Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Welcome to the Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing. I would ask for a quorum, except I'm the only Democrat here. I'm sorry, Mr. Thank you for not leaving me by myself. Mr. Lackey's laughing, so I think I'm supposed to read a bunch of stuff. All witness testimony will be in person. I repeat, 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 at assembly.ca.gov/committees. I guess we can begin. Well, real quick housekeeping. What's off calendar today, especially if you're here? Both were pulled by their author. Item number 4, AB 97 Rodriguez, pulled by author. Item number eight, Bauer-Kahan, pulled by the author. And I don't have the list of any list of who signed in. Oh, here it is. We're doing this in sign-in order. Mr. Ward signed in first. Mr. Hoover.

So we're going to start as a subcommitee. Won't be able to vote until we get a quorum. And if we do, we may stop establish a quorum so we can vote on your item. So, Mr. Ward, whenever you're ready. Item AB 78, Ward, grand juries.

Thank you. Are we on?

There you go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Good to be with you this morning. AB 78 is a reintroduction of a bill this Committee heard last year, and I want to thank you again for the really good questions and progress that we made. It is the first step to diversifying grand juries in California to ensure that they're truly representative of the constituents that we serve. Grand juries have the power to act as a watchdog for some of our most consequential local agencies and officials.

And unfortunately, the time commitment and low compensation rate for the grand jury service effectively bar most Californians from serving, especially those from disadvantaged and low income communities. You'll see from your analysis that in 2001 was the last time by statute that the grand jury rate was set at $15 per day. To meaningfully address these discrepancies, AB 78 makes three changes to the grand jury selection process.

First, it would require additional demographic data to be collected during the county grand juror selection process for the purpose of yearly reports to the Judicial Council. Second, it would raise the per diem rate for grand jurors to make his service a more viable option for lower income individuals. And third, it would provide education to potential jurors by including information on how to become a grand juror during the trial jury summons that we all get in the mail.

For witnesses, I have in support Cynthia Castillo with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You have five minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Cynthia Castillo, and I'm a Policy Advocate for Western Center on Law and Poverty. Western Center is the state oldest and largest legal aid support center with the goal of ending poverty through the lens of economic and racial justice. We're proud to support AB 78, which will ensure the diversification of grand juries in California so that they are representative of the state's population.

A key component of that is also ensuring that jurors are fairly compensated with the end goal of making grand jury duty more accessible for Californians with low incomes. California's grand jury process is driven by everyday Californians who volunteered their time to serve and ensure that their local government is responsive and fair to their community.

Grand juries perform two primary roles, which is to evaluate the validity of charges being brought by a prosecutor, and the other is to inquire into and investigate the operations of county agencies and officials. In this latter function, grand juries act as a critical watchdog to essential government departments, such as sheriff's departments and detention facilities, to institutions that historically involve the detention and prosecution of low income people of color. Additionally, they oversee the issuing of criminal indictments and investigate allegations of public corruption.

Unfortunately, California's deep racial disparities in access to justice and income and wealth have resulted in a gulf of opportunities for people of color to serve their civil duty. These changes, in our view, are necessary from a racial justice and equity perspective. Juries play a critical role in the lives of Californians involved in the legal system disproportionately, people of color and those living in poverty and who are over policed. A diverse and representative jury will also build the public's trust and confidence in our courts.

AB 78 makes the necessary changes to provide equal access to grand jury service, and we urge an aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Now we'll open it up. Any other witnesses in support? You can come to the microphone. Name and organization.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston, in support, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and also on behalf of myself as a former civil grand jury member.

Thank you.

Natasha Minsker, on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. And now we're here for witnesses in opposition. Thank you. Welcome. You have five minutes.

There's two of us.

You both have five minutes. Any way you want to split it up.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Kalyn Dean, Legislative Advocate with the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties. Regrettably, we are opposed to AB 78 unless it is amended. My comments today are made on behalf of CSAC, the urban counties of California, and the Rural County Representatives of California. We're regrettably opposed unless this measure is amended to fully address the considerable costs it would impose on county governments.

While we appreciate and encourage increased diversity, this bill would add un-budgeted costs to county budgets. Our low end estimate is about $16.9 million of new and unanticipated county general fund costs. Specifically, if the amount is raised from $15 a day to the 70% of the County Median daily income, it would likely cost Los Angeles County an additional 760,000, Merced County about 200,000, and Stanislaus almost 230,000, just to provide a few examples.

I will stress that this is a super conservative estimate and the numbers were calculated based off of the Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Costs can be considerably higher than this given that our estimates reflect a conservative projection of the number of meetings per county. And I'll also note that these estimates assume that the bill language does not expand the number of days that the stipend applies, and it also assumes that the number of grand jury meetings will remain static.

Our estimate is based on information reported by counties on civil grand juries only. Although the bill would also apply to criminal grand juries. In most counties, per capita revenues have never recovered from the ravages of the Great Recession in real dollars. And so, therefore, we respectfully request that the provision in Section two of the bill providing for increased compensation be amended to apply only in the years the state budget has provided a sufficient appropriation for the purpose. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Karen Jahr. I'm here representing the California Grand Jurors Association. CGJA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that's been providing training to grand jurors for almost two decades. We train over 1100 grand jurors each year, and our teams of trainers present these trainings at 19 separate venues. We also conduct MCLE training for the district attorneys and the county councils who provide civil legal services to the grand jury.

I'm a former county counsel myself, having held the position of Shasta County Council for 17 years before I retired. Every one of our members is a volunteer. We do this work without pay because we believe that civil grand juries are one of the most effective ways to promote good government at the local level. We respectfully oppose AB 78 unless it's fully state funded.

We believe the bill would imperil the ability of civil grand juries to do their job to act as the watchdog over local governments. Each year, these grand juries collectively issue about 350 reports concerning local governments, such as counties, school districts, districts and cities. These reports can reveal financial irregularities, poor business practices, violations of the law, and occasionally official corruption. But of course, they can also reveal when local entities are doing a particularly good job.

But importantly, no other institution is charged with a routine investigation into these local entities. This oversight is essential to local government accountability. Without the local county grand jury, many governmental problems would never come to light. We agree that the minimum per diem of $15, as it appears in the law today, is too low. But raising the per diem to the amounts that are reflected in this bill would have significant unintended consequences.

According to the data compiled by CSAC, under this bill, the per diem would increase tremendously and it would vary county to county from about $99 to $443 per county. The median would be about $150. According to the Attorney General, the per diem is required only for plenary sessions when the entire jury meets. Plenaries usually last an hour or two, and each grand jury on average, meets in plenary session two to four times per month.

However, the great majority of the grand jury's civil watchdog activities don't occur at the plenary. Grand juries divide themselves into committees, and it's at the Committee level where most of the work is actually done. Most jurors work 15 to 25 hours per week, and almost all that time, or the great majority of that time, is spent on these Committee activities, which are to conduct the investigations and write the reports. The investigations include interviews, site visits and other Committee work.

Currently, the law allows counties to adopt ordinances that can increase the dollar amount of the statutory per diem and or apply the per diem to other grand jury activities, including these necessary Committee activities. And about 40% of the counties have done so. Many have increased the per diem to $20 to $25, still questionably appropriate. And we understand that most of the counties pay the per diem not just for the plenaries, but also for any day a juror attends one of these Committee meetings or activities.

Because of the counties being strapped for money, it is a concern to us that they may choose to repeal these ordinances and go back to the point where they're only paying for the plenary sessions, which take place two to four times per month. But these Committee activities are essential.

Five minutes are up. Could you wrap up, please?

Yes. Essential to proper and thorough investigation. And if the grand jurors are paid nothing for their Committee activities, fewer of these activities will take place, and we believe that this will impair government oversight. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. And are any other witnesses in opposition? Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee Members for any questions. Comments? Mr. Zbur?

So, Assemblymember Ward, I want to thank you for bringing this. I think it's really an important bill, and I think it's important to make sure that we actually have diversity in grand juries. I did have one question about the bill, and that is on the data collection.

It didn't look to me like data is being collected on sexual orientation and gender identity under the bill. As you know, LGBTQ+ people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and making sure that we have diverse grand juries. Also, it's important that that extend to the LGBTQ+ community. I do think the bill would benefit LGBTQ+ grand jurors, so I plan on supporting it.

But I was wondering if you could explain whether you'd be open to including SOGI data as part of the final bill as it moves through the process.

Thank you, Assemblymember Zbur. Absolutely. I'm open to that. We'll be happy to work on that with you for possible future amendments.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I really appreciate this hearing today. And I heard, I think, a lot of agreement with those in opposition that the institution is important, that there are some challenges with the structures that we have today that need improvements. And I'm happy to work on the budget issues during fiscal Committee. I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Okay. And we don't have a quorum yet. As soon as we do, we'll vote on it. But I also want to remind Members, especially new Members, to this Committee. This is a policy committee, not the fiscal committee. Assemblymember Ward will have that challenge when he goes through Appropriations, and the opposition then can make their statements then, because that's the appropriate place where it should be. Coming from local government, they definitely have a point.

As a state government, we shouldn't be doing unfunded mandates down on people. So hopefully we can work out something so that we don't cash strap the local municipalities. But I trust Assemblymember Ward will work hard on that to make that happen. And I think the chair of Budget Sub-5 is here, so. Not here right now, but she may have a hand in helping you get there, too. So with that, thank you. And as soon as we have a quorum, we'll return to the measure. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Connolly, you're up. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Hoover. I'm sorry. Hoover, I'm sorry. I apologize. It's in signing order. I can't read. It's early in the morning. I haven't had my coffee. We do have a quorum now. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

[Roll call]

All is present. Let's take up the item. Let's take up the consent calendar. Just pause it.

Take care of some housekeeping. On the proposed consent calendars, we have four items. Item number four, AB 253 Maienschein, Child Death Investigations Review Teams. Item number seven, AB 271, Quirk-Silva, Homeless Death Review Committees. Item number nine, AB 303 Davies, Firearms Prohibited Persons. Item number 10, AB, 313 Vince Fong, Corrections Notifications. Is there a motion to accept the proposed consent calendar?

And, Secretary, call the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call]

Consent calendars adopted. This is looking good. Like we're going to get through this fairly quickly. Mr. Hoover, whenever you're ready. Item number one, AB 75 Hoover, Shoplifting and Petty Theft Repeat Crimes.

Wonderful. Can everyone hear me?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I appreciate the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 75 to you. This bill would provide a common sense change to Proposition 47 by restoring penalties for serial theft offenders who have multiple theft related convictions. I want to start out by thanking the chair and the CHP for their continued efforts to combat organized retail theft. I know this has been a priority for this Committee, and this is critically important work that must continue.

That said, I also urge that more work needs to be done to help our small business owners and our residents who are being impacted by rising retail theft on a smaller scale in their communities as well. At the heart of the problem, in my view, is a lack of accountability in our criminal justice system due to changes from Proposition 47. When you call something a crime, but then remove all consequences for that crime, it becomes a crime in name only.

I would argue that a crime in name only is no longer a crime. When we communicate to the public that there will be no consequences for certain actions that society deems unacceptable, we can expect to see an increase in the frequency of those actions. Now, opponents of this bill will argue that the statistics simply do not support these conclusions. But when you effectively decriminalize a crime, that action will no longer be reported as such.

Why would a law enforcement officer report a crime that they know will not be prosecuted? This is an ongoing issue that one of my witnesses will discuss in further detail as well. Something else that the statistics do not show are the thousands of stories from communities across our state, from small business owners, from residents in each of our communities.

And I'm sure all of our offices have heard from their chambers of commerce or from residents who say that retail theft, car break-ins, these types of crimes have never been worse. We need to ask ourselves why. Today, I brought two of my constituents with me because I want you to hear how this is actually impacting our communities on the ground, not just in theory, but in reality.

With me today to my right is the Mayor of the City of Folsom, Rosario Rodriguez, who is also a small business owner in our community. And then next to her is former Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness, who will be sharing some testimony from a public safety perspective. Thank you.

Thank you. You're both welcome. You both have five minutes total. Whatever way you want to share.

Well, good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Rosario Rodriguez. I am a local restaurant owner in historic Folsom and serve as the city's mayor. One does not need to go far to hear the impact of shoplifting has done in our communities. I can just talk to managers from Ulta, Dick's sporting goods, Victoria's Secret, and other major retailers. Thefts are rampant. The Folsom Police Department responds several times a week to investigate thousands of dollars of thefts. Prop 47 damaged the criminal justice system.

The threat of jail is no longer a deterrent. Thieves now go to businesses with shopping lists. There is no concern about stealing because they know that they won't go to jail. In 2021, Folsom businesses experienced a 1.4 million in losses and 353,000 in shoplifting alone. The business community needs our government to create laws that protect businesses. It is laws like Prop 47 that make it tough to do business in California because of the lack of accountability. And I will turn it over to Mr. McGinness.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. Appreciate your time very much and a couple of observations. First of all, as Mr. Hoover alluded, a law enforcement officer is not as inclined to report something when he believes there's no consequences to follow that will not produce anything. But perhaps even more important, the general public, victims of crime, are not reporting because the prevailing belief is nothing will come of that.

That prevailing belief exists among the retail community, among society at large, as well, frankly, as the law enforcement community and those who are inclined to offend.

