass all of those legal thresholds if you simply ask me if you can search my stuff and I acquiesce and say yes. This consent waives the statutory and constitutional protections that protect all Californians from unjust search and seizures.

In 2022 last year, officers requested consent to search people for their property nearly 60,000 times during traffic stops. Today, consent searches require no objective or rational basis and rely on expansive discretion of individual police officers. This disconnect from objective and rational examination of evidence of criminal activity makes this type of search particularly vulnerable to bias, implicit, explicit, and otherwise. Indeed, the data shows exactly the type of bias and enforcement that plagued this purely discretionary law enforcement action.

This year, the State of California's Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board, which is housed in the Department of Justice, based on legislation that we passed out of here, found that Black individuals were four times as likely and Latinos 2.5 times as likely as their white counterparts to be asked for a consent search during a routine traffic stop. Moreover, the data shows that these discretionary searches were widely ineffective.

California law enforcement reported to the RIPA board the vast majority of consent searches do not result in the discovery of anything illegal. I repeat, do not result in the discovery of anything illegal. Over 93% of the consent searches of black individuals resulted in no discovery of contraband. Officers were less than half as likely to find contraband in the possession of a Black or Brown person compared to white folks.

Both the RIPA board and the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code have recommended prohibiting searches based solely on a person's purported consent. The RIPA board, in fact, calls to ban consent searches in California. California would not stand alone in narrowing exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut have implemented similar policies without any negative impact on public safety.

Under current law, a person has the right to tell an officer that they do not agree to a consent search. Imagine how often you say no to a law enforcement officer at any point during an encounter, particularly in Black, Brown, poor, and indigenous communities. You don't have to imagine because in 98.5% of the occasions, people do not deny an officer's request to search for good reason.

Under current law, people of color are routinely and disproportionately asked to waive their rights by officers under the color of law. Consent searches are ineffective, they're costly, they're racially biased, and they're effectively non-voluntary. They're coercive. To give testimony today, I'm joined by Andrea Guerrero, co-chair of the RIPA board, and Marshal Arnwine, an attorney with the ACLU.

Whenever you're ready.