So there's no doubt that I recognize very much the fact that this is an adverse impact, what we've done in the last eight years, now nine years, almost as a result of Proposition 47, the impact on retail business, on the Chamber of Commerce, on people wanting to just live their life and pursue their interest and go out, and among others, because there's a sense of fear that exists.

But I think there's a kind of a lost and forgotten part or component, and that is those offenders themselves. And you might be surprised to hear that. I'm a 40 year law enforcement guy, but the underserved communities that we talk so much about are real. That's a very real part of the problem we have today.

And to have people who are inclined to step outside the bounds of acceptable behavior very early in their lives and commit what we generally think of as minor crimes and not feel the consequences for that, I think foreseeably and predictably puts them on a path in which they are likely to engage in more serious kinds of criminal misconduct. So it's a disservice to them. It's a disservice to everybody. It has, I think, really truly damaged confidence in the system. So I appreciate this bill very much.

During the course of my law enforcement career, I had occasion to make arrest for a violation of Penal Code Section 666, petty theft with a prior. I testified on many shoplift cases. I never testified on a felony prosecution for 666 because the district attorneys have the discretion to deal with those appropriately and did so.

But it's my belief, and I don't have any hard evidence to support this, but I think it's logical and legitimate observation that people who feared that consequence of a felony prosecution for additional theft crimes will modify their behavior. And there's also opportunities that I think could be introduced along the lines of redirecting them in a more positive way. Appreciate your time very much.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

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

Thank you, Corey. Name and organization. Thank you.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Richard Heiler. I live in Folsom. I'm in support. Can I read a statement?

No. Thank you.

Good morning. Audrey Ratajczak from Cruz Strategies on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support now? Witnesses in opposition? Are there any? Could you allow them to sit? Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Ed Little with Californians for Safety and Justice. I come before you today in respectful opposition to AB 75. AB 75 signals a return to fail tough on crime policies of the past and would undermine public safety by increasing the costly and counterproductive incarceration in state prison for some of the lowest level crimes in the state penal code.

AB 75 proposes to make it easier to charge nonviolent Californians with felonies and go back to the same short sighted, tough on crime measures that have failed California for the past three decades. It is yet another attempt to go down the path of California that California voters have already, not once but twice, rejected. Repealing parts of Prop 47 would rob our local communities of hundreds of millions of dollars that Prop 47 will save them annually.

These savings are reallocated back to communities for proven crime prevention programs that address the root causes and stop the cycles of crime. In the Governor's 2023 Jan budget, the Department of Finance estimates a net general fund savings of just over $100 million for Prop 47. To date, this would bring the grand total to just over $700 million, or three quarters of $1.0 billion.

Contrary to the failed narrative that has been perpetuated about Prop 47 by some stakeholders, Prop 47 is not responsible for some sort of crime wave. Even some of those who have propagated this false account have been forced to retract their statements. In an article entitled "Walgreens Admits it May Have Cried Wolf Over Theft", "Maybe we cried too much last year," Walgreens CFO James Kehoe said during the company's most recent earnings call on January 5.

Now that Walgreens has admitted it may have overdone things with its response, the next step could include cutting back on some of the insource security or having fewer products behind plastic casings. But overall, Kehoe says that Walgreens is "quite happy with where we are". For these reasons, we are opposed to AB 75, and we strongly urge you to vote no on this policy.

Good morning to the entire Committee, including people behind me. My name is Leslie Caldwell Houston. I practiced criminal defense for nearly 40 years and for the 10 years before I retired, I was the chief defender department head of a midsize public defender's office. I'm here on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition to AB 75.

Once again, we have an attempt to increase the penalties on petty theft if the individual has three or more prior petty theft convictions, no matter how long ago the convictions occurred. AB 75 proposes to make it easier to charge nonviolent Californians with felonies and put them in jail for multiple years. I want to emphasize the fact that a misdemeanor carries six months in jail and in some situations, a year in jail. That is a long time.

If you think about something in your life that lasted six months or a year that wasn't good, you will know that's a long time. If the police don't report the crimes to the DA or if the DA doesn't prosecute, that's the problem, not the sentence. There's talk about a lack of accountability, but the accountability goes, in my mind, to the police and prosecutors who won't prosecute the crimes, thus leading the public to have less faith in the system.

It's not the sentence, it's the lack of holding people accountable by the police and the prosecutors. In 2014, California voters overwhelmingly favored Proposition 47, a proposal that kept nonviolent offenders out of prison and reduced penalties for minor drug and theft offenses not dissuaded. In 2020, tough on crime advocates tried again to persuade the public to repeal Prop 47 via Prop 20. Again, the California voters rejected the attempt to return to mask incarceration.

AB 75 is another attempt to go down the path that voters of our state have twice rejected and good justice policy does not support. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote on AB 75.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Name and organization. Thank you.

Jim Lindbergh, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Also, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Carmen Nicole Cox for ACLU California Action in opposition.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiation, opposition.

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

Thank you. Now we'll bring it back to Committee Members for any comments or questions.

First off, I'd like to thank Assembly Member Hoover for bringing this to our attention. We're talking about criminals that basically haven't learned their lessons from what I'm gathering. And Sheriff McGinnis, what you had brought up, and I quote you, you said, nothing will come of this is what the owners or the victims of the theft have said. Why do you think they would say that nothing would come of this?

Because we've seen rampant evidence of that reality. You have people in revolving door justice. People are, notwithstanding what the law calls for, prescribes for sentencing for a misdemeanor crime. Shoplifters are not serving time in custody at all. And so the reality is, I think everybody in this room, in these chambers, has seen images on television of grand scale retail thefts. And what are the consequences, what befalls the people who engage in that activity? So what I envision is a young person who's stepping out.

They're testing the waters for the first time in their life. They feel absolutely nothing for it. Are they more or less likely to reoffend in the future? And the answer, I think, is overwhelmingly yes. I want to stop that, want to stop that progression. And that's why I appreciate Mr. Hoover's Bill.

Thank you for that. And just so you guys know, in my district, I know in the City of Turlock, they had just arrested somebody who had about 22 or 23 bench warrants involving shoplifting. So it continued and continued going back to the point that the opposition brought up that the DA's office is not prosecuting most of these crimes.

Okay.

And that from what my experience has been from being in the sheriff's office for over 20 years, is that they have to triage it, just like most people have to do also. And if they're not going to get a sentence that's going to be equitable to the time that is used by the DA's, then they're not going to spend their time doing that, whereas they're going to spend their times more on heinous crimes of felonies that are involved.

Also, I'd like to bring up that a lot of the businesses in my district are leaving because of Prop 47. And I've heard that from their mouths, because of Prop 47, because of the charges that aren't there to substantiate the penalties or the penalties are not there for the crime. So I've actually seen people walk outside of like, Home Depot that were not touched because they know they can get away with it.

And that's going on across California, and I think that's what's truly going on throughout our state. Thank you, guys.

Yeah. If I could just ask Mr. McGinnis one more time if he would elaborate why he thinks that this measure would serve as a prevention tool, because I think that's what we all want is prevention. And if I could have you re-elaborate why you think that this might be a preventative measure.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey?

I'd be happy to, Mr. Lackey. I believe that when people are confronted with decisions to make, if there's a profound belief that the consequences for engaging in certain high risk or unlawful behavior are significant, it minimizes the likelihood that they will reoffend. I can tell you from the time three strikes and you're out passed. I was a homicide detective at that time interviewing suspects and witnesses to various kinds of crimes.

They knew their strike tally better than I did and they were absolutely influenced by that in terms of their behavior, those associated with people who committed serious egregious crimes. I think the exact same thing is true here. At the time of arrest, at the time of confrontation, on those rare occasions when it happens in retail theft, the defendants, the suspects, are very likely to say, you can't do anything to me. They cite Proposition 47. They know that they'll not feel the consequences.

That's obviously not good for all the other previously identified groups of people. Retail, the general public at large, the public coffers, quite frankly, when taking of that merchandise doesn't involve an opportunity to generate retail sales tax. But it's also the offenders themselves that I think all of us have an obligation to, to ensure to the greatest extent possible that they don't reoffend, that they get on a path to a better life. And this Bill offers that. Prop 47 does not.

And I appreciate that remark because I think we get caught up in the old tired argument about when there actually was a time when we may have over penalized. But what this Bill addresses is repeat offenders repeat. So these people have no incentive to stop. That's what we're trying to address, is the repeat offenders. And I would think that everybody here, in the sense of fairness and especially to retail it's gotten to the point to where, as Mr. McGinnis has indicated, that they don't believe.

Many of these people don't believe there are any consequences, and so they're incentivized to engage in this behavior. I will tell you that I have one of my children who, they're not children. They're young adults now, actually worked in a retail, and they were advised by their manager that when they saw somebody engaged in theft, they were not even to bring attention to it. That is what's happening. This is reality. And I don't think that anybody on this dais feels that that's acceptable.

At least I hope not, because if so, our society is doomed. And we need to have some measure of accountability and some measure of prevention. I think that that's a reasonable request, and that's why I'm supporting this Bill. Thank you, Mr. Bryan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully disagree with my colleagues. The reason people commit petty thefts is because of poverty. The reason they continue to repeat petty thefts is because they are still poor, because we live in a state that has a bifurcated sense of economic opportunity, and there are far too many people who are left out. And that's been exacerbated by the pandemic. I was reading that Walgreens article while I was sitting up here hoping somebody would bring it up. We think we overblew it.

Last year, we think we went too hard. We think we were crying too loud because everything's stabilized, and this is completely negligible for us. The most compelling part of the witnesses testimony that I heard earlier started with the words, I don't have any hard evidence to support what I'm about to say, and then went on to talk about a young person committing petty theft and that we should hit them hard so they don't go down a slippery slope. I can promise you, you hit them hard.

As a young person, that slope has been solidified forever. Prop 47 has saved our state $700 million that have been reinvested into youth programming, reinvested into prevention work, reinvested into victim services. We still trigger a felony. If you steal over $1,000 of goods, which means you can trigger a felony 100 times before you match the amount we will spend to incarcerate you for one year, the resources of the state could be better served.

Alleviating poverty, closing the gap in economic opportunity, not going back down the road of mass incarceration that we've been down for many decades. I can't vote for this.

Yes, Ms. Ortega

Good Morning, thanks for being here today. You keep mentioning the word consequences and hitting them hard. So can you explain to me in your world and what you've seen, what does that mean, consequences and hitting them hard?

That means if a person commits a theft the first time and they're inclined to do it again, they have a decision to make. If they reoffend in a similar fashion, and then do it again, by the way, because this actually calls for three such acts of behavior, they will feel significant consequences for that. Not unlike other forms of punishment, people generally comply with the speed limit because they don't want a costly ticket. People resist the temptation to do certain things in life because there are consequences.

And I think this is no different to impose consequences on people when they do bad things, they take property from somebody else. And with due respect to Mr. Bryan, I've arrested a lot of shoplifters in my career. I don't remember ever arresting a single person for stealing food, not once ever. Makeup was the most commonly stolen merchandise. That's not an act of born out of poverty. That's something that a person wants, that somebody else has, and they're going to take it. And I understand that.

I understand that doesn't mean they're a hardened criminal and they shouldn't be treated accordingly. But when you have repeat offenses of that nature and they don't get the message we have as a society have collectively done them a disservice. I can tell you going back to Mr. Lackey's former life as a young person myself, very young person, I was one once. I was a chronic habitual traffic violator.

I got two citations within a period of a week and had to go see the traffic court Commissioner with my mother. She was so proud, and I say sarcastically, but that Commissioner told me, I'm going to give you a break, but if you come through that door again, you're going to wind up. In other words, if you get another violation, you're going to go from zero to three. And guess what? That had a profound impact on the way I behaved on the road thereafter.

I would like to see other people have the benefit of that philosophy and not reoffend and not put themselves on a path to a life that is not rewarding, not gratifying, and not good for them or those around them.

Thank you. I appreciate your response. Although you were talking to my colleagues on the other side, I asked a question. So again, what do you say? Hitting them hard? What do you mean?

Imposing a consequence that deters them from similar behavior in the future. I don't mean physically hitting them, obviously. I mean in putting a consequence in their path that will have an impact on how they choose to behave.

Thank you. I will be voting no.

Any other comments, Mr. Hoover? Senator Hoover, you can make.

All right, thank you. I appreciate the spirited debate and again, the opportunity to present this Bill. I think to get it back to kind of why I brought the Bill forward, first of all, to my Assembly Member, Bryan. I certainly want to make clear that no one here is suggesting that a simple petty theft crime should we should lock someone up and throw away the key. That is absolutely not something that works. I will say that right now, right on this dias.

That is not what we are advocating for. That being said, I also think that a system where in reality, and the reality on the ground is that there are no consequences of any kind, certainly not ones that are able to really be prosecuted. I think that it's important that we strike a better balance than we currently have today.

So I do appreciate your comments and I certainly want to make that clear that I am really just seeking a better balance than the status quo under Prop 47. To the point about Walgreens. I want to kind of bring this back to why I brought the Bill forward. With all due respect to Walgreens, Walgreens probably can probably take a larger hit, I guess, financially from some of these crimes. The reason I introduced this Bill was really to help our small businesses and just our residents.

My community is made up of a lot of smaller retailers, a lot of smaller businesses that are impacted by theft. And they are not in the position like Walgreens may be where they can really absorb this large amount of theft. The Mayor from Folsom brought up earlier the millions of dollars in theft our community experiences every year. That is a problem for our business owners. I'm not even here talking about the big companies, although I know they are impacted too.

But our small business owners really need our help from my viewpoint. And so just to close, I think someone in the opposition talked about the voters and I think that was helpful. So let's talk about the voters. According to a recent UC Berkeley Times, sorry, UC Berkeley, LA Times poll, nearly 60% of voters in California say they want to see changes to Prop 47, AB 75. This Bill gives them that opportunity.

All we are asking is that voters get the opportunity to decide this and see if this change is something that they want. The voters have made it very clear that the status quo is not working. They've made it very clear they want to see a better balance, more accountability. And I think we owe it to our small business community as well to provide this. And so I think we need to look seriously about what the voters are saying almost 10 years after Prop 47 has passed.

With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

And let me try to kind of unpack this for you because you're a freshman Legislator. You weren't here when the Governor, myself, and begrudgingly Members of this Committee put in the organized retail theft Bill, which passed, which has amazing success when utilized and used. Law enforcement and DAs have fought against it. So the help and the $200 million that this Governor put in to make it happen and move and be successful has been thwarted by passive law enforcement, basically law enforcement saying, you know what?

I've decided I'm not going to do this law because I don't feel like it's hard enough. Let me tell you about hard enough. We used to hang people for stealing cattle. Let that resonate with you for a while. Three strikes. Talk about consequences, you would be in jail for the rest of your life. And we filled, we filled every prison to overcapacity. So this argument about if you put consequences on people, they will stop.

The only consequences was we incarcerated more people who look like me and a lot of Members on this Committee than we did others. And that was the consequences of that. And so that argument is problematic in that there are a lot of people, if you were asked the question, do you want to incarcerate a lot of people of color? They will say no. But the ultimate decider, because we're elected officials, we do polls. Polls go up, go down. You ask the right thing.

But the ultimate decider, though, is the vote. And the voters, and the voters have overwhelmingly decided that this approach of Prop 47 is the way to go. You can do a poll tomorrow, the next day, the next day. But it's about what ultimately is voted upon that makes a difference.

Now I'm going to do what I did before because I took a lot of heat because we actually did and instituted felonies with organized retail theft, and we found a way to move on that we probably need to all sit down because I really do want to help small businesses and we have to do it, but we all have to row in the same boat.

When I hear that you can actually send someone to jail for shoplifting, but then I hear on the other side, there are no consequences. Where's the problem? The problem has to be with individuals who have made the decision that they're not going to prosecute. They're not going to do it.

Whether it's progressive prosecutors or whether it's DAs who don't like the Prop 47 laws that don't want to do it, we're not actually using laws to do what we need to do, bring people in and deal with their poverty, drug abuse. Some have mental health problems. Telling someone that has a mental health problem who's stealing that they're going to understand their consequences is insane itself. It's in the same proposition on its merit.

So if we just stop and take down all the rhetoric and really start talking about rehabilitation and how we give people paths so they don't have to be involved in this anymore, if we just really focus down with the money that we're saving from $230,000,000 that we're going to save from closing 10 prisons and put that money back into rehabilitation and into making sure we close the poverty gap and ultimately end the school to prison pipeline, which I think we agree. That's the crazy part.

We agree on closing the school to prison pipeline, disagree on the methodology, but we do agree that we need to stop it. But at this point, at some time, we've got to work together and we've got to have law enforcement as a partner in this. Or if they don't want to be a partner of this, the citizens of this state will continue to create laws that they're not going to like.

But at the end of the day, they're going to have to because it's the law and they're law enforcement officers, not law decider officers. So I understand where you're going. I understand you want to drop the level, but let's give me one more thing to assume that thieves are not very smart. Just because you lower the threshold doesn't mean they don't do what they're doing now.

Just keep stealing under that threshold because you're not getting to the root causes, which is what Mr. Bryan is saying, get to the root causes of why this is happening, not trying to slap everybody for doing something. And I'll leave you with this. Look, when I would force my kids to do something, they would screw it up because they didn't want to do it. And no matter how much punishment I did, they would continue to do it until they didn't want to do it anymore.

And so you need to understand human behavior, not from a punishment standpoint, but try to figure out how to stop what the root causes of it. Because at the end of the day, that's the only way we're going to, not only stop this, but the other things that are happening in crime, in the society. And we really should start that discussion now.

And if you're serious about this, Mr. Hoover, if you want to engage in that kind of dialogue where we come up with better programs to stop all of this and get people out of poverty, I think you have a lot of willing Members on this Committee that are ready to work with you. And unfortunately, I can't support it today. But I'm going to leave the door open because we do need to make sure that our small businesses stay thriving.

But most important, that we don't create another prison industrial system, because this is just a quick and easy thing to do.

Roll Call

Madam Secretary, call the roll

I'm sorry, that measure passed. Doesn't pass. That was almost a gift. I know, Mr. Connolly, you've been very patient. AB 92, item number three.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. It's a pleasure to be here. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee and staff for their work and input on this bill. And I will be accepting the committee's amendments. Mass shootings are an epidemic in the United States. According to every town gun safety, there have been 290 mass shootings in the US in just the last 13 years, resulting in 1,626 people shot and killed and an additional 1,075 people shot and wounded.

These tragic events, which have ripped apart so many families and communities, are part of the widespread plague of fire related crimes in the US and California, which we are struggling to combat. The number of firearm homicides increased by an astounding 35% between 2019 and 2020 throughout the United States. According to the CDC, 79% of all homicides in 2020 involved firearms. Body armor has become a tool in the arsenal of mass murderers.

Just last year, as we all too well know, an 18 year old mass shooter at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, wore a plate vest that could absorb automatic weapon fire. The security guard on duty that day fired at the shooter, but the shooter's body armor stopped the bullet. Sadly, the security guard, Aaron Salter Jr. Was killed by the shooter, who went on to murder nine others and wounded three more. This trend has increased significantly in recent years.

The violence project, a nonprofit that tracks mass shooting trends found that of the mass shooters who have worn body armor over the past 40 years, a majority of them have happened since 2012. Simply put, the widespread availability of military grade body armor helps mass shooters and criminals kill more people and prolong the rampages. AB 92 is a solution to help protect innocent bystanders, emergency personnel and peace officers.

Under AB 92, any person who is prohibited by California statute from possessing a firearm would also be prohibited from purchasing or possessing body armor. For example, this includes a person subject to a gun violence restraining order, persons convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, any person convicted of domestic violence, and any person making threats to commit a crime that results in death. Firearm prohibitions for criminals in California have passed judicial scrutiny, and the rationale behind stopping them from possessing body armor is exactly the same.

California has already found it prudent and good policy to stop these people from owning firearms, and we should be furthering our efforts to ensure that military grade gear is kept out of the hands of violent criminals. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and would welcome any questions.

Okay. Do you have any witnesses?

I don't.

Okay. Are there any witnesses in the audience in support, name and organization, please.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for California Public Defenders Association. We are withdrawing our opposition. We'd like to thank the author for working with us.

Very good. That was a good freshman move.

Thank you.

Any witnesses in opposition? Someone tells you brought a gun in here.

Mr. Chairman and members, Sam Paredes, representing Gun Owners of California, as well as the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association. This is a very interesting subject that is wrapped in constitutional issues. I know one time you said, we're California. We don't pay too much about constitution. We do what we do. But I want you to understand, and I hope that everybody will pay attention and see that this is what you're thinking about when you were thinking about body armor.

When a criminal is out there with a vest and they've got all the magazines, that isn't body armor, that's ballistic nylon, and it's misnamed, it doesn't stop anything, and all of a sudden, boom, he's wearing body armor. This is the body armor that is used by my grandchildren. Because here in California, where we have the most gun control laws of any state in the union, we also have the dubious honor of having more mass shootings than any other state, far surpassing those of Texas.

That doesn't have all of the gun control laws. These backpacks, parents, hundreds of thousands of parents throughout the State of California have chosen to use products like this premier body armor panel in the horrible event that children might experience a school shooting and they have at least some level of protection. This will stop any shotgun blast and any caliber of handgun. My grandchildren are worth it. We have them for kids. We have them like this, RTS body armor for grade school, elementary and preschool.

They come in various sizes. Sometimes they are integral with the backpacks and sometimes they are inserts. I had multiple ballistics backpack. I mean, body armor. People contacting me to please let you know what the truth is. How about students and even maybe some of your staff members? This is body armor by all definitions. I choose to carry my laptop, my iPad, choose to carry it with me. Provides protection up to and including a 308, something far surpassing your so called California assault weapons.

And I can protect my life with this. Students in college, where they are in gun free zones, where they are in the criminals believe a target rich environment. These bills will strip them of the ability to do that. There is an issue in the written testimony, we have talked about the constitutionality, how there are now four Supreme Court precedents that state that items like body armor under the protection of the Second Amendment, it does not have to be a gun.

It can be anything that is used by lawful citizens in common use to defend or offensive purposes for protection. That's the law of the land. And I want to pose one other question that I don't know if the members of the body are considering. Now we have a body of laws that when somebody breaks the law and they are incarcerated, they oftentimes don't make a lot of friends in prison.

And when they come out, they might not have a whole lot of friends, but when we let them out, we deny them. We prevent them from protecting themselves with guns, knives, billy clubs of anything. They can't protect themselves. And now we're saying, you know what? Thank you for serving, paying your debt to society.

You can go out there and even though you have a bunch of non friends out there, you can't even protect your life with a piece of body armor that is this simple and this concealable and this effective. And we're telling that to people who have paid their debt to society or they've been let out early for whatever policy reason this body chooses to do, you let them out. But then you go out there and say, good luck. Good luck.

I would ask you to think carefully about this process. We don't oppose any laws that say if you use body armor while you are committing a crime, you're going to get whacked by the state. We're okay with that. And I don't mean shot. I mean you're going to be charged, you're going to be incarcerated. It is an additional crime, and you should pay the penalty for that. But these items, I'll tell you what, although thankfully this bill was mended, parents may not be criminals.

There is another bill that's before this that will be before this committee at some point in time where my grandchildren will be put in jeopardy. And I'm telling you here, that is not going to happen. So I ask you to carefully, I get to come in here and speak before you often. And often times you look at me and think like, you right wing gun nut, kook, we don't believe anything you're saying. But this is common sense. This goes beyond the rhetoric.

This is the actual protection of lives with passive protection, not with the use of a gun. So I ask you, as you consider these pieces of legislation, that you would be cautious about thinking about the impacts. Do you know that this legislation, or legislation as it was before, and the other bill would actually prevent all motorcycle, we all see motorcycle guys, I'll wrap it up right now, sir. Motorcycle people with all of the body, it's called body armor. Why?

Because it has all of the equipment, materials that is included in this. Speed skaters, athletes, race car drivers. Their equipment has all of this stuff. It's all body armor and it's all designed to prevent blunt force trauma, the equivalent of a bullet shot. So I'm here asking you to carefully consider these issues as you move along, and if you're going to err, err on the side of the law abiding and those who want to protect their families and their own lives. So thank you very much.

I appreciate your time.

And just for the record, and just for the Assemblymember Bonta, who was presenting the bill, that has some constitutionality, and I flippantly, I'm sorry, no, when I said that California, I said most people don't believe that California doesn't follow the constitution. And I was allowing Assemblymember Bonta to explain why his bill followed the constitution. But some of them, remember Rob Bonta, who's now Attorney General, explained what he was doing. Just want to put some context to it. I would never say we're out here trying to violate the constitution deliberately.

So are there any witnesses in support? Opposition. I'm sorry? Opposition.

Hello, my name is Oscar Soriano. I am also a California Rifle Pistol Association, a Democrat. I represent people of color, gun owners, and I strictly oppose this bill.

Thank you, sir. Any other witnesses in opposition? Bring it back to committee members for comments. Mr. Zbur.

So I want to thank you for bringing this bill. I think it's really important. And when I read the bill and the other bill that was before the committee today that's been held, I was thinking how I don't want to be in a world where we are moving toward one where everyone is armed and where everyone needs to be putting their kids in body armor when they go to school or when we go to Starbucks or to the supermarkets or to a movie theater.

And so I applaud you for bringing this bill forward. I do have to say that.

I think that the bill with the amendments moves in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough. So I'm hoping that the other bill will come back with even more protections than the ones that are included in this bill. I read everything on both sides. I've got to say that the original bill, which was broader, many of the arguments that against it were ones that are used by folks that are opposing any kind of common sense gun safety regulations.

And so I did not find them persuasive. I do think the original bill and the companion bill need some work in terms of the exceptions, but I am hoping that those will come back. Gun safety advocates, who I respect, were supporting at least the other bill, which was substantially similar to yours. And I just think that this, with the amendments, is still too narrow and would like to see a bill that actually includes a broader range of protections against this.

I think when we're looking at mass shooters and a world where we've got folks that are using guns and potential body armor from armed insurrection, I think we need to make sure that that's not available to those kinds of folks. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments?

I've sat on many Public Safety Committee hearings. I don't think I've ever seen anybody, particularly on their first time, come here with no support and get a bill out. So I wouldn't recommend that in the future. But thank you for bringing this measure forward today.

Thank you.

Ms. Bonta.

I want to thank you for bringing forward this bill. My district includes Oakland, one of the places that actually had in recent months a mass shooting on a school campus. And I was with the survivors of that mass shooting the day after a room full of parents, older youth and educators. And we had in that conversation, the security guard say, help me help you. Help me help you. Please consider having your educators and your students wear body armor.

And I saw the absolute look of horror on the faces of parents and educators. To think that we were in a reality in a moment where that seemed like a reasonable thing.

So I appreciate the very specific designation of this to limit the possession of use and possession of body armor to those who we wouldn't want to have a gun, because it is the reality, the very, very unfortunate reality of the moment, that people are treating it as a viable solution to have to wear body armor in their everyday lives. It is a sad state that we are in this moment.

When I think back to my colleagues earlier commented by why in retail theft situations, in Home Depots and Walgreens and small businesses, people are just told to just send the product through, don't make a fuss about it, don't confront. I don't think it's so much that they're concerned about whether or not there will be a consequence and whether people will be locked up.

I'm pretty sure it's a concern that they worry that their employees and people in the store will have to face the barrel of a gun. So I appreciate you, Mr. Connolly, for bringing this forward in a very targeted way. And with that, I will be supporting this bill today.

Any other?

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this bill to our attention. At first I was against it with your amendments. Thank you for adding those in there to echo off Assemblymember Bonta's comments about the world that we're living in today. We may not be able to have guns in the hands of our children, the kind of thing, right. We need to find a way to protect them. So to the opposition's point, we need to make sure that they're still able to protect themselves.

So I think it's reasonable to keep the body armor out of the hands of those that basically are prohibited from possessing firearms. And I think it's much better with the amendments and I'll be supporting it today.

Thank you. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you, Chair, and really appreciate the feedback. This will be an ongoing, important conversation. As was noted with the amendments, this bill is designed to be very narrowly tailored. It is not addressing backpacks in schools and related issues. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I want to thank you for working with committee and working on something that we're trying to obviously split the baby and trying to make sure we get something that's probably not making everybody totally 100% happy, but we need to address the problem. So I thank you for bringing this forward and chairs recommend I vote. Is there a motion move the bill? Second, there's a motion. And second secretary, call the role.

On AB 92 by the Member Connolly. The motion is do passed as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. We have one last measure. Thank you. Got a lot of body armor, dude.

What's that?

Got a lot of body armor.

It's pretty good. It's very similar to the one my father in law used when he was a state senator.

All right, Dr. Weber, you are up.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. I am here to present AB 268, which seeks to address the deficiencies in California's local dissension facilities raised by the California State Auditor Office and raise the standards for incarcerated people. Federal law requires county sheriff's departments to provide adequate medical care for individuals in their custody.

In California, the Board of State and Community Corrections, also known as the BSCC, was established in its current form in 2012 to provide statewide coordination and technical assistance for local justice systems. The BSCC is tasked with developing minimum standards for local detention facilities and inspecting and reporting on facility compliance. BSCC also sets standards for correctional training and administers facility fundings and several grant programs for local corrections and law enforcement entities.

In 2021, the California State Auditor's Office investigated the San Diego County Sheriff's Department and discovered 185 individuals in their custody died from 2006 to 2020, more deaths per average daily population than any other large county in the state. Additionally, with the recent DOJ investigation into Riverside County jails for the deeply concerning allegations relating to conditions of confinement, excessive force, and other misconduct, the need for this bill is urgent.

Local advocates such as the North County Equity and Justice Coalition, Showing Up for Racial Justice, the Racial Justice Coalition of San Diego, the families of loved ones who've lost their lives and other groups have long called for attentions to the dangerous conditions and the large number of suicides and other deaths, particularly in San Diego County jail facilities. But more importantly, many counties around the state have faced litigation in the last decade relating to conditions in their county jails.

The prison law office alone has successfully litigated cases related to jail conditions in Costa County, Contra Costa Riverside, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Sacramento, Santa Clara, and San Bernardino counties, many of which revolved around inadequate access to medical care, including mental health care. The 2022 state audit findings confirmed that the already extensive public record documenting of the tragic loss of lives, systemic failures, and inadequacy of oversight.

The auditor noted that, quote, "given the annual number of incarcerated individuals deaths in county jails across the state increased from 2006 to 2020. Improving the statewide standards is essential to ensuring the health and safety of individuals in custody in all counties," end quote. Some of the policy deficiencies were the result of poor statewide correction standards designed specifically by the BSCC, including regulations that allow for insufficient health evaluations at intake, inconsistent follow up with medical care, inadequate safety checks, and unnecessary delays in response to medical emergencies.

AB 268 codifies numerous recommendations to improve the health and safety of incarcerated individuals in all detention facilities outlined by the auditor's office. AB 268 will require the BSCC to develop and adopt regulations that align with best practices related to ongoing performing intake, health evaluations and safety checks requiring ongoing correctional staff training. It also adds two additional members to the board, a licensed healthcare provider and a licensed mental health care provider.

The need to add these two members is critical as their expertise is currently lacking on the board and the knowledge can help guide both the board to establish practices that prioritize an individual's mental and physical health. Each would bring their own unique and separate experience to the board, which is very much lacking at this point. With me to speak in support of AB 268 is Jonathan Clay, representing San Diego County. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Jonathan Clay here on behalf of the County of San Diego and pleased to be sponsor with Assemblymember Weber on AB 268. The state auditor's report raised serious and significant concerns about the systematic issues within the sheriff's department policies and procedures related to the provision of mental health care and the performance of visual checks. The County of San Diego believes that a mistake and a stint in jail should not cost anyone their life.

The high number of deaths is heartbreaking. The county fully supports the state legislative action to implement changes in accordance with the State Auditor's report and recommendations. The county also fully believes that making changes at the BSCC, in terms of having those representatives to provide the expertise on mental health and separately, health care, makes sense, and that is the appropriate place to be having those decisions made.

It is our understanding that the BSCC, as they contemplate some of these issues, are making changes, and those changes are in alignment with what is being directed from the policies contained within AB 268.

Finally, I'll just close with from the county's perspective, the county cannot directly change the policies and procedures of the sheriff's department, but the county is working collaboratively with the San Diego County sheriff and admin staff on staffing issues, providing more funding and coordinating work between the Department of Behavioral Health, Health and Human Services with our sheriff and the sheriff's department. With that, I urge your support of this important measure.

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

Oscar Soriano from Richmond, California and I support this bill. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Daniela Perez and I support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Andrew Melendez. I'm a political science major at St. Mary's College of California and I approve this bill.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Mr. Salzillo? Hello.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, regularly in opposition to the bill again this year. Historically, we've had concerns about growing the size of the BSCC. It's already 13 members. We think the current composition is appropriate. Adding to it, notwithstanding the importance of medical and mental health care, which are the topics that these two new board members would oversee or have expertise in, will make it harder for the body to do its work efficiently.

And if you don't want to take my word for it, take the governor's word for it. He vetoed this bill last year, and in his words, quote, "BSCC has had a 13 member board since 2013. I am concerned that adding two members unnecessarily grows the board and could impede its ability to timely carry out its mission," unquote. We also think the BSCC is the better place to make these decisions rather than to set these higher standards into statute, in terms of correctional facility.

In terms of correctional facility. The board members, practitioners, other stakeholders who participate with the BSCC. There's a near constant review of the title 15 and title 24 regulations that govern correctional facilities in the state. Sheriffs, inmate advocates, stakeholders on all sides come to these meetings again, this process. There's a biennial review and revision of these regulations that oversee everything from how much yard time there is, nutritional issues, health care, anything that goes on in a correctional facility.

There are regulations that deal with it, and the practitioners and the stakeholders who have the best experience to answer those questions and to make those decisions are charged with that duty. BSCC also set standards so that all facilities can follow them and not standards that maybe one or two or five or 10 facilities could follow because their board of supervisors would like them to follow. I'm not saying that in the case of San Diego or this bill.

I'm just saying there are things that advocates on both sides would like to see, and they are difficult to accomplish in the context of BSCC regulations and oversight and running of the correctional facilities. Because we have correctional facilities in nearly all of the 58 counties, and many counties have multiple correctional facilities within them, the title 15 process generally results in well negotiated and achievable standards that are subject to scrutiny. Review of the experts will be asked to implement and abide by them.

Putting these standards into statute unnecessarily interferes with this process and precludes the BSCC and those that it oversees from being nimble when changes are necessary. It needs to be a change, because there's some better practice. We got to come back here and get a whole new bill. So, respectfully, for the reasons we stated last year and the reasons we stated this year were opposed to the bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to committee members. Mr. Bryan.

The largest mental health provider in California is the Los Angeles County Jail. The fact that there are not two healthcare professionals on the BSCC makes a lot of sense. If 15 members is too large of a body to get business done, then the State Assembly is in deep trouble. I think it's plenty to be nimble. I've toured prisons with Dr. Weber. I've been to San Diego jails. This was a thoughtful bill last year. It's a thoughtful bill this year.

Thank you for bringing it back.

Just want to thank Dr. Weber for bringing forward this bill. 10 years ago, we were not thinking about mental health in the way that we are now. We know that we've suffered the consequences of having inadequate mental health, particularly in our jails, particularly in our parcel system. And 100% of the people who are incarcerated suffer from some kind of mental health need that needs to be addressed. So absolutely makes sense to be able to move this forward, and I'll be supporting. Thank you.

Yes. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you. Before I get to my close, I will address some of the opposition's concern. I agree with Assemblymember Bryan. We are in trouble if a 15 member body can't do anything. I would also point out that as of right now, the BSCC is failing the people at 13 members. So maybe adding some more will help.

But we are in discussion with the Governor, and I am more than willing to discuss removing some of the current members, because we do have eight with one particular background, and we do need some health professionals on there. So we will continue those discussions. The standards that we talk about are the standards that were required by audit, and they're basic standards that need to be done in order to make sure that we are saving lives for the people who are incarcerated.

But in closing, I just want to remind everyone that there is a crisis with our incarcerated people dying behind bars. A jail sentence cannot remain a de facto death sentence for our communities. These people in custody are our family members. They're our brothers, our cousins, our sisters, our mothers, our uncles. And I'm going to read from the audit report, which I'm sure we've all read, "no single entity has sufficient oversight authority over the sheriff's department to require it to make meaningful changes.

Absent explicit legislative direction, neither the county board nor the state Attorney General is well positioned to compel the sheriff's department to implement the recommendations we include in this report. Given the ongoing risk to incarcerated individual safety, we believe that the legislature should direct the sheriff's department to implement the changes below." And that is exactly what this bill is doing. It's implementing the recommendations from the State Auditor's report. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

And I want to thank you, too, coming from the same county that has the largest mental health facility, and it's not a mental health facility, it's a jail, which seems to be a real problem. And quite frankly, it's probably something that our local law enforcement shouldn't be responsible for a mental health facility, and I think we would be on 1000% agreement on that.

In fact, with the BSCC and the changing dynamics of how we're handling things, especially when it comes to mental health, whether it's homelessness or just people out on the street or dealing with domestic violence, and maybe we have too many law enforcement officers, and maybe you can address that by recommending to the Governor, take two law enforcement officers off and put two mental health professionals, if his cap is at 13.

Exactly.

If he just can't get beyond that number, maybe that might be a good solution that you may want to suggest so that we could then start handling that population, because I think that will also help law enforcement as they get mental health professionals who then can address how we can either create a new system, how we can offboard them, how we can put them in community based organizations that can maybe handle that. But again, we got to change the way.

We have to have a paradigm shift in the way we handle this, and we're not going to do it by doing the same thing over and over again. So I thank you for bringing this forward. It's a worthwhile discussion. It's overdue and chairs recommend. I vote. Thank you. Is there an action?

I'll move.

It's moved and seconded.

On AB 268 by semen Member Weber. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Joan Sawyer? Aye. Joan Sawyer I. Alanis opposed. Alanis, no. Bonta? Aye. Banta? I. Brian?

That measure passes.

Thank you.

Next, we will do any add ons and lifting the calls and vote changes. Madam Secretary, please go through all the measures taken up today for the absent.

Members on the consent calendar. Bonta?

[Roll Call]

Item number one, AB 75, by Assemblymember Hoover.

[Roll Call]

Item number two, AB 78, by Assembly Member Ward. This measure was for presentation only. We need a motion, please.

So moved.

On AB 78 by Assemblymember Ward. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Item number three, AB 92, was just dispensed with. Item number four, AB 97, was pulled by author. Item number five, AB 253, was on consent. Item number six, AB 268 by Dr. Weber, has been dispensed with. Item number seven, AB 271, was on consent. Item eight, AB 301, was pulled by author. Item number nine, AB 303, was on consent. And item number 10, AB 313, was on consent.

This concludes the business for the Public Safety Committee.

I think I'm going to start it. Good morning. Welcome to the Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing. I would ask for a quorum, except I'm the only Democrat here. I'm sorry, Mrs. A bird. Thank you for not leaving me by myself. Mr. Lackey's laughing, so I think I'm supposed to read a bunch of stuff. All witness testimony will be in person. I repeat, 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 at Assembly CA govcommittees. I guess we can begin. Well, real quick. Housekeeping. What's off calendar today, especially if you're here? Both were pulled by their author item number 48097. Rodriguez, pulled by author item number eight. Bar Kahan. Pulled by the author. And I don't have the list of any list of who signed in. zero, here it is. We're doing this in sign in order. Mr. Ward signed in first. Mr. Hoover.

So we're going to start as a Subcommitee. Won't be able to vote until we get a quorum. And if we do, we may stop establish a quorum so we can vote on your item. So, Mr. Ward, whenever you're ready. Item AB 78, Ward grand juries.

Thank you. Are we on?

There you go.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Good to be with you this morning. AB 78 is a reintroduction of a Bill this Committee heard last year, and I want to thank you again for the really good questions and progress that we made. It is the first step to diversifying grand juries in California to ensure that they're truly representative of the constituents that we serve. Grand juries have the power to act as a watchdog for some of our most consequential local agencies and officials.

And unfortunately, the time commitment and Low compensation rate for the grand jury service effectively bar most Californians from serving, especially those from debt disadvantaged and Low income communities. You'll see from your analysis that in 2001 was the last time by statute that the grand jury rate was set at $15 per day. To meaningfully address these discrepancies, AB 78 makes three changes to the grand jury selection process.

First, it would require additional demographic data to be collected during the county grand juror selection process for the purpose of yearly reports to the Judicial Council. Second, it would raise the per diem rate for grand jurors to make his service a more viable option for lower income individuals. And third, it would provide education to potential jurors by including information on how to become a grand juror during the trial jury summons that we all get in the mail for witnesses.

I have in support Cynthia Castillo with the Western center on Law and Poverty, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You have five minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Cynthia Castillo, and I'm a policy advocate for Western center on law and poverty. Western center is the state oldest and largest legal aid support center with the goal of ending poverty throughout through the lens of economic and racial justice. We're proud to support AB 78, which will ensure the diversification of grand juries in California so that they are representative of the state's population.

A key component of that is also ensuring that jurors are fairly compensated with the end goal of making grand jury duty more accessible for Californians with Low incomes. California's grand jury process is driven by everyday Californians who volunteered their time to serve and ensure that their local government is responsive and fair to their community.

Grand juries perform two primary roles, which is to evaluate the validity of charges being brought by a prosecutor, and the other is to inquire into and investigate the operations of county agencies and officials. In this latter function, grand juries act as a critical watchdog to essential government departments, such as sheriff's departments and detention facilities, to institutions that historically involve the detention and prosecution of Low income people of color. Additionally, they oversee the issuing of criminal indictments and investigate allegations of public corruption.

Unfortunately, California's deep racial disparities in access to justice and income and wealth have resulted in a gulf of opportunities for people of color to serve their civil duty. These changes, in our view, are necessary from a racial justice and equity perspective. Juries play a critical role in the lives of Californians involved in the legal system disproportionately, people of color and those living in poverty and who are over policed. A diverse and representative jury will also build the public's trust and confidence in our courts.

AB 78 makes the necessary changes to provide equal access to grand jury service, and we urge an I vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Now we'll open it up. Any other witnesses in support? You can come to the microphone. Name and organization.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell, Houston. In support on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and also on behalf of myself as a former civil grand jury Member.

Thank you.

Natasha Minskar, on behalf of the Prosecutors alliance of California in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for safety and justice and support.

Thank you. And now we're here for witnesses in opposition. Thank you. Welcome. Do you have five minutes. Two of us.

You both have five minutes. Any way you want to split it up.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and Members. I'm Kalyn Dean, legislative advocate with the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties. Regrettably, we are opposed to AB 78 unless it is amended. My comments today are made on behalf of CSAC, the urban counties of California, and the Rural County Representatives of California. We're regrettably opposed unless this measure is amended to fully address the considerable costs it would impose on county governments.

While we appreciate and encourage increased diversity, this Bill would add unbudgeted costs to county budgets. Our Low end estimate is about $16.9 million of new and unanticipated county General Fund costs. Specifically, if the amount is raised from $15 a day to the 70% of the County Median daily income, it would likely cost Los Angeles County an additional 760,000, Merced county about 200,000, and Stannis loss almost 230,000.

Just to provide a few examples, I will stress that this is a super conservative estimate and the numbers were calculated based off of the Bureau of Economic Analysis data. Costs can be considerably higher than this given that our estimates reflect a conservative projection of the number of meetings per county. And I'll also note that these estimates assume that the Bill language does not expand the number of days that the stipend applies, and it also assumes that the number of grand jury meetings will remain static.

Our estimate is based on information reported by counties on civil grand juries only. Although the Bill would also apply to criminal grand juries in most counties, per capita revenues have never recovered from the ravages of the great Recession in real dollars. And so, therefore, we respectfully request that the provision in Section two of the Bill providing for increased compensation be amended to apply only in the years the state budget has provided a sufficient appropriation for the purpose. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Karen Jar. I'm here representing the California Grand Jurors Association. CGJA is a 501 nonprofit that's been providing training to grand jurors for almost two decades. We train over 1100 grand jurors each year, and our teams of trainers present these trainings at 19 separate venues. We also conduct mcle training for the district attorneys and the county councils who provide civil legal services to the grand jury.

I'm a former county counsel myself, having held the position of Shasta County grand jury Shasta County Council for 17 years before I retired. Every one of our Members is a volunteer. We do this work without pay because we believe that civil grand juries are one of the most effective ways to promote good government at the local level. We respectfully oppose AB 78 unless it's fully state funded.

We believe the Bill would imperil the ability of civil grand juries to do their job to act as the watchdog over local governments. Each year, these grand juries collectively issue about 350 reports concerning local governments, such as counties, school districts, districts and cities. These reports can reveal financial irregularities, poor business practices, violations of the law, and occasionally official corruption. But of course, they can also reveal when local entities are doing a particularly good job.

But importantly, no other institution is charged with a routine investigation into these local entities. This oversight is essential to local government accountability. Without the local county grand jury, many governmental problems would never come to light. We agree that the minimum per diem of $15, as it appears in the law today, is too Low. But raising the per diem to the amounts that are reflected in this Bill would have significant unintended consequences.

According to the data compiled by CSAC, under this Bill, the per diem would increase tremendously and it would vary county to county from about $99 to $443 per county. The median would be about $150. According to the Attorney General, the per diem is required only for plenary sessions when the entire jury meets. Plenaries usually last an hour or two, and each grand jury on average, meets in plenary session two to four times per month.

However, the great majority of the grand jury's civil watchdog activities don't occur at the plenary. Grand juries divide themselves into committees, and it's at the Committee level where most of the work is actually done. Most jurors work 15 to 25 hours per week, and almost all that time, or the great majority of that time, is spent on these Committee activities, which are to conduct the investigations and write the reports. The investigations include interviews, site visits and other Committee work.

Currently, the law allows counties to adopt ordinances that can increase the dollar amount of the statutory per diem and or apply the per diem to other grand jury activities, including these necessary Committee activities. And about 40% of the counties have done so. Many have increased the per diem to $20 to $25, still questionably appropriate. And we understand that most of the counties pay the per diem not just for the plenaries, but also for any day a juror attends one of these Committee meetings or activities.

Because of the counties being strapped for money, it is a concern to us that they may choose to repeal these ordinances and go back to the point where they're only paying for the plenary sessions, which take place two to four times per month. But these Committee activities are essential.

Five minutes are up. Could you wrap up, please?

Yes. Essential to proper and thorough investigation. And if the grand jurors are paid nothing for their Committee activities, fewer of these activities will take place, and we believe that this will impair government oversight. Thank you for your time.

So, Assembly Member Ward, I want to thank you for bringing this. I think it's really an important Bill, and I think it's important to make sure that we actually have diversity in grand juries. I did have one question about the Bill, and that is on the data collection.

Thank you. And are any other witnesses in opposition? Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee Members for any questions. Comments? Mr. Zbur?

It didn't look to me like data is being collected on sexual orientation and gender identity under the Bill. As you know, LGBTQ plus people are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and making sure that we have diverse grand juries. Also, it's important that that extend to the LGBTQ plus community. I do think the Bill would benefit LGBTQ plus grand jurors, so I plan on supporting it.

But I was wondering if you could explain whether you'd be open to including Soji data as part of the final Bill as it moves through the process.

Thank you. Some Members of her. Absolutely. I'm open to that. We'll be happy to work on that with you for possible future amendments.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I really appreciate this hearing today. And I heard, I think, a lot of agreement with those in opposition that the institution is important, that there are some challenges with the structures that we have today that need improvements. And I'm happy to work on the budget issues during fiscal Committee. I respectfully ask your.

I vote okay. And we don't have a quorum yet. As soon as we do, we'll vote on it. But I also want to remind Members, especially new Members, to this Committee. This is a policy Committee, not the fiscal Committee. Assembly Member Ward will have that challenge when he goes through appropriations, and the opposition then can make their statements then, because that's the appropriate place where it should be coming from. Local government. They definitely have a point, and we do.

As a state government, we shouldn't be doing unfunded mandates down on people. So hopefully we can work out something so that we don't cash strap the local municipalities. But I trust Assembly Member Ward will work hard on that to make that happen. And I think the chair of budget sub five is here, so. Not here right now, but she may have a hand in helping you get there, too. So with that, thank you. And as soon as we have a quorum, we'll return to the measure.

Thank you. Now, Mr. Connolly, you're up. zero, I'm sorry, Mr. Hoover. I'm sorry. Hoover, I'm sorry. I apologize. It's in sign in order. I can't read. It's early in the morning. I haven't had my coffee. We do have a quorum now, Madam Secretary. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All is present. Let's take up the item. Let's take up the consent calendar. Just pause it.

Take care of some housekeeping. On the proposed consent calendars, we have four items. Item number four, AB 253. Maienschein child death investigations review teams. Item number seven, AB 271. Quirk Silva, homeless death review committees. Item number nine, AB 303 Davies firearms prohibited persons. Item number 10, AB, 313. Vince Fong corrections notifications. Is there a motion to accept the proposed consent calendar? And, secretary, call the roll

[Roll Call]

Consent calendars adopted. This is looking good. Like we're going to get through this fairly quickly. Mr. Hoover, whenever you're ready. Number one, AB 75. Hoover. Shoplifting and petty theft, repeat, crime.

Wonderful. Can everyone hear me?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I appreciate the opportunity to present Assembly Bill 75 to you. This Bill would provide a common sense change to Proposition 47 by restoring penalties for serial theft offenders who have multiple theft related convictions. I want to start out by thanking the chair and the CHP for their continued efforts to combat organized retail theft. I know this has been a priority for this Committee, and this is critically important work that must continue.

Yes.

That said, I also urge that more work needs to be done to help our small business owners and our residents who are being impacted by rising retail theft on a smaller scale in their communities as well. At the heart of the problem, in my view, is a lack of accountability in our criminal justice system due to changes from Proposition 47. When you call something a crime, but then remove all consequences for that crime, it becomes a crime in name only.

I would argue that a crime in name only is no longer a crime. When we communicate to the public that there will be no consequences for certain actions that society deems unacceptable, we can expect to see an increase in the frequency of those actions. Now, opponents of this Bill will argue that the statistics simply do not support these conclusions. But when you effectively decriminalize a crime, that action will no longer be reported as such.

Why would a law enforcement officer report a crime that they know will not be prosecuted? This is an ongoing issue that one of my witnesses will discuss in further detail as well. Something else that the statistics do not show are the thousands of stories from communities across our state, from small business owners, from residents in each of our communities.

And I'm sure all of our offices have heard from their chambers of commerce or from residents who say that retail theft, car break ins, these types of crimes have never been worse. We need to ask ourselves why today. I brought two of my constituents with me because I want you to hear how this is actually impacting our communities on the ground, not just in theory, but in reality.

With me today to my right is the mayor of the City of Folsom, Rosario Rodriguez, who is also a small business owner in our community. And then next to her is former Sacramento county sheriff John McGinnis, who will be sharing some testimony from a public safety perspective. Thank you.

Thank you. You're both welcome. You both have five minutes total. Whatever way you want to share.

Well, good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Rosario Rodriguez. I am a local restaurant owner in historic Folsom and serve as the City's Mayor. One does not need to go far to hear the impact of shoplifting has done in our communities. I can just talk to managers from Ulta, Dick's Sporting Goods, Victoria's Secret, and other major retailers. Thefts are rampant. The Folsom Police Department responds several times a week to investigate thousands of dollars of thefts. Prop 47 damaged the criminal justice system.

The threat of jail is no longer a deterrent. These now go to businesses with shopping lists. There is no concern about stealing because they know that they won't go to jail. In 2021, Folsom businesses experienced a 1.4 million in losses and 353,000 in shoplifting alone. The business community needs our government to create laws that protect businesses. It is laws like Prop 47 that make it tough to do business in California because of the lack of accountability. And I will turn it over to Mr. McGinnis.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members appreciate your time very much and a couple of observations. First of all, as Mr. Hoover alluded, a law enforcement officer is not as inclined to report something when he believes there's no consequences to follow that will not produce anything. But perhaps even more important, the general public, victims of crime, are not reporting because the prevailing belief is nothing will come of that.

That prevailing belief exists among the retail community, among society at large, as well, frankly, as the law enforcement community and those who are inclined to offend.

So there's no doubt that I recognize very much the fact that this is an adverse impact, what we've done in the last eight years, now nine years, almost as a result of Proposition 47, the impact on retail business, on the Chamber of Commerce, on people wanting to just live their life and pursue their interest and go out, and among others, because there's a sense of fear that exists.

But I think there's a kind of a lost and forgotten part or component, and that is those offenders themselves. And you might be surprised to hear that I'm a 40 year law enforcement guy, but the underserved communities that we talk so much about are real. That's a very real part of the problem we have today.

And to have people who are inclined to step outside the bounds of acceptable behavior very early in their lives and commit what we generally think of as minor crimes and not feel the consequences for that, I think foreseeably and predictably puts them on a path in which they are likely to engage in more serious kinds of criminal misconduct. So it's a disservice to them. It's a disservice to everybody. It has, I think, really truly damaged confidence in the system. So I appreciate this, Bill, very much.

During the course of my law enforcement career, I had occasion to make arrest for a violation of penal code Section 666, petty theft with a prior. I testified on many shoplift cases. I never testified on a felony prosecution for 666 because the district attorneys have the discretion to deal with those appropriately and did so.

But it's my belief, and I don't have any hard evidence to support this, but I think it's logical and legitimate observation that people who feared that consequence of a felony prosecution for additional theft crimes will modify their behavior. And there's also opportunities that I think could be introduced along the lines of redirecting them in a more positive way. Appreciate your time very much.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

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

Thank you, Corey. Name and organization. Thank you.

Kim Stone. Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

No. Thank you.

Richard Heiler. I live in Folsom. I'm in support. Can I read a statement?

Good morning. Audrey Retichek from cruise strategies on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney's office in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support now? Witnesses in opposition. Are there any? Could you allow them to sit? Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Ed Little with Californians for Safety and Justice. I come before you today in respectful opposition to AB 75. AB 75 signals a return to fail tough on crime policies of the past and would undermine public safety by increasing the costly and counterproductive incarceration in state prison for some of the lowest level crimes in the state penal code.

AB 75 proposes to make it easier to charge nonviolent Californians with felonies and go back to the same short sighted, tough on crime measures that have failed California for the past three decades. It is yet another attempt to go down the path of California that California voters have already, not once but twice, rejected. Repealing parts of Prop 47 would rob our local communities of hundreds of millions of dollars that Prop 47 will save them annually.

These savings are reallocated back to communities for proven crime prevention programs that address the root causes and stop the cycles of crime. In the Governor's 2023 Jan budget, the Department of Finance estimates a net General Fund savings of just over $100 million for Prop 47. To date, this would bring the grand total to just over $700 million, or three quarters of $1.0 billion.

Contrary to the failed narrative that has been perpetuated about Prop 47 by some stakeholders, Prop 47 is not responsible for some sort of crime wave. Even some of those who have propagated this false account have been forced to retract their statements. In an article entitled Walgreens admits it may have cried wolf over theft. Maybe we cried too much last year, Walgreens CFO James Cohe said during the company's most recent earnings call on January 5.

Now that Walgreens has admitted it may have overdone things with its response, the next step could include cutting back on some of the insource security or having fewer products behind plastic casings. But overall, Cohes says that Walgreens is quite happy with where we are. For these reasons, we are opposed to AB 75, and we strongly urge you to vote no on this policy.

Good morning to the entire Committee, including people behind me. My name is Leslie Caldwell, Houston. I practiced criminal defense for nearly 40 years and for the 10 years before I retired, I was the Chief Defender Department head of a midsize public defender's office. I'm here on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition to AB 75.

Once again, we have an attempt to increase the penalties on petty theft if the individual has three or more prior petty theft convictions, no matter how long ago the convictions occurred. AB 75 proposes to make it easier to charge nonviolent Californians with felonies and put them in jail for multiple years. I want to emphasize the fact that a misdemeanor carries six months in jail and in some situations, a year in jail. That is a long time.

If you think about something in your life that lasted six months or a year that wasn't good, you will know that's a long time. If the police don't report the crimes to the DA or if the DA doesn't prosecute, that's the problem, not the sentence. There's talk about a lack of accountability, but the accountability goes, in my mind, to the police and prosecutors who won't prosecute the crimes, thus leading the public to have less faith in the system.

It's not the sentence, it's the lack of holding people accountable by the police and the prosecutors. In 2014, California voters overwhelmingly favored Proposition 47, a proposal that kept nonviolent offenders out of prison and reduced penalties for minor drug and theft offenses not dissuaded. In 2020, tough on crime advocates tried again to persuade the public to repeal Prop 47 via Prop 20. Again, the California voters rejected the attempt to return to mask incarceration.

AB 75 is another attempt to go down the path that voters of our state have twice rejected and good justice policy does not support. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote on AB 75.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Name and organization. Thank you.

Jim Lindbergh, on behalf of the Friends Committee on legislation of California. Also in respectful opposition. Good morning. Carmen Nicole Cox for ACLU California action in opposition. Danica Rodarmel on behalf of initiation, opposition. Good morning. Glenn Bacchus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Thank you. Now we'll bring it back to Committee Members for any comments or questions.

First off, I'd like to thank Assembly Member Hoover for bringing this to our attention. We're talking about criminals that basically haven't learned their lessons from what I'm gathering. And Sheriff McGinnis, what you had brought up, and I quote you, you said, nothing will come of this is what the owners or the victims of the theft have said. Why do you think they would say that nothing would come of this?

Because we've seen rampant evidence of that reality. You have people in revolving door justice. People are, notwithstanding what the law calls for, prescribes for sentencing for a misdemeanor crime. Shoplifters are not serving time in custody at all. And so the reality is, I think everybody in this room, in these chambers, has seen images on television of grand scale retail thefts. And what are the consequences, what befalls the people who engage in that activity? So what I envision is a young person who's stepping out.

They're testing the waters for the first time in their life. They feel absolutely nothing for it. Are they more or less likely to reoffend in the future? And the answer, I think, is overwhelmingly yes. I want to stop that, want to stop that progression. And that's why I appreciate Mr. Hoover's Bill.

Thank you for that. And just so you guys know, in my district, I know in the City of Turlock, they had just arrested somebody who had about 22 or 23 bench warrants involving shoplifting. So it continued and continued going back to the point that the opposition brought up that the DA's office is not prosecuting most of these crimes.

Okay.

And that from what my experience has been from being in the sheriff's office for over 20 years, is that they have to triage it, just like most people have to do also. And if they're not going to get a sentence that's going to be equitable to the time that is used by the DA's, then they're not going to spend their time doing that, whereas they're going to spend their times more on heinous crimes of felonies that are involved.

Also, I'd like to bring up that a lot of the businesses in my district are leaving because of Prop 47. And I've heard that from their mouths. Because of Prop 47, because of the charges that aren't there to substantiate the penalties or the penalties are not there for the crime. So I've actually seen people walk outside of like, Home Depot that were not touched because they know they can get away with it.

And that's going on across California, and I think that's what's truly going on throughout our state. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Mr. Lackey. Yeah. If I could just ask Mr. McGinnis one more time if he would elaborate why he thinks that this measure would serve as a prevention tool. Because I think that's what we all want is prevention. And if I could have you re elaborate why you think that this might.

Be a preventative measure, I'd be happy to, Mr. Lackey. I believe that when people are confronted with decisions to make, if there's a profound belief that the consequences for engaging in certain high risk or unlawful behavior are significant, it minimizes the likelihood that they will reoffend. I can tell you from the time three strikes and you're out passed. I was a homicide detective at that time interviewing suspects and witnesses to various kinds of crimes.

They knew their strike tally better than I did and they were absolutely influenced by that in terms of their behavior, those associated with people who committed serious egregious crimes. I think the exact same thing is true here. At the time of arrest, at the time of confrontation, on those rare occasions when it happens in retail theft, the defendants, the suspects, are very likely to say, you can't do anything to me. They cite Proposition 47. They know that they'll not feel the consequences.

That's obviously not good for all the other previously identified groups of people. Retail, the General public at large, the public coffers, quite frankly, when taking of that merchandise doesn't involve an opportunity to generate retail sales tax. But it's also the offenders themselves that I think all of us have an obligation to, to ensure to the greatest extent possible that they don't reoffend, that they get on a path to a better life. And this Bill offers that. Prop 47 does not.

And I appreciate that remark because I think we get caught up in the old tired argument about when there actually was a time when we may have over penalized. But what this Bill addresses is repeat offenders repeat. So these people have no incentive to stop. That's what we're trying to address, is the repeat offenders. And I would think that everybody here, in the sense of fairness and especially to retail it's gotten to the point to where, as Mr. McGinnis has indicated, that they don't believe.

Many of these people don't believe there are any consequences, and so they're incentivized to engage in this behavior. I will tell you that I have one of my children who, they're not children. They're young adults now, actually worked in a retail, and they were advised by their manager that when they saw somebody engaged in theft, they were not even to bring attention to it. That is what's happening. This is reality. And I don't think that anybody on this dais feels that that's acceptable.

At least I hope not, because if so, our society is doomed. And we need to have some measure of accountability and some measure of prevention. I think that that's a reasonable request, and that's why I'm supporting this Bill. Thank you, Mr. Brian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully disagree with my colleagues. The reason people commit petty thefts is because of poverty. The reason they continue to repeat petty thefts is because they are still poor. Because we live in a state that has a bifurcated sense of economic opportunity, and there are far too many people who are left out. And that's been exacerbated by the pandemic. I was reading that Walgreens article while I was sitting up here hoping somebody would bring it up. We think we overblow it.

Last year, we think we went too hard. We think we were crying too loud because everything's stabilized, and this is completely negligible for us. The most compelling part of the witnesses testimony that I heard earlier started with the words, I don't have any hard evidence to support what I'm about to say, and then went on to talk about a young person committing petty theft and that we should hit them hard so they don't go down a slippery slope. I can promise you, you hit them hard.

As a young person, that slope has been solidified forever. Prop 47 has saved our state $700 million that have been reinvested into youth programming, reinvested into prevention work, reinvested into victim services. We still trigger a felony. If you steal over $1,000 of goods, which means you can trigger a felony 100 times before you match the amount we will spend to incarcerate you for one year, the resources of the state could be better served.

Alleviating poverty, closing the gap in economic opportunity, not going back down the road of mass incarceration that we've been down for many decades. I can't vote for this.

Yes, Mr. Ortega, good morning.

Thanks for being here today. You keep mentioning the word consequences and hitting them hard. So can you explain to me in your world and what you've seen, what does that mean, consequences and hitting them hard?

That means if a person commits a theft the first time and they're inclined to do it again, they have a decision to make. If they reoffend in a similar fashion, and then do it again, by the way, because this actually calls for three such acts of behavior, they will feel significant consequences for that. Not unlike other forms of punishment, people generally comply with the speed limit because they don't want a costly ticket. People resist the temptation to do certain things in life because there are consequences.

And I think this is no different to impose consequences on people when they do bad things, they take property from somebody else. And with due respect to Mr. Brian, I've arrested a lot of shoplifters in my career. I don't remember ever arresting a single person for stealing food, not once ever. Makeup was the most commonly stolen merchandise. That's not an act of born out of poverty. That's something that a person wants, that somebody else has, and they're going to take it. And I understand that.

I understand that doesn't mean they're a hardened criminal and they shouldn't be treated accordingly. But when you have repeat offenses of that nature and they don't get the message we have as a society have collectively done them a disservice. I can tell you going back to Mr. Lackey's former life as a young person myself, very young person, I was one once. I was a chronic habitual traffic violator.

I got two citations within a period of a week and had to go see the traffic court Commissioner with my mother. She was so proud, and I say sarcastically, but that Commissioner told me, I'm going to give you a break, but if you come through that door again, you're going to wind up. In other words, if you get another violation, you're going to go from zero to three. And guess what? That had a profound impact on the way I behaved on the road thereafter.

I would like to see other people have the benefit of that philosophy and not reoffend and not put themselves on a path to a life that is not rewarding, not gratifying, and not good for them or those around them.

Thank you. I appreciate your response. Although you were talking to my colleagues on the other side, I asked a question. So again, what do you say? Hitting them hard? What do you mean?

Imposing a consequence that deters them from similar behavior in the future. I don't mean physically hitting them, obviously. I mean in putting a consequence in their path that will have an impact on how they choose to behave.

Thank you. I will be voting now.

Any other comments, Mr. Hoover? Senator Hoover, you can make.

All right, thank you. I appreciate the spirited debate and again, the opportunity to present this Bill. I think to get it back to kind of why I brought the Bill forward, first of all, to my Assembly Member, Brian. I certainly want to make clear that no one here is suggesting that a simple petty theft crime should we should lock someone up and throw away the key. That is absolutely not something that works. I will say that right now, right on this dyess.

That is not what we are advocating for. That being said, I also think that a system where in reality, and the reality on the ground is that there are no consequences of any kind, certainly not ones that are able to really be prosecuted. I think that it's important that we strike a better balance than we currently have today.

So I do appreciate your comments and I certainly want to make that clear that I am really just seeking a better balance than the status quo under Prop 47. To the point about Walgreens. I want to kind of bring this back to why I brought the Bill forward. With all due respect to Walgreens, Walgreens probably can probably take a larger hit, I guess, financially from some of these crimes. The reason I introduced this Bill was really to help our small businesses and just our residents.

My community is made up of a lot of smaller retailers, a lot of smaller businesses that are impacted by theft. And they are not in the position like Walgreens may be where they can really absorb this large amount of theft. The mayor from Folsom brought up earlier the millions of dollars in theft our community experiences every year. That is a problem for our business owners. I'm not even here talking about the big companies, although I know they are impacted too.

But our small business owners really need our help from my viewpoint. And so just to close, I think someone in the opposition talked about the voters and I think that was helpful. So let's talk about the voters. According to a recent UC Berkeley Times, sorry, UC Berkeley, LA Times poll, nearly 60% of voters in California say they want to see changes to Prop 47, AB 75. This Bill gives them that opportunity.

All we are asking is that voters get the opportunity to decide this and see if this change is something that they want. The voters have made it very clear that the status quo is not working. They've made it very clear they want to see a better balance, more accountability. And I think we owe it to our small business community as well to provide this. And so I think we need to look seriously about what the voters are saying almost 10 years after Prop 47 has passed. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

And let me try to kind of unpack this for you because you're a freshman Legislator. You weren't here when the Governor, myself, and begrudgingly Members of this Committee put in the organized retail theft Bill, which passed, which has amazing success when utilized and used. Law enforcement and DA's have fought against it. So the help and the $200 million that this Governor put in to make it happen and move and be successful has been thwarted by passive law enforcement, basically law enforcement saying, you know what?

I've decided I'm not going to do this law because I don't feel like it's hard enough. Let me tell you about hard enough. We used to hang people for stealing cattle. Let that resonate with you for a while. Three strikes. Talk about consequences, you would be in jail for the rest of your life. And we filled, we filled every prison to overcapacity. So this argument about if you put consequences on people, they will stop.

The only consequences was we incarcerated more people who look like me and a lot of Members on this Committee than we did others. And that was the consequences of that. And so that argument is problematic in that there are a lot of people, if you were asked the question, do you want to incarcerate a lot of people of color? They will say no. But the ultimate decider, because we're elected officials, we do polls. Polls go up, go down. You ask the right thing.

But the ultimate decider, though, is the vote. And the voters, and the voters have overwhelmingly decided that this approach of Prop 47 is the way to go. You can do a poll tomorrow, the next day, the next day. But it's about what ultimately is voted upon that makes a difference.

Now I'm going to do what I did before because I took a lot of heat because we actually did and instituted felonies with organized retail theft, and we found a way to move on that we probably need to all sit down because I really do want to help small businesses and we have to do it, but we all have to row in the same boat.

When I hear that you can actually send someone to jail for shoplifting, but then I hear on the other side, there are no consequences. Where's the problem? The problem has to be with individuals who have made the decision that they're not going to prosecute. They're not going to do it.

Whether it's progressive prosecutors or whether it's DA's who don't like the Prop 47 laws that don't want to do it, we're not actually using laws to do what we need to do, bring people in and deal with their poverty, drug abuse. Some have mental health problems. Telling someone that has a mental health problem who's stealing that they're going to understand their consequences is insane itself. It's in the same Proposition on its merit.

So if we just stop and take down all the rhetoric and really start talking about rehabilitation and how we give people paths so they don't have to be involved in this anymore, if we just really focus down with the money that we're saving from $230,000,000 that we're going to save from closing 10 prisons and put that money back into rehabilitation and into making sure we close the poverty gap and ultimately end the school to prison pipeline, which I think we agree. That's the crazy part.

We agree on closing the school to prison pipeline, disagree on the methodology, but we do agree that we need to stop it. But at this point, at some time, we've got to work together and we've got to have law enforcement as a partner in this. Or if they don't want to be a partner of this, the citizens of this state will continue to create laws that they're not going to like.

But at the end of the day, they're going to have to because it's the law and they're law enforcement officers, not law decider officers. So I understand where you're going. I understand you want to drop the level, but let's give me one more thing to assume that thieves are not very smart. Just because you lower the threshold doesn't mean they don't do what they're doing.

Now, just keep stealing under that threshold because you're not getting to the root causes, which is what Mr. Brian is saying, get to the root causes of why this is happening, not trying to slap everybody for doing something. And I'll leave you with this. Look, when I would force my kids to do something, they would screw it up because they didn't want to do it. And no matter how much punishment I did, they would continue to do it until they didn't want to do it anymore.

And so you need to understand human behavior, not from a punishment standpoint, but try to figure out how to stop what the root causes of it. Because at the end of the day, that's the only way we're going to not only stop this, but the other things that are happening in crime, in the society. And we really should start that discussion now.

And if you're serious about this, Mr. Hoover, if you want to engage in that kind of dialogue where we come up with better programs to stop all of this and get people out of poverty, I think you have a lot of willing Members on this Committee that are ready to work with you. And unfortunately, I can't support it today. But I'm going to leave the door open because we do need to make sure that our small businesses stay thriving.

But most important, that we don't create another prison industrial system, because this is just a quick and easy thing to do. Motion to move the issue. Madam Secretary, call the roll on AB 75

[Roll Call]

I'm sorry, that measure doesn't pass. That was almost a gift, I know. Mr. Connolly, you've been very patient. AB 92, item number three. Connolly.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. It's a pleasure to be here. I'd like to begin by thanking the Committee and staff for their work and input on this Bill. And I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. Mass shootings are an epidemic in the United States. According to Every Town Gun Safety, there have been 290 mass shootings in the US in just the last 13 years, resulting in 1.626 people shot and killed and an additional 1,075 people shot and wounded.

These tragic events, which have ripped apart so many families and communities, are part of the widespread plague of fire related crimes in the US and California, which we are struggling to combat. The number of firearm homicides increased by an astounding 35% between 2019 and 2020 throughout the United States. According to the CDC, 79% of all homicides in 2020 involved firearms. Body armor has become a tool in the arsenal of mass murderers.

Just last year, as we all too well know, an 18 year old mass shooter at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, wore a plate vest that could absorb automatic weapon fire. The security guard on duty that day fired at the shooter, but the shooter's body armor stopped the bullet. Sadly, the security guard, Aaron Salter Jr. was killed by the shooter, who went on to murder nine others and wounded three more. This trend has increased significantly in recent years.

The Violence Project, a nonprofit that tracks mass shooting trends found that of the mass shooters who have worn body armor over the past 40 years, a majority of them have happened since 2012. Simply put, the widespread availability of military-grade body armor helps mass shooters and criminals kill more people and prolong the rampages. AB-92 is a solution to help protect innocent bystanders, emergency personnel, and peace officers.

Under AB-92, any person who is prohibited by California statute from possessing a firearm would also be prohibited from purchasing or possessing body armor. For example, this includes a person subject to a gun violence restraining order, persons convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, any person convicted of domestic violence, and any person making threats to commit a crime that results in death. Firearm prohibitions for criminals in California have passed judicial scrutiny, and the rationale behind stopping them from possessing body armor is exactly the same.

California has already found it prudent and good policy to stop these people from owning firearms, and we should be furthering our efforts to ensure that military grade gear is kept out of the hands of violent criminals. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and would welcome any questions.

Okay. Do you have any witnesses?

I don't.

Okay. Are there any witnesses in the audience in support, name and organization, please.

Lesli Caldwell, Houston. For California Public Defenders Association. We are withdrawing our opposition. We'd like to thank the author for working with us.

Very good. That was a good freshman move.

Thank you.

Any witnesses in opposition?

Mr. Chairman and Members, Sam Paredes, representing Gun Owners of California, as well as the California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the National Rifle Association. This is a very interesting subject that is wrapped in constitutional issues. I know one time you said, we're California. We don't pay too much about the constitution. We do what we do. But I want you to understand, and I hope that everybody will pay attention and see that this is what you're thinking about when you were thinking about body armor.

When a criminal is out there with a vest and they've got all the magazines, that isn't body armor, that's ballistic nylon, and it's misnamed, it doesn't stop anything, and all of a sudden, boom, he's wearing body armor. This is the body armor that is used by my grandchildren. Because here in California, where we have the most gun control laws of any state in the union, we also have the dubious honor of having more mass shootings than any other state, far surpassing those of Texas.

That doesn't have all of the gun control laws. These backpacks, parents, hundreds of thousands of parents throughout the State of California have chosen to use products like this premier body armor panel in the horrible event that children might experience a school shooting and they have at least some level of protection. This will stop any shotgun blast and any caliber of handgun. My grandchildren are worth it. We have them for kids. We have them like this. RTS body armor for grade school, elementary, and preschool.

They come in various sizes. Sometimes they are integral with the backpacks and sometimes they are inserts. I had multiple ballistics backpack. I mean, body armor. people contacting me to please let you know what the truth is. How about students and even maybe some of your staff Members? This is body armor by all definitions. I choose to carry my laptop, my iPad, choose to carry it with me. Provides protection up to and including a 308, something far surpassing your so-called California assault weapons.

And I can protect my life with this. Students in college, where they are in gun-free zones, where they are in the criminals believe a target-rich environment. These bills will strip them of the ability to do that. There is an issue in the written testimony, we have talked about the constitutionality, how there are now four Supreme Court precedents that state that items like body armor under the protection of the Second Amendment, it does not have to be a gun.

It can be anything that is used by lawful citizens in common use to defend or offensive purposes for protection. That's the law of the land. And I want to pose one other question that I don't know if the Members of the body are considering. Now we have a body of laws that when somebody breaks the law and they are incarcerated, they oftentimes don't make a lot of friends in prison.

And when they come out, they might not have a whole lot of friends, but when we let them out, we deny them. We prevent them from protecting themselves with guns, knives, billy clubs of anything. They can't protect themselves. And now we're saying, you know what? Thank you for serving, paying your debt to society.

You can go out there and even though you have a bunch of non-friends out there, you can't even protect your life with a piece of body armor that is this simple and this concealable and this effective. And we're telling that to people who have paid their debt to society or they've been let out early for whatever policy reason this body chooses to do, you let them out. But then you go out there and say, good luck. Good luck.

I would ask you to think carefully about this process. We don't oppose any laws that say if you use body armor while you are committing a crime, you're going to get whacked by the state. We're okay with that. And I don't mean shot. I mean you're going to be charged, you're going to be incarcerated. It is an additional crime, and you should pay the penalty for that. But these items, I'll tell you what, although thankfully this Bill was mended, parents may not be criminals.

There is another Bill that's before this that will be before this Committee at some point in time where my grandchildren will be put in jeopardy. And I'm telling you here, that is not going to happen. So I ask you to carefully, I get to come in here and speak before you, often, and oftentimes you look at me and think like, you right-wing gun nut kook, we don't believe anything you're saying. But this is common sense. This goes beyond the rhetoric.

This is the actual protection of lives with passive protection, not with the use of a gun. So I ask you, as you consider these pieces of legislation, that you would be cautious about thinking about the impacts. Do you know that this legislation, or legislation as it was before, and the other Bill would actually prevent all motorcycle, we all see motorcycle guys, I'll wrap it up right now, sir. Motorcycle people with all of the body, it's called body armor. Why?

Because it has all of the equipment, materials that is included in this. Speed skaters, athletes, race car drivers. Their equipment has all of this stuff. It's all body armor and it's all designed to prevent blunt force trauma, the equivalent of a bullet shot. So I'm here asking you to carefully consider these issues as you move along, and if you're going to err, err on the side of the law-abiding and those who want to protect their families and their own lives. So thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

And just for the Assemblymember Bonta, who was presenting the Bill, that has some constitutionality, and I flippantly, I'm sorry, no, when I said that California, I said most people don't believe that California doesn't follow the constitution. And I was allowing Assemblymember Bonta to explain why his Bill followed the constitution. Assemblymember Rob Bonta, who's now Attorney General, explained what he was doing. Just want to put some context to it. I would never say we're out here trying to violate the Constitution deliberately.

So are there any witnesses in support? Opposition. I'm sorry? Opposition.

Hello, my name is Oscar Soriano. I am also a California Rifle Pistol Association, a Democrat. I represent people of color, gun owners, and I strictly oppose this Bill.

Thank you, sir. Any other witnesses in opposition? Bring it back to Committee Members for comments. Mr. Zbur.

So I want to thank you for bringing this Bill. I think it's really important. And when I read the Bill and the other Bill that was before the Committee today that's been held, I was thinking how I don't want to be in a world where we are moving toward one where everyone is armed and where everyone needs to be putting their kids in body armor when they go to school or when we go to Starbucks or to the supermarkets or to a movie theater.

And so I applaud you for bringing this Bill forward. I do have to say that. I think that the Bill with the amendments moves in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough. So I'm hoping that the other Bill will come back with even more protections than the ones that are included in this Bill. I read everything on both sides. I've got to say that the original Bill, which was broader, many of the arguments that against it were ones that are used by folks that are opposing any kind of common sense gun safety regulations.

And so I did not find them persuasive. I do think the original Bill and the companion Bill need some work in terms of the exceptions, but I am hoping that those will come back. Gun safety advocates, who I respect, were supporting at least the other Bill, which was substantially similar to yours. And I just think that this, with the amendments, is still too narrow and would like to see a Bill that actually includes a broader range of protections against this.

I think when we're looking at mass shooters and a world where we've got folks that are using guns and potential body armor from armed insurrection, I think we need to make sure that that's not available to those kinds of folks. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments?

I've sat on many Public Safety Committee hearings. I don't think I've ever seen anybody, particularly on their first time, come here with no support and get a Bill out. So I wouldn't recommend that in the future. But thank you for bringing this measure forward today.

Thank you.

Ms. Bonta.

I want to thank you for bringing forward this Bill. My district includes Oakland, one of the places that actually had in recent months a mass shooting on a school campus. And I was with the survivors of that mass shooting the day after a room full of parents, older youth, and educators. And we had in that conversation, the security guard say, help me help you. Help me help you. Please consider having your educators and your students wear body armor.

And I saw the absolute look of horror on the faces of parents and educators. To think that we were in a reality in a moment where that seemed like a reasonable thing.

So I appreciate the very specific designation of this to limit the possession of use and possession of body armor to those who we wouldn't want to have a gun, because it is the reality, the very, very unfortunate reality of the moment, that people are treating it as a viable solution to have to wear body armor in their everyday lives. It is a sad state that we are in this moment.

When I think back to my colleague's earlier comment about why in retail theft situations, in Home Depots and Walgreens and small businesses, people are just told to just send the product through, don't make a fuss about it, don't confront. I don't think it's so much that they're concerned about whether or not there will be a consequence and whether people will be locked up.

I'm pretty sure it's a concern that they worry that their employees and people in the store will have to face the barrel of a gun. So I appreciate you, Mr. Connolly, for bringing this forward in a very targeted way. And with that, I will be supporting this Bill today.

Any other?

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this Bill to our attention. At first I was against it with your amendments. Thank you for adding those in there to echo off Assemblymember Bonta's comments about the world that we're living in today. We may not be able to have guns in the hands of our children, the kind of thing, right? We need to find a way to protect them. So to the opposition's point, we need to make sure that they're still able to protect themselves.

So I think it's reasonable to keep the body armor out of the hands of those that basically are prohibited from possessing firearms. And I think it's much better with the amendments and I'll be supporting it today. Thank you.

Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you, Chair, and really appreciate the feedback. This will be an ongoing, important conversation. As was noted with the amendments, this Bill is designed to be very narrowly tailored. It is not addressing backpacks in schools and related issues. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I want to thank you for working with Committee and working on something that we're trying to obviously split the baby and trying to make sure we get something that's probably not making everybody totally 100% happy, but we need to address the problem. So I thank you for bringing this forward and chairs recommend aye vote. Is there a motion, move the Bill. Second, there's a motion. And second, secretary call the role.

On AB 92 by the Member Connolly. The motion is do passed as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. We have one last measure. Thank you. Got a lot of body armor, dude.

Got a lot of body armor.

What's that?

It's pretty good. It's very similar to the one my father in law used when he was a State Senator.

All right, Dr. Weber, you are up.

AB 268 and item number six. Whenever you're ready, Dr. Weber.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. I am here to present AB 268, which seeks to address the deficiencies in California's local dissension facilities raised by the California State Auditor office and raise the standards for incarcerated people. Federal law requires county sheriff's departments to provide adequate medical care for individuals in their custody.

In California, the Board of State and Community Corrections, also known as the BSCC, was established in its current form in 2012 to provide statewide coordination and technical assistance for local justice systems. The BSCC is tasked with developing minimum standards for local detention facilities and inspecting and reporting on facility compliance. BSCC also sets standards for correctional training and administers facility fundings and several grant programs for local corrections and law enforcement entities.

In 2021, the California State Auditor's Office investigated the San Diego County Sheriff's Department and discovered 185 individuals in their custody died from 2006 to 2020, more deaths per average daily population than any other large county in the state. Additionally, with the recent DOJ investigation into Riverside County jails for the deeply concerning allegations relating to conditions of confinement, excessive force, and other misconduct, the need for this bill is urgent.

Local advocates such as the North County Equity and Justice Coalition showing up for racial justice, the racial Justice Coalition of San Diego, the families of loved ones who've lost their lives and other groups have long called for attentions to the dangerous conditions and the large number of suicides and other deaths, particularly in San Diego County jail facilities. But more importantly, many counties around the state have faced litigation in the last decade relating to conditions in their county jails.

The prison law office alone has successfully litigated cases related to jail conditions in Costa County, Contra Costa, Riverside, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Sacramento, Santa Clara, and San Bernardino counties, many of which revolved around inadequate access to medical care, including mental health care. The 2022 state audit findings confirmed that the already extensive public record documenting of the tragic loss of lives, systemic failures, and inadequacy of oversight.

The Auditor noted that, quote, given the annual number of incarcerated individuals deaths in county jails across the state increased from 2006 to 2020. Improving the statewide standards is essential to ensuring the health and safety of individuals in custody in all counties, end quote. Some of the policy deficiencies were the result of poor statewide correction standards designed specifically by the BSCC, including regulations that allow for insufficient health evaluations at intake, inconsistent follow-up with medical care, inadequate safety checks, and unnecessary delays in response to medical emergencies.

AB 268 codifies numerous recommendations to improve the health and safety of incarcerated individuals in all detention facilities outlined by the Auditor's Office. AB 268 will require the BSCC to develop and adopt regulations that align with best practices related to ongoing performing intake, health evaluations, and safety checks requiring ongoing correctional staff training. It also adds two additional members to the board, a licensed healthcare provider and a licensed mental health care provider.

The need to add these two members is critical as their expertise is currently lacking on the board and the knowledge can help guide both the board to establish practices that prioritize an individual's mental and physical health. Each would bring their own unique and separate experience to the board, which is very much lacking at this point. With me to speak in support of AB 268 is Jonathan Clay, representing San Diego County. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Jonathan Clay here on behalf of the County of San Diego and pleased to be sponsor with Assemblymember Weber on AB 268, the state otters report raised serious and significant concerns about the systematic issues within the Sheriff's Department policies and procedures related to the provision of mental health care and the performance of visual checks. The County of San Diego believes that a mistake and a stint in jail should not cost anyone their life.

The high number of deaths is heartbreaking. The county fully supports the state legislative action to implement changes in accordance with the State Auditor's report and recommendations. The county also fully believes that making changes at the BSEC, in terms of having those representatives to provide the expertise on mental health and separately, health care, makes sense, and that is the appropriate place to be having those decisions made.

It is our understanding that the BSCC, as they contemplate some of these issues, are making changes, and those changes are in alignment with what is being directed from the policies contained within AB 268.

Finally, I'll just close with from the county's perspective, the county cannot directly change the policies and procedures of the Sheriff's Department, but the county is working collaboratively with the San Diego County sheriff and admin staff on staffing issues, providing more funding and coordinating work between the Department of Behavioral Health, Health and Human Services with our sheriff and the Sheriff's Department. With that, I urge your support of this important measure.

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

Oscar Soriano from Richmond, California, and I support this bill. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Daniela Perez and I support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. My name is Andrew Melendez. I'm a political science major at St. Mary's College of California and I approve this bill.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Mr. Salzillo? Hello.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, regrettably in opposition to the bill again this year. Historically, we've had concerns about growing the size of the BSCC. It's already 13 members. We think the current composition is appropriate. Adding to it, notwithstanding the importance of medical and mental health care, which are the topics that these two new board members would oversee or have expertise in, will make it harder for the body to do its work efficiently.

And if you don't want to take my word for it, take the Governor's word for it. He vetoed this bill last year, and in his words, quote, BSCC has had a 13-member board since 2013. I am concerned that adding two members unnecessarily grows the board and could impede its ability to timely carry out its mission, unquote. We also think the BSCC is the better place to make these decisions rather than to set these higher standards into statute in terms of correctional facility.

The board members, practitioners, other stakeholders who participate with the BSCC. There's a near-constant review of the Title 15 and Title 24 regulations that govern correctional facilities in the state. Sheriffs, inmate advocates, stakeholders on all sides come to these meetings again, this process. There's a biennial review and revision of these regulations that oversee everything from how much yard time there is, nutritional issues, health care, anything that goes on in a correctional facility.

There are regulations that deal with it, and the practitioners and the stakeholders who have the best experience to answer those questions and to make those decisions are charged with that duty. BSCC also set standards so that all facilities can follow them and not standards that maybe one or two or five or 10 facilities could follow because their Board of Supervisors would like them to follow. I'm not saying that in the case of San Diego or this bill.

I'm just saying there are things that advocates on both sides would like to see, and they are difficult to accomplish in the context of BSCC regulations and oversight and running of the correctional facilities. Because we have correctional facilities in nearly all of the 58 counties, and many counties have multiple correctional facilities within them, the Title 15 process generally results in well-negotiated and achievable standards that are subject to scrutiny. Review of the experts will be asked to implement and abide by them.

Putting these standards into statute unnecessarily interferes with this process and precludes the BSCC and those that it oversees from being nimble when changes are necessary. It needs to be a change, because there's some better practice. We got to come back here and get a whole new bill. So, respectfully, for the reasons we stated last year and the reasons we stated this year were opposed to the bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to committee members, Mr. Bryan.

The largest mental health provider in California is the Los Angeles County jail. The fact that there are not two healthcare professionals on the BSCC makes a lot of sense. If 15 members is too large of a body to get business done, then the State Assembly is in deep trouble. I think it's plenty to be nimble. I've toured prisons with Dr. Weber. I've been to San Diego jails. This was a thoughtful bill last year. It's a thoughtful bill this year. Thank you for bringing it back.

Just want to thank Dr. Weber for bringing forward this bill. 10 years ago, we were not thinking about mental health in the way that we are now. We know that we've suffered the consequences of having inadequate mental health, particularly in our jails, particularly in our parcel system. And 100% of the people who are incarcerated suffer from some kind of mental health need that needs to be addressed. So absolutely makes sense to be able to move this forward, and I'll be supporting. Thank you.

Yes. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you. Before I get to my close, I will address some of the opposition's concern. I agree with Assemblymember Bryan. We are in trouble if a 15-member body can't do anything. I would also point out that as of right now, the BSCC is failing the people at 13 members. So maybe adding some more will help.

But we are in discussion with the Governor, and I am more than willing to discuss removing some of the current members, because we do have eight with one particular background, and we do need some health professionals on there. So we will continue those discussions. The standards that we talk about are the standards that were required by audit, and they're basic standards that need to be done in order to make sure that we are saving lives for the people who are incarcerated.

But in closing, I just want to remind everyone that there is a crisis with our incarcerated people dying behind bars. A jail sentence cannot remain a De facto death sentence for our communities. These people in custody are our family members. They're our brothers, our cousins, our sisters, our mothers, our uncles. And I'm going to read from the audit report, which I'm sure we've all read, no single entity has sufficient oversight authority over the Sheriff's Department to require it to make meaningful changes.

Absent explicit legislative direction, neither the county board nor the state Attorney General is well-positioned to compel the Sheriff's Department to implement the recommendations we include in this report. Given the ongoing risk to incarcerated individual safety, we believe that the Legislature should direct the Sheriff's Department to implement the changes below. And that is exactly what this bill is doing. It's implementing the recommendations from the State Auditor's report. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

And I want to thank you, too, coming from the same county that has the largest mental health facility, and it's not a mental health facility, it's a jail, which seems to be a real problem. And quite frankly, it's probably something that our local law enforcement shouldn't be responsible for a mental health facility, and I think we would be on 1000% agreement on that.

In fact, with the BSCC and the changing dynamics of how we're handling things, especially when it comes to mental health, whether it's homelessness or just people out on the street or dealing with domestic violence, and maybe we have too many law enforcement officers, and maybe you can address that by recommending to the Governor, take two law enforcement officers off and put two mental health professionals, if his cap is at 13.

Exactly.

If he just can't get beyond that number, maybe that might be a good solution that you may want to suggest so that we could then start handling that population, because I think that will also help law enforcement as they get mental health professionals who then can address how we can either create a new system, how we can offboard them, how we can put them in community-based organizations that can maybe handle that. But again, we got to change the way.

We have to have a paradigm shift in the way we handle this, and we're not going to do it by doing the same thing over and over again. So I thank you for bringing this forward. It's a worthwhile discussion. It's overdue and Chair's recommending an aye vote. Thank you. Is there an action?

I'll move.

It's moved and seconded.

On AB 268 by Assemblymember Weber. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes.

Thank you.

Next, we will do any add-ons and lifting the calls and vote changes. Madam Secretary, please go through all the measures taken up today for the absent members.

On the consent calendar. Bonta?

[Roll Call] Item number one, AB 75, by Assembly Member Hoover. [Roll Call] Item number two, AB 78, by Assembly Member Ward. This measure was for presentation only. We need a motion, please.

So moved.

Second.

On AB 78 by Senator Ward. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

We had them. We had them.

Item number three, AB 92, was just dispensed with. Item number four, AB 97, was pulled by author. Item number five, AB 253, was on consent. Item number six, AB268 by Dr. Weber, has been dispensed with. Item number seven, AB 271, was on consent. Item eight, AB 301, was pulled by author. Item number nine, AB 303, was on consent. And item number 10, AB 313, was on consent.

This concludes the business for the Public Safety Committee